Talk:SpaceX Dragon 2/Archive 1

Infobox information very dated
The dimensions stated in the Infobox are wrong, and very dated. The sources are from 2008 and 2010, before the Dragon 2 was finalized. Other dated information throughout the article as well.--Abebenjoe (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Dragon V2 testing
The dates for the initial test flights have been announced. Nov 2014 for the pad abort test, and Jan 2015 for the in-flight about test. Source here. N2e (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Re-entry is specified at 3.5 G in the article. This seem to be linked to V1 as per one of the cited documents.  The other link is no longer working. So this data requires additional citation specific to V2. Sivaraj 05:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivaraj (talk • contribs)


 * The date for the Dragon 2 pad abort test is NET 5 May 2015. NASA TV will be carrying it live. The inflight abort test will be using the F9R Dev2 vehicle, repurposed to be the inflight abort vehicle. It is expected to launch in July 2015. The same Dragon test article will be used for both test flights.--Abebenjoe (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Info
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35381.msg1338628#msg1338628 --Craigboy (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

$160,000,000, or $20,000,000 per seat if the maximum crew of 7 is aboard - Math seems wrong. 7 seats @ $20M = $140M. Danwoodard (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

No longer called "V2" It's now called "Dragon 2", or "Crew Dragon", etc.
The Dragon V2 name is no longer the spacecraft's name, it is Dragon 2. The article's title should therefore also be changed to reflect this major change.--Abebenjoe (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And the manned variant is called Crew Dragon.--Craigboy (talk) 07:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Currently, "Dragon 2" links to "Dragon V2"; should I swap the two pages? Zlsa-design (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we'll want a fairly reliable source on that claim before any changes like that. SpaceX has been referring to it as Dragon 2, but they've never denied the Dragon V2 name and it's possible that Dragon 2 is just a shortening. Appable (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The press materials for the Pad Abort Test consistently called it "Crew Dragon". I'd suggest renaming the article "Crew Dragon", with redirects from Dragon V2 and Dragon 2.  Electrons are cheap, we can always move it again if the name continues to evolve. C. Scott Ananian (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * In the same press material they link to older releases which still show "Dragon 2". As a theory they might be referring to Crew Dragon as the one that carries crew and Dragon 2 as the vehicle with Superdracos to avoid limiting Dragon 2 to only crew. Regardless, they haven't edited articles that they clearly know about, and the website still interchangeably refers to Dragon 2 and Crew Dragon. This might be a case like the Wikipedia page on GSLV Mk III vs LVM-3, as no official name preference has yet been announced and the website still refers to both names for the same vehicle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appable (talk • contribs) 17:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It clearly is no longer called "V2." This should be changed to Dragon 2 or the most current name, Crew Dragon.--Abebenjoe (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * How do you know it isn't Dragon V2? I think they are making a distinction between Crew Dragon (caries crew) and Dragon v2 (version two of Dragon with different body, pressure vessel, etc.) SpaceX hasn't made a statement on which is correct. Appable (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * So what should we call those cargo-carrying 2nd generation Dragon then? (ugh come on SpaceX PAO, standardize your names please!) Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what SpaceX is naming it. Once SpaceX standardizes a name or there's something like "first demo mission of Dragon 2/Crew Dragon/Dragon v2" then it might be time to decide. For now I think any of those names are equally valid. 06:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

This is the most recent statement from SpaceX: http://www.spacex.com/news/2015/05/06/crew-dragon-completes-pad-abort-test It refers to the vehicle as "Crew Dragon". We should match the most recent SpaceX nomenclature, since that is canonical, even if SpaceX decide to rename the vehicle again tomorrow. We can rename the article as many times as SpaceX renames the vehicle. C. Scott Ananian (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, the large number of different names used for this later version of their human-carrying-capable space capsule does make it a bit of a challenge to get it right. SpaceX have clearly used all of the names mentioned previously, in different sources.  And the good news is that all of them are mentioned in the lede, in the first sentence of the article.  And I believe each has a redirect to this page under the various names SpaceX has used; so methinks that our readers on-wiki are getting what they need.


 * In my view, given the variety of names used, and even the specific NASA-centric context of the earliest flights for this new spacecraft, it is not surprising that "Crew Dragon" is the most recently used name. However, it is not clear to me that SpaceX doesn't just consider the whole thing (the "superclass") "Dragon V2", and is calling the particular Dragon V2s that will be contracted to NASA to carry NASA astronauts (the "subclass") "Crew Dragon".  Moreover, over the life of the new version of Dragon, it is quite likely that the basic model will be used to carry commercial astronauts as well (say, Bigelow, or other SpaceX astronauts) and it is not clear at all that SpaceX intends to use the descriptor "crew" to speak of them; nor that if the version 2 capsule is used for cargo sometime in the future, that the basic model (the superclass) would be called "Crew Dragon" rather than "Dragon V2" or "Dragon 2".


 * Having said that, others may have different views. But given the "name" of this Talk page section based on Craigboy's post is not even the same name as the most recent name suggested by cscott, or other names suggested above, I would think that a fresh Talk page section, with a very specific proposal , would be in order be anyone who still wants to argue for an article move.  Then, we could actually have a concrete discussion on that narrow proposal, and half a good chance at seeing whether we have consensus for the change.  Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I changed the section name to better reflect the width of the scope of the discussion, and various serious proposals and/or thinking-in-text about how the article name should be reconsidered. Now:  "No longer called "V2" It's now called "Dragon 2", or "Crew Dragon", etc."; had previously only mentioned the first of those.  N2e (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Given recent press statements and youtube videos from SpaceX, it might be good to restart this discussion. Most press releases, etc, use Crew Dragon now. Appable (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently it's "Dragon 2", not "Crew Dragon" or "Dragon V2": http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39180.msg1527790#msg1527790 Apparently Phil Plait was also corrected: https://twitter.com/BadAstronomer/status/727572334953963521 -- I'm trying to get the specifics of his correction on record in Slate so we can point to a published source. C. Scott Ananian (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ...and that's happened: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/05/03/spacex_announces_a_mission_to_land_on_mars_by_2018.html now has an update indicating that "Originally called the Dragon V2, SpaceX now refers to it as simply Dragon 2. This post has been udated to reflect that." Case closed? C. Scott Ananian (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (hello from NSF!) ^ see above.

Requested move 28 May 2016

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. After relisting and more discussion has taken place, it seems consensus supports this move. (closed by a page mover) (non-admin closure).  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   06:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Dragon V2 → Dragon 2 – As per sources above, it hasn't been called V2 for some time now, for obvious reasons (V-2) Fgf10 (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC) -- Relisting. Anarchyte  (work  &#124; talk )   02:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, the Nom is correct. I am pretty sure the 'v' was for 'version' anyway, and should not have been capitalised. But in any case Space X is now just calling it the Dragon 2.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – While this one press article says that SpaceX calls it Dragon 2, the official SpaceX pages themselves still call it just Dragon and Crew Dragon, including in prose about the new version such as "Dragon's first manned test flight". Similar to how they treated Falcon 9 naming, they may decide to keep simply Dragon as "the latest version of our spacecraft". WP:TOOSOON — JFG talk 07:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – We cannot quote the Slate article as a WP:RS about the name change because you claim that you intervened to get the journalist to change his text in order to fit the new name you wish to list on Wikipedia. Surely you did this in good faith but unfortunately this action disqualifies the source per citogenesis . — JFG talk 07:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That is an incorrect reading of events. As the author explicitly mentions, the proper terminology was brought to his attention *before my intervention* ("just got word", not "because you said so"), based on direct feedback from SpaceX.  "Thanks for letting me know" should be easily recognized as mere politeness.  My follow-up tweets were only an attempt to better document the *source* of the correction.  The correction at the end of the slate article read (and still reads) "Originally called the Dragon V2, SpaceX now refers to it as simply Dragon 2." which makes it clear that the source of the correction was SpaceX (not some random guy on twitter), but I was hoping for something like "Gwen Shotwell at SpaceX let me know that SpaceX now refers to it as simple Dragon 2" or something like that. I was *unsuccessful* in that attempt.  No change was made on my account; there was no citogenesis. (And the term "citogenesis" would not actually be applicable to this case in any case, since the term refers to the press quoting material from Wikipedia which then ends up back in Wikipedia as a citation.  The article is not named "Dragon 2" and there is no indication that the source changed it to "Dragon 2" *based on reading something on Wikipedia*.  This line of argument is specious.  If anything, it happened the other way around: the journalist originally incorrectly used "Dragon V2" based on the wikipedia article title, *and was corrected by a more-authoritative source*.) C. Scott Ananian (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the clarification, and you're right that is not a case of citogenesis, I stroke this qualification in my argument above. I still think it's too soon to change the article name, as a sample of recent news reports shows a mix of "Dragon V2", "Dragon 2", "Crew Dragon" and just "Dragon", so that "Dragon 2" currently fails WP:COMMONNAME, and I see no name change at spacex.com. All the alternate names redirect here anyway so there's no harm done for readers; let's be patient. — JFG talk 22:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - As per nom. V2 is a silly name anyway. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 08:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not our job to judge the "silliness" of a product name. Ever heard of the Chevy Nova story? (the car that "doesn't move" in Spanish) -- they still sold well. — JFG talk 22:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. We can rename it to just "Dragon" if/when SpaceX makes that change. At the moment the crew and cargo vehicles are distinct and we have evidence SpaceX is using "Dragon 2" to refer to the crew vehicle in conversations with journalists.C. Scott Ananian (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. While "Crew Dragon" and "Dragon 2" are both used by SpaceX and news media, I think "Crew Dragon" implies crew too heavily (we know that a version of Dragon 2 will be used for cargo, per NASA CRS-2 source selection document). At any rate, I certainly believe "Dragon V2" is the wrong name for the article given that the name is clearly being abandoned - and Dragon 2 seems to be the most neutral name with the most similarity to the current article title. Acknowledge JFG's case thus far, but I believe SpaceX's deliberate avoidance of that name for a while means that regardless of what the common name is, it certainly isn't Dragon V2. Appable (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move back to "Dragon V2" or to "Crew Dragon"
"Dragon 2" isn't a good naming cause the uncrewed Dragon isn't called Dragon 1, but Dragon V1 or simply Dragon. "Dragon 2" would rather be the name of a mission of the Dragon spacecraft. I suppose a move either back to "Dragon V2" or to "Crew Dragon". WP articles in other languages also call this "Dragon V2". --212.186.14.29 (talk) 07:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Landing
Many changes: - https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/19/15999384/elon-musk-spacex-dragon-capsule-mars-mission — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.4.84.175 (talk) 09:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Added some details re parachute only being developed, no legs, effort to qualify for safety as reason. crandles (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

3-D printed engines
The article currently states that the SuperDraco is the second fully 3-D printed rocket engine, with the Rutherford being the first. This is incorrect, as the Rutherford is not 'fully' printed. While the primary components are printed, there are secondary components that are traditionally manufactured. I have not changed the article because I am unsure if the SuperDraco is 100% printed or if it has some traditionally made parts. If it does have some standard made parts then we need to drop the 'fully' otherwise, we can remove all mention of the Rutherford and restore to say the SuperDraco is the first 100% 3-D printed engine. Sario528 (talk) 12:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Is Dragon 2 to be "caught" in some sort of floating raft, rather than a pure splashdown?
This is quite interesting. The news site Teslarati is reporting that SpaceX may be designing their recovery system for Dragon 2 to include a large raft-like floating landing glove structure. Here is that story: The article includes this qualifying statement: "... all signs seem to indicate that SpaceX is planning to recover their first Crew Dragon spacecraft with a giant inflatable cushion ..." , so it may be premature to explicate this in the WP article. Still, interesting. Worth watching for confirmatory sources in the coming months. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * SpaceX gears up for Crew Dragon’s first recovery with a giant inflatable cushion, Teslarati, Eric Ralph, 19 August 2018.

Requested move 16 August 2018

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Questions of scope can continue to be discussed as necessary outside the context of this move request. Dekimasu よ! 20:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Dragon 2 → Crew Dragon – Recent announcements from SpaceX and NASA have consistently called this new capsule "Crew Dragon". Same for recent media reports. The "Dragon 2" moniker is nowhere to be seen. — JFG talk 12:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME --Ita140188 (talk) 02:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 *  Support Opposed Their toy, their name. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like there are to versions of Dragon 2: "Cargo Dragon 2" and  "Crew Dragon 2  (Reminds me of the Douglas DC-3 civilian aircraft, renamed Douglas C-47 for the military. Rowan Forest (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. It's been the official name for a while now. I don't see why we shouldn't change it. XYZt (talk) 03:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral I'm confused. XYZt (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per above. Name it as it is. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 12:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, change article scope - Obviously NASA and SpaceX are releasing contradictory statements here on what the actual name of the spacecraft is; concerns about which have been raised below. Picking up on and 's comments and 's citation for a "Crew Dragon 2" and "Cargo Dragon 2", I think it'd be best to keep the "Dragon 2" name and change the article's scope to one that reflects a greater spacecraft class, with two variants with their own dedicated sections. Currently, the article scope seems to be one that documents a single spacecraft, rather than a class of spacecraft, as the "Crew" and "Cargo" variants imply. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 06:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree that the scope is incorrect here. There isn't enough of a difference to justify two articles for Crew and Cargo variants, but this article fails to mention the cargo variant (and so does Commercial Resupply Services).
 * I'd start working on including information in both of those articles, but I'm not sure about policy/guidelines for changing article scope during a move discussion. I would expect this discussion wouldn't happen if this was scoped to refer to both variants, so maybe it's best practice to wait for the move discussion to close? Appable (talk | contributions) 14:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hold on, let's discuss—I see the strong support above of 4 editors in the first two days, and it may be okay to change it after we discuss. But is it not that this spacecraft is simply a second version of the design for the Dragon spacecraft, and importantly, a design that SpaceX intends to use in the future both for cargo transport flights AND also for human-carrying passenger and crew transport flights. Thus, my "maybe" on the matter.
 * I would think we should have more sources over a bit longer period of time, as SpaceX uses this vehicle design for both cargo and human-transport missions, before we rename it based on a number of sources that are only referring to the one particular use of Dragon 2 that NASA has contracted for. That particular use case for this Dragon 2 vehicle, on that contract, with that customer, is obviously called "Crew Dragon", 'cause that's the NASA frame of reference.  But personally, I'd like to see sources for cargo flights with this version 2 spacecraft also call it "Crew Dragon", and do that for a while and a number of diff sources.  I've not yet seen this.  But I'd think we should have that before moving the article to a new name that covers only one of the use cases for this spacecraft design.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Prior to filing this move request, I had the same questions regarding cargo usage. I did not find any recent source (say, less than a year old) talking about the Dragon 2 cargo version. Indeed, the more this spacecraft design progressed, the less attention was given to the cargo use case. Note that the original Dragon capsules are being refurbished and reflown to fulfill the CRS contracted missions, and SpaceX has announced that all future resupply missions will use refurbished Dragons. Unless we see new information, we can safely distinguish the new Crew Dragon as fulfilling only the crewed missions (with potentially some supplies flying with the astronauts, and some additional stuff carried in the trunk). If some future CRS missions are announced to fly the crew-compatible Dragon design, we will be able to revisit the issue. As we stand today, I don't think SpaceX would waste flights of the more complex and bulkier crew capsule to carry cargo only. — JFG talk 19:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * IIRC from the public NSF forums, the new Cargo Dragon will look quite different from the crew, with no trunk fins nor superdracos. Not sure if this has an effect on the move, but just a note about the difference between the two variants. So the lead section will have to be rewritten.XYZt (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC) (Edited 4:48, 19 August 2018)


 * Strong oppose. An April 2018 NASA Office of Inspector General report regarding the status of the CRS2 program specifically refers to SpaceX's cargo spacecraft proposal as "Dragon 2". Furthermore, on page 28 and 29, the report compares schedules for "Cargo and Crew Dragon 2". In general, sources that are discussing the cargo variant use "Cargo Dragon" or "Cargo Dragon 2" whereas sources discussing the crew variant use "Crew Dragon" or "Crew Dragon 2". The existence of a large number of sources discussing Crew Dragon is simply that all of them are writing about Dragon as a human spaceflight vehicle; it is not an indication that the "Dragon 2" name is no longer favored. Appable (talk | contributions) 00:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. We should clarify this in the article's lead. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment – In the scenario where SpaceX will later introduce a cargo version of Dragon 2, we should have a new, separate article for that, perhaps called "Cargo Dragon" (we'll know the appropriate name when that spacecraft variant is announced). The current article is about Crew Dragon (nobody calls it Crew Dragon 2). Given that the cargo version would have no launch escape thrusters, and no life support system, it's essentially a different vehicle sharing some components such as the heat shield and the docking port. — JFG talk 10:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The above OIG report states on page 13: The Dragon 2 was initially designed for crew missions, but with modifications, the spacecraft can also be used to transport cargo. In the view of official sources, Crew Dragon and Cargo Dragon are both variants on Dragon 2. In general, it appears this article is scoped in a misleading way. There's far more sources discussing Crew Dragon, so all of the information presented here is about the crew variant. We should try to scope this so that it includes Dragon 2 as a cargo vehicle (probably a section at this point, as we don't have very much information); the variants have far too many commonalities (propulsion, structure, communications, and GNC – per Figure 5) to justify an entire separate article. Appable (talk | contributions) 13:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Keep both versions of the capsule in one article for simplicity. We do not have separate articles for different versions of an airliner either. PSR B1937+21 (talk) 02:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

There is simply not enough public information to create 2 articles on 2 very similar variants. At the present time, I consider that it is perfectly fine that this page states there are 2 versions. Respectully, I took the initiative to add/adapt it, and I hope that more knowledgeable editors correct and add information to that effect. After your inspection, we could close this Move request. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Launch masses hard to find
Article does not clearly indicate max launch mass of crewed and cargo versions (including trunk) : dry mass (inc trunk) + propellants (400 gal) + other fluids ? + (max cargo or max crew mass) ? - (eg how does it compare to the LEO capability of Falcon 9 FT) - Rod57 (talk) 10:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Section about the spacesuit
Should there be a section on the custom spacesuit in this article? – XYZt (talk  &#124;  contribs) – 21:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Puzzledvegetable (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Dragon V2 01.png

Requested move 2 March 2019

 * 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 section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved (due to no consensus). Many agree that although the vehicle that is the topic of this article might currently be referred to as Crew Dragon, ultimately it will be used for cargo as well, so the proposed title is inappropriate. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 21:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Dragon 2 → Crew Dragon – SpaceX, NASA and journalistic sources during launch preparations have consistently called this vehicle "Crew Dragon" or just "Dragon". No recent sources call it "Dragon 2". The cargo version will not fly until 2020, and will be a significantly different vehicle. — JFG talk 08:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's a common practice for SpX to simplify their product's name and drop the version(they never use "Falcon 9 Full Thrust Block 5", etc) . I think the Crew Dragon can be considered a simplification of Crew Dragon 2. And it'll be better to keep crew and cargo variants in one article as the cargo fleet will be reused and refurbished crewed capsules.PSR B1937+21 (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source stating that "the cargo fleet will be reused and refurbished crewed capsules"? — JFG talk 09:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * http://electriccargods.com/2018/08/28/spacex-has-no-plans-to-reuse-crew-dragon-spaceships-on-nasa-astronaut-launches/ (better source needed) PSR B1937+21 (talk) 09:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree that a better source is needed. Strange that this one does not mention removing the launch escape system (four pairs of Super Draco thrusters) and their propellant, which make up a lot of useless mass for cargo. I wonder whether NASA prefers a higher upmass value or an abort system. — JFG talk 13:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Inspired by Tesla's Roadster, I suggest Dragon 1 and 2 articles be renamed SpaceX Dragon (2010) and SpaceX Dragon (2019), respectively. PSR B1937+21 (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on common sense grounds; the article talks about the Crew Dragon and the Cargo Dragon variants of the Dragon 2 spacecraft, not just the Crew Dragon., you recognise the Cargo Dragon variant in your rationale, but you failed to mention whether you're proposing that the article should change its scope, or a separate article be created for Cargo Dragon. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 09:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to follow sources. Nobody knows how the future cargo variant will be named, and "Dragon 2" has fallen out of use for a long time already, so that it fails WP:COMMONNAME (see prior move requests). Regarding scope, I think it's perfectly fine to have a section about the cargo variant in this article, stating that it will be a derivative version of Crew Dragon, until such time as more details emerge. — JFG talk 09:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Crew" shall not be considered part of the name. It only indicates the capsule's function. I think SpaceX Dragon (2019) is a better choice. PSR B1937+21 (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Crew Dragon" is more than an indication that it's a Dragon spacecraft that carries crew. It is the WP:COMMONNAME used in the vast majority of sources. — JFG talk 10:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Babaloo Bayou (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:commonname. When more info about the cargo version appear we can think about what to do, but for now almost all sources refer to this as Crew Dragon.--Ita140188 (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * oppose Dragon 2 capsules can be flow in both configurations, and by that I mean it can fly one time with crew and then a different time in Cargo mode. The intention is to reused the flown Crew Dragons as the Cargo Dragons once CRS2 flights start. Says it right there in the article header.Metropod (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support After watching the launch broadcast and all three press conferences in full I don’t think I heard NASA or SpaceX say “Dragon 2” even once. Per WP:commonname. Also I believe that all the cargo dragons will be reused “Crew Dragons”, capable of supporting humans even if none are on board, so the difference between the two seems to me artificial. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The following recent sources refer to Dragon 2 with respect to the Demo-1 mission to the ISS on 2 March 2019:
 * https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/03/spacex-historic-dm-1-dragon-2s-maiden-flight-iss/
 * SpaceX Crew Demo-1 live audio launch commentary at approximately (T+00:01:01), stating "[...] ascends through the atmosphere carrying the SpaceX Dragon 2 capsule [...]"
 * Well, at the beginning of the same video (2:05), the SpaceX representative takes care to say: We'll be using the terms "Crew Dragon" and "Dragon" interchangeably to refer to this next iteration of our spacecraft. She does not say "Dragon 2" but "the next iteration". — JFG talk 12:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support The SpaceX official website calls it the Dragon without distinguishing between crew and cargo variants. The optimal solution would be to merge with SpaceX Dragon, but otherwise, simply calling it Crew Dragon seems like the best solution. If SpaceX themselves don't call it Dragon 2, there is no reason to make up a model number to distinguish it. — Puzzledvegetable (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Of the three suggestions put forth by, suggestion 2, which advises moving this article to Crew Dragon and having it exclusively cover the crew dragon is the best option. — Puzzledvegetable (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A Google search for Dragon 2 brings up as many results for the How to Train your Dragon movie series as there are for the spacecraft, and all the results about the spacecraft (other than the link to this article) refer to it as the Crew Dragon, clearly placing this in the realm of WP:COMMONNAME. — Puzzledvegetable (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment To summarize, there are a number of suggested ways of splitting the topics between SpaceX Dragon and Dragon 2.
 * SpaceX Dragon covers the 1st gen Cargo Dragon; Dragon 2 covers Crew Dragon and 2nd gen Cargo Dragon. (current)
 * SpaceX Dragon covers both the 1st and 2nd gen Cargo Dragon; Dragon 2->Crew Dragon covers the Crew Dragon
 * SpaceX Dragon covers the 1st gen Cargo Dragon; Dragon 2-->Crew Dragon covers Crew Dragon; A future article covers the 2nd gen Cargo Dragon. – XYZt (talk  &#124;  contribs) – 21:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per XYZt's 2nd idea, and also WP:commonname. I think this would be the most intuitive setup, and perhaps SpaceX Dragon can be renamed to Cargo Dragon to further prevent confusion. Biglulu (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But then how does one describe the "Crew Dragons" after they are converted to cargo mode, as is SpaceX's intentions to reuse them as such?Metropod (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment The problem here is trying to quantify the ship. Yes, it is a Crew Dragon. But it (or at least it's siblings) will become a cargo dragon later. Having two articles describing the different life stages of the same capsules, treating them as different ships, seems redundant, but at the same time, just renaming the article could be confusing if the article is named after only one of the those life stages. The capsules are "Dragon 2", Crew Dragon or Cargo Dragon is simply how the insides are furnished. There is theoretically nothing stopping them from restoring a cargo dragon to crewed flight later. And I feel it's to the detriment of the subject to only put emphases on one aspect of it. Metropod (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * While technically true that a Crew Dragon can carry cargo, it isn't being designed for that purpose. There is no reason to have an inaccurate article title simply because a crew dragon can carry things other than crew. Additionally, it isn't accurate to say that "the capsules are "Dragon 2", Crew Dragon or Cargo Dragon is simply how the insides are furnished. There is theoretically nothing stopping them from restoring a cargo dragon to crewed flight later." 1st generation cargo dragons lack the SuperDraco engines needed for emergency launch escapes. They also don't have a reusable nose cone, they store the solar panels during launch differently, and Gen1 dragons dock using the Canadarm whereas Crew Dragons will dock directly with the ISS. In other words, they are most assuredly different vehicles, and not just the same vehicle with different interiors. If Crew Dragons get converted back to the Gen1 cargo variant, that is irrelevant. I too support merging the articles, but none of this is a rationale not to move this one in the meanwhile. — Puzzledvegetable (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, it's exactly accurate to say what I said because the Dragon 2 can be flown as both a crewed capsule and as a cargo carrier. What the Dragon 1 does or doesn't do is irrelevant to what Dragon 2 does. The stated operational plan, from Elon himself, is to fly each Dragon 2 first in "CREW DRAGON" configuration, and then switch them to "CARGO DRAGON" configuration for future use. This allowing the Dragon 1 capsules to all be retired, planed for when the first run of CRS contract missions are complete with CRS-20. As I said, theoretically speaking, after a flight or two in CARGO DRAGON mode, a Dragon 2 could be switched back to CREW DRAGON, and then switched back to CARGO again later. There is nothing stopping them from doing that short of "We don't want to."Metropod (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The point I am trying to make, is that the difference between the two spacecraft is not just interior configuration. They are different craft with different specifications and capabilities. If this means we should merge the articles, I wholeheartedly agree with you. However, we are discussing whether or not to rename the article to Crew Dragon or keep it as Dragon 2. We certainly can't call it the latter, because that isn't its name. No official sources have called it that. Crew Dragon is fine, because it is the common name, and it distinguishes it from the version that can't carry crew. If Crew Dragons are intended to later be used for cargo, than fine. That's why I support a merge. But that is completely irrelevant to what we call this article. — Puzzledvegetable (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)(Edit-SpaceX themselves call it Crew Dragon and they are certainly aware of what they plan on using it for. — Puzzledvegetable (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC))
 * OK, look, you seem to be hung up on the idea that Cargo Dragon = Original Dragon. In this circumstances, it does not. As I and other have said, the plan is, once a Dragon 2 has completed it's crewed flight, it will have it's seats removed, and then be used for a CRS cargo flight later. the "C100 Class" Dragons, the ones currently flying, will be retired, and the "C200 class", the Dragon 2, will do all the work. There isn't going to be a "OK, these capsules will fly with crew, and these will fly with cargo" they are going to reuse the capsules for different jobs. Metropod (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And yet, despite that, SpaceX still calls it the Crew Dragon, and Cargo Dragon and Crew Dragon are still being used by the majority of sources to distinguish between Gen1 and Gen2 variants, respectively. — Puzzledvegetable (talk) 12:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose The term Dragon 2 refers to a class of spacecraft. This particular class of spacecraft can be used in either a crewed or a cargo configuration. As a comparison, consider the Boeing 747. The most recent version is the 747-8. The -8 comes in both passenger and cargo variants, but are still considered to be essentially the same aircraft. SpaceX calling it "Crew Dragon" is no different then Boeing saying "747 Intercontinental". Sario528 (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose on the grounds and  have articulated above. It is known that there should be a Cargo Dragon in the near future and this is already mentioned in the article. Currently, I see no reason to split it, because the crew and cargo versions share too many features. On the other hand, to name an article after just one of the versions it is about, is wrong. Igor Krein (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Suspend this request Ideally we should go by the nomenclature SpaceX uses, but they are bing a bit coy and none of the current option proposed here are entirely satisfactory. The press kit for the DM-1 mission refers to the previous Dragon and an earlier "iteration." I would suggest suspending this move request until after the next cargo mission, CRS-17 currently scheduled for April 25, and see if SpaceX uses some clearer language we can then use.--agr (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The article includes information about both the Crew Dragon and the Cargo Dragon configurations of the Dragon 2. The Dragon 2 can be a Crew Dragon or a Cargo Dragon. One NASA article being used in support uses both "Dragon 2" and "Crew Dragon" equally and interchangeably. My understanding is that there haven't been any Cargo Dragon 2 flights yet, but they are being planned. This would make "Crew Dragon" appear disproportionately often in sources compared to "Cargo Dragon". Renaming it would be confusing and inaccurate. Danielklein (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Dragon 2 is the name of the craft. Additional names describe usage / configuration. Others have already said this, I'm just casting my "Vote" GeeBee60 (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Changing the Technical specifications section to Design
Based on suggestion of rewording Dragon 2 to prose, I suggest shifting the section's focus entirely to cover the general design of the spacecraft. After all, a lot of the things listed in that section aren't really technical specifications (e.g. the part on propulsive landing), and could benefit from being grouped into subsections and elaborated upon.

A draft can be found here. It's still incomplete and contributions are welcome. – XYZt (talk  &#124;  contribs) – 21:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like a really good draft to me. Add some sources, at least one per paragraph, and you're good to go. — JFG talk 05:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

(possible) Minor wording issue
"Dragon crew members will wear a custom space suit designed to protect them during rapid cabin depressurization. It is intended to be worn only inside a pressurized spacecraft for intravehicular activities (IVA type)." This might be a little conflicting because although yes it is only designed for use inside a pressurized spacecraft, saying protect them during cabin depressurization seems conflicting. So is it okay if it is reworded as this "Each crew member wears a custom space suit fitted for them. The suit is primarily designed for use inside the Dragon (IVA type suit), however in the case of a cabin depressurization the suit can protect the crew members." 173.52.238.41 (talk) 05:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Dragon 2 anomaly section
Hi! One of the statement's which said "On 20 April 2019 during a static fire of Dragon's SuperDracos an explosion occurred at a test located at SpaceX's Landing Zone 1." which was reverted because "the source does not provide detail on what was firing or not firing at the time of the anomoly". But the source does say, "...the anomaly that occurred today during part of the Dragon Super Draco Static fire Test at SpaceX Landing Zone 1...", yes the wording that was used on Wikipedia could be misleading, but just wondering on the specifics what it was reverted. (link to source). And the other source does say "Based on the sourced info, the fact that the anomaly happened during the final test suggests that the anomaly likely had to do with the firing of the SuperDraco engines. While the specifics behind the anomaly have not yet been confirmed," (link to source). Maybe a better reword could be "On 20 April 2019, while in the processes of the "Dragon SuperDraco Static Fire Test", there was an explosion at SpaceX's Landing Zone 1"? Maybe? But if I'm incorrect, thanks for correcting my error, I need to be more careful! 173.52.238.41 (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You've got the nuance of that quite well. The source did not make clear that the static fire was occurring or had been initiated.  I had an objection to how the prose attributed the failure causally, in a way the source did not support.  More especially, many sources are saying different things in the (unfortunately, sometimes careless) rush by news people to get this new "news" published.  I'd have no particular problem with your wording as you proposed 173.52.238.41, as that makes clear that it was the part of a broader test procedure with a stated purpose, while not saying the static fire had been initiated.


 * (but do keep in mind, there is often a debate in rocket and spaceflight circles over the technical correctness of explosion vs. a deflagration in these sorts of incidents. Since one cannot expect mainstream non-technical journalists to grok that distinction, many sources will use the term "explosion" (sometimes, carelessly) for what is correctly a deflagration.  I doubt that is a huge issue this time around 'cause explosion seems reasonably likely from a preponderance of sources I've seen.  But it is a distinction worth keeping in mind, and you want to be sure of the quality of your source, or that many sources agree, before using the "explosion" term in a spaceflight-related Wikipedia article.)  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, so basically we have to wait until we get more info after the investigation into the accident (most likely will be from SpaceX). Thanks.173.52.238.41 (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

"Other crewed orbital spacecraft" subsection
I've changed the list into a table: in the list presentation it seemed difficult to read and compare (at least to me). It might be also a good idea to re-order the lines or to colour the status cells "by readiness": this table contains already-flying vehicles and those that are only promised in some future. --S-Gatekeeper (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Change the title
Hello all, I have been reading about this crew capsule and I was wondering why the title is "Dragon 2" and not "Crew Dragon", I was wondering if anyone with a higher rank could move this article to the correct subject. Thank You!👍 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.246.185 (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * as noted higher up, because we've had this conversation several times already; it will not be moved because "Crew Dragon" and "Cargo Dragon" are two possible configurations of a single C200 "Dragon 2"-class spacecraft. As it stands, the plan is once a Dragon 2 capsule has flown as a "Crew Dragon" for a USCV crew rotation mission, it will be reconfigured as a "Cargo Dragon" for CRS flights. the Demo 2 crew capsule will probably fly CRS-21 in cargo mode as the C100 series "Dragon 1"-class are being retired. Metropod (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * SpaceX B.1046.4 Explosion.jpg

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * SpaceX In-flight Abort Illustration.jpg (discussion)
 * Spx launch.png (discussion)

Undue weight to in flight abort test?
There have been a lot of recent additions to the section on the In Flight Abort test. At the moment, it's about seven times as long as the similar section on the Demo-1 orbital flight test. I think that is a little unbalanced. Does anyone else have an opinion in the subject? Fcrary (talk) 09:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Speed
Why Dragon 2 speed isnt listed? Is it unknown? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.195.142.157 (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by that? As an orbital spacecraft, if reaches orbitabl speed (about 7.8 km/s), relative to Earth, but aside from that, all speeds in space are relative to another object. The target speed is a few cm/s relative to ISS. Gial Ackbar (talk) 09:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Are seven seats still possible?
As I understand, after a redesign only four seats are available. Does it mean that now the Dragon 2 is a four-seater, or will seven-seat versions be available? It's unclear to me. The Russian version of the article now says that it's a four-seater. -- C opper K ettle  15:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * SpaceX is still saying it is "capable of carrying up to 7 passengers" on their site: https://www.spacex.com/dragon --Sam (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The NASA commercial crew flights for to ISS are planned to carry up to four people. But I have never seen any reference to a design change limiting Dragon 2 to four passengers. Seven is what it's capable of; four is what the tenant customer plans to use. Fcrary (talk) 06:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you! But try saying that to Russian Wikipedia editors, who proudly display a capacity of 4. -- C opper K ettle  08:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, the English and Russian Wikipedias are separate. I doubt the standards for having reliable sources are identical. That do they cite for the number of seats? Fcrary (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Cargo Dragon or Cargo Dragon 2?
Since Dragon 1 is the original Cargo Dragon. 205.175.106.159 (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Two reasons: First, officially, the original version is simply named "SpaceX Dragon". "Dragon 1" is technically a retronym. Second, because a single Dragon 2-Class capsule can fly in both crew and cargo configurations, it would be confusing for a ship to be said to switch from "Crew Dragon to Cargo Dragon 2" Metropod (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 16 June 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. buidhe</b> 11:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

– Previous move requests to Crew Dragon failed because the same vehicle will be used for cargo transport as well as crewed missions. However, "Dragon 2" is an artificial distinction for lack of a generally-accepted name, as was "Dragon V2" earlier. SpaceX calls the new vehicle just "Dragon", as they call their "Block 5" rocket just "Falcon 9". The proposed change uses the year of first flight as a disambiguator, similarly to the way various generations of cars using the same commercial name are titled, absent a distinctive model type such as BMW 3 Series (E36). See for example Tesla Roadster (2008) and Tesla Roadster (2020), or Fiat 500 and Fiat 500 (2007). We also gain consistency by including the manufacturer name for both articles. Naturally, "Dragon 2" and "Crew Dragon" would still redirect here, while "Cargo Dragon" should be a dab page. — JFG talk 08:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Dragon 2 → SpaceX Dragon (2019)
 * SpaceX Dragon → SpaceX Dragon (2010)


 * Years as disambiguation are awkward. The capsule is called Dragon 2 everywhere, including various SpaceX pages: in the docking simulator, in this talk transcript, ... We could split this page into Crew Dragon and Cargo Dragon as they were confirmed to be separate vehicles. --mfb (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Why do we need to have consistency with the automotive industry?


 * The ships are “Dragon 2” class. That’s what they’ve been calling them since they realized “hey, V2 might be a little insensitive to call a rocket”.


 * The fact SpaceX is anything but consistent is down to human nature. We want the easy way. The Falcon 9s currently flying are fully, technically known as “Falcon 9 1.2 ‘Full Thrust’ Block 5”, where Block 5 is the 5 variation of 1.2, meaning the Falcon 9 class has had 7 different iterations, (1.0,1.1, 1.2 blocks 1-5) and one could argue the 1.0 was a completely different rocket.


 * This change does not help the article at all. Metropod (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above. The article title looks good as it is. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 07:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If anything, I would be amenable to consistency in the pages by having both pages start with "SpaceX", as in "SpaceX Dragon" and "SpaceX Dragon 2". Disambig using years makes no sense to me, there is a dragon and a dragon 2. Timmccloud (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – disambiguating by year a vehicle that have been distinctly named with a "2" is about as logical as disambiguating Avatar 2 as Avatar (2021 film). While I do agree that the current article names are a bit wonky, this is not a good solution. I do, however, support turning Cargo Dragon into a disambiguation page, as "Cargo Dragon" is often used to refer to either the first-generation Dragon and the cargo variant of Dragon 2. –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 07:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested merge 24 June 2020
Axiom Space Crew Dragon mission and Space Adventures Crew Dragon mission &rarr; Dragon 2 – there is barely enough unique, verifiable information on either of these missions currently available that justifies either a size split or content split from this article's "List of flights" section. It is simply too early to have individual articles on these flights. –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 11:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose – As more and more missions are scheduled, the Dragon 2 article risks becoming bloated. There is too much material in the Axiom article already to fit comfortably here, and more information is likely to emerge in the not too distant future, with scheduled launch only 16 months away. The Space Adventures article is more sketchy, but it still does not fit well in this article. In my view, it's not worth merging either of them when we know they will have to be separated out later anyway.--agr (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose – for exactly the same reasons AGR stated. There is nothing wrong with stubs for articles on future events. After the events, let's discuss. Timmccloud (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - AGR is correct. However, per Tim's reasoning, I would also like to request that the recently deleted articles for future USCV missions beyond USCV-2 be restored as soon as possible. Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 24 June 2020
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

Moved as proposed. BD2412 T 04:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Dragon 2 → SpaceX Dragon 2 – Per two reasons. The first is per Wikipedia's guidelines on consistency in article titles; this article would harmonise well with SpaceX Dragon, SpaceX DragonFly, SpaceX Red Dragon, SpaceX Starship, SpaceX Kestrel, SpaceX Merlin, SpaceX Raptor, SpaceX Draco, ect, and would help address concerns that the current title is unusually out of line with similar articles. The second is per Wikipedia's policy on precision in article titles. "Dragon 2" is ultimately a broad term; the disambiguation page Dragon II has numerous entries. Further disambiguating the title as "SpaceX Dragon 2" would remove any doubt that the article is about the SpaceX vehicle, and would also preclude the need for an About hatnote in the lead. All participants in the previous move discussion, along with editors who have made significant contributions to this article in the past month, have been pinged using Hidden ping. –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 01:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Also pointing out Category:Dragon 2 which may be effected by this move (depending on outcome). Agree mostly because of consistentcy consistency with SpaceX Dragon.  OkayKenji (talk • contributions) 02:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – I had not nominated this article on the batch of the requested moves on 31 December 2019 at WikiProject Spaceflight because I thought it would not need any disambiguation. Time now tells me that I was wrong. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support  per nomination. Consistency across articles and clarity of topic are two benefits worth supporting. Grey Wanderer (talk) 05:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Totally makes sense, and the category would be renamed as well. — JFG talk 06:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Dragon by itself is too generic a name, even with the number added.--agr (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support As stated above in the previous closed rename/move. Can this be fast-tracked? A consensus has already started to form. Timmccloud (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Better for disambiguation Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe wait for and uninvolved editor (i.e. outside spaceflight) to participate but perhaps this would be a WP:SNOW close? OkayKenji (talk • contribs) 03:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I support the immediate invocation of the WP:SNOW clause for the move/rename of this article. What's next? Timmccloud (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I find the argument somewhat weak if only because the other items listed under Dragon 2 are a plane with no distinct article of it’s own, a Canadian kids movie and space flights with somewhat similar sounding, but not exactly the same name. I dare say some of the listings on the disambiguous don’t even belong there. Metropod (talk) 04:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There were two arguments, though. What are your thoughts on the first one? –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 00:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Dragon 2 redirect target
Dragon 2 now redirects to Dragon II after the article was moved here. It's common practice to have the old article title point to the new destination. This keeps countless internal and external links meaningful, and clearly the capsule is the main meaning, otherwise it wouldn't have had this title before. We have a note here at the top for the odd visitor who was looking for an alternative meaning (there isn't really one that would be notable). Unlike User:Soumya-8974, who reverted my edit, I don't see any consensus (or even discussion) suggesting to redirect Dragon 2 to Dragon II. Who supported that where? And why should it need a formal requested move to implement what is standard practice anyway? --mfb (talk) 10:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "keeps countless internal and external links meaningful" - I wound not worry about the internal links as looking at what links here for Dragon 2 does not have any mainspace articles there. Because in edit like this (diff) all the internal links were changed such that they would link to correct article SpaceX Dragon 2. That being said I don't know why Dragon 2 redirects like you said, so notifying (admin who closed the discussion and moved the page) OkayKenji (talk • contribs) 23:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I fixed the links when I carried out the page moves. Most, but not all, were for the spacecraft. BD2412  T 23:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I saw that. But I think is asking why Dragon 2 redirects to Dragon II and not SpaceX Dragon 2 as in the nom? OkayKenji (talk • contribs) 00:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Article links are fixed, but we still have links elsewhere, and there will be even more external links that we cannot adjust. We'll have people arrive at Dragon 2 from external websites for years, and they are all expecting to find the spacecraft. Now 6 days have passed and no one made an argument to redirect to the disambiguation page. --mfb (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

image?
where is the unveil image that used to be in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by N2e (talk • contribs) 21:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

"SpaceX In-Flight Abort Test" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect SpaceX In-Flight Abort Test. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 20 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 11:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

"Dragonship Endeavour" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Dragonship Endeavour. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 20 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 11:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

fuel
Should the article mention the fuel used? Specifically, this is important as it seems an important part of crew recovery, to be sure that the fuel concentration is low. Gah4 (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure, but the issues that they had today could be mentioned in the Crew Dragon Demo-2 article though. OkayKenji (talk • contribs) 22:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Add section for the touchscreen cockpit
One of the most interesting features of the Dragon 2 spacecraft is the design of its touchscreen cockpit. I suggest adding a section covering this aspect of the craft. The SpaceX software team recently completed a Q&A which has official technical information: https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/gxb7j1/we_are_the_spacex_software_team_ask_us_anything/

Full disclosure: I worked on the program — https://twitter.com/klebba/status/1102300821130104833

--Klebba (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * IF this article is split into two (2) entries, then the Design section should be include this level of detail. It is an important Differentiator between Crew Dragon and Starliner or Orion capsule designs.

--Beatgr (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Dragon 2 name
Since at least 2019 multiple sources, including spaceX, have called Dragon 2 "crew dragon" when talking about the crewed version, and the cargo dragon (which may deserve a different article in wikipedia as it have differences with the crewed version) is the one called dragon 2. Maybe a clarification at the start of the article or a / on the name may clear things for amateur space fans and other visitors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.159.14.181 (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * “Dragon 2” aka “C200” is the overall class name. Crew and cargo are the variations/configurations they can be flown in. It’s just that a true cargo ship has not flown yet.

That’s like arguing, say, a Ford transit van with seats in the back is somehow a different vehicle than one without. Plus or minus a few parts, no matter their importance, they are still the same ships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metropod (talk • contribs) 18:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Flag of company as well as nation?
I don't recall seeing any discussion on whether the logo of the company a non-government astronaut would reflect their company as well as their nationality, can someone point me to that Talk page? Chris Ferguson didn't have the Boeing logo on the CFT page, none of the non-government astronauts (Greg Jarvis for Hughes, Charlie Walker for McDonnell Douglas, Toyohiro Akiyama for TBS, corporate fliers on Soyuz to Mir, etc.). Should the "spaceflight participants" also have the logo of Space Adventures who arranged their trip? No, that field is for the nationality of the person. Wizardimps (talk) 04:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight. I haven't read or participated in the discussion but that is the latest discussion I think. OkayKenji (talk • contribs) 19:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I posted my $0.02 over there. TL;DR - I'm against corporate logos either with or without national flag. Wizardimps (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Exclusive use?
A great deal of attention has been brought to the fact that these are privately owned, commercial vehicles, but the article (as far as I can tell) does not make clear whether NASA has exclusive use of Crew Dragon, either in the present or the future. Is SpaceX free to provide these or future vehicles to other agencies or countries? The article ought to say, if this information is available. Count Robert of Paris (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The article says "It is also expected to be used in flights by American space tourism company Space Adventures and to shuttle tourists to and from Axiom Space's planned space station." - neither of which are NASA. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 00:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * D'oh! I completely missed that, thank you.  Any idea about other countries?  Count Robert of Paris (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Other than the trade restrictions that apply to US companies in general (and maybe ITAR stuff), I'm not aware of any restriction. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 00:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Rocket technology is very much restricted by 22 CFR § 121.1 - The United States Munitions List. Launch vehicles are part of Category IV (which includes Launch Vehicles, Guided Missiles, Ballistic Missiles, Rockets, Torpedoes, Bombs, and Mines). Category XV covers Spacecraft and Related Articles. There are a lot of details that govern precisely what is and is not restricted, way too long to go into here. But essentially, if it can be used in any way to create, guide, or be used as a weapon, then transfer of the technology is prohibited. So SpaceX cannot sell a Dragon and a Falcon to another country, but the other country may pay SpaceX for the right to be launched on one of their vehicles. Wizardimps (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It's important to distinguish between Dragon Crew capsules. SpaceX is definitely free to sell flights on a Dragon capsule to anyone who wants to pay (with the probably exception of listed countries.) But they may not be able to use a particular Dragon capsule for a commercial flight, if NASA wants to use that capsule on future mission. For reuse of Falcon 9 first stages, NASA has a preference for using ones which have only been used for NASA launches in the past. Rather than a mix of NASA and non-NASA launches. If the same preference extends to Dragons, NASA might not be interested in using Resilience (Crew Dragon C207) again after SpaceX uses it for the Axiom commercial mission.
 * NASA is still involved in Ax-1 as it goes to the ISS. They might not check every bolt as carefully as for a NASA crew mission but they will still be around as it affects ISS safety. The Space Adventures mission will be completely independent of NASA. Ultimately we can only watch future assignments. For Falcon 9 boosters we have seen alternating assignments: B1058 flew Demo-2, then one commercial satellite, then Starlink, and now it's being prepared for a Cargo Dragon. Fastest booster to reach 4 flights at 6m 3d assuming no delay. --mfb (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Dragon 2 dry mass
The Dragon 2 dry mass listed in the wikipedia article is incorrect. It is based on an incorrect interpretation of the document sourced. "Overall weight of the stack" is not the same as dry mass.

Fortunately there is a more recent FAA document available describing the mass of the Dragon 2: "Draft Environmental Assessment for Issuing SpaceX a Launch License for an In-flight Dragon Abort Test, Kennedy Space Center, Brevard County, Florida" dated November 2018.

Dragon 2 mass is 17,000 pounds without cargo, and the Dragon 2 contains approximately 5,650 pounds of rocket propellant. Therefore the dry mass of the Dragon 2 can be no greater than 11,350 pounds (or 5,153 kg). NOT over 9,525 kg as the wikipedia article currently claims.

A dry mass of 5,135 kg for Dragon 2 is also more logical, considering other sources suggest the dry mass of the original cargo Dragon is 4,300 kg. It is not logical to assume the Dragon 2 dry mass grew by over 100% compared to the cargo Dragon it was based upon.

Here is the section of the FAA document, describing the Dragon 2...

2.1.2 DRAGON TEST VEHICLE SpaceX has developed Dragon to deliver cargo and experiments to the ISS and Low Earth Orbit (Dragon-1) and to transport astronauts to the ISS (Dragon-2) (Figure 2-1). Dragon weighs approximately 17,000 pounds without cargo and is approximately 17 feet tall with a base width of 13 feet. Dragon-2 is composed of the capsule for pressurized crew and cargo, the unpressurized cargo module or “trunk,” and a nosecone. Other primary structures include a welded aluminum pressure vessel, primary heat shield support structure, and back shell thermal protection system support structure. The thermal protection structure supports secondary structures including the SuperDraco engines, propellant tanks, pressurant tanks, parachute system, and necessary avionics. The Dragon test vehicle is intended to represent the final flight configuration of Dragon-2. Systems, subsystems, and components critical to the success of in-flight abort would be in the final configuration. Non-critical systems would either be eliminated or simplified to reduce the complexity of the ground refurbishment process to conduct the abort test. Dragon would contain approximately 5,650 pounds of hypergolic propellant, including approximately 3,500 pounds of dinitrogen tetroxide (NTO) and 2,150 pounds of monomethylhydrazine (MMH). Dragon would contain approximately 2,400 pounds of residual propellant after the abort test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunsandrockets (talk • contribs) 21:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Good point, I removed the dry mass from the article. More discussion here. Different estimates lead to very different numbers. --mfb (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Which docking adapter does it use
Which docking adapter standard does it use, NDS or IDSS ? (Dragon 1 used CBM). and do SpaceX build it themselves ? - Rod57 (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * NDS. --mfb (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I know those are not different standards, NDS is just one of many implementations of the IDSS standard and all those implementations are compatible between them. I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX manufactured their own implementation of the mechanism but I couldn't find any information about the Dragon's side (what mfb linked refers to the ISS side). josecurioso  ❯❯❯  Tell me!  13:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Capsule C204?
I noticed that SpX-DM1 is now showing as being flown on C204. Backtracking, the old C201 article was changed by an IP to C204, then later renamed to match. However, is there any actual source that suggests this is anything more than drive-by vandalism that has spread to other articles? I see Gunter's still lists DM-1 as C201. Anyone know more about this, or can we safely revert this article and Crew Dragon C204 to their previous states? — Huntster (t @ c) 16:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The demo-1 mission used capsule C204, whereas C201 (Dragonfly) was the first prototype Dragon 2 capsule. I'm not completely sure which article did you meant by "the old C201 article" but a while ago i remember moving the article of C204 and C201 to where it is today because of the confusion that people thought C201 was the capsule used in Demo-1 (as said in the topic paragraph of the current C204 article) OD1 ByHL (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Fair use of Demo-1 Patch image
With all due respect I fail to see why the demo-1 patch image is completely acceptable on the Crew Dragon Demo-2 page, yet the thumbnail is not acceptable here. I am temporarily reverting to the previous page, and I would like to discuss the reasoning behind the WP:NFCC applicability to this page and not Crew Dragon Demo-2 page. One or the other, please let's discuss and come to consensus. If you have serious reasoning on removing the image from Wikipedia, the place to start the removal is on the page. Timmccloud (talk) 21:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:NFCCE for why your revert is not acceptable. See WP:NFTABLE/WP:NFLIST/WP:NFC for why the image should not be used here. The is no critical commentary about the logo itself in this article. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 22:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It also does not make sense to me as to why the Pad Abort and DM-1 patches are removed but the others are fine. They are all official mission patches and are being used appropriately in this article. If there is some restriction on those two patch images which requires them to be only used in the articles of their respective missions, then that should be amended to allow the patches to be used in the mission list table here. BM6 (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2021 (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) 18:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Inspiration4 Patch Art.png

Need something on the computers and processors
Need something on the computers and processors. How many ? multiply redundant ? voting or priority logic ? Same as Dragon 1 or different ? - Rod57 (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Need something on the communications equipment and reentry blackout period.
Nothing here on the communications equipment and reentry blackout period. What band communications do they use, where are the antenna ? - Rod57 (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

how many seats?
We have a discrepancy here. As you pointed out, the SpaceX official site still says "up to seven" crew. However, another reference has a direct quote for Shotwell that this is no longer true. I changed the text to match the infobox, which says four. Do you know of another reference on what happened here? BTW I think Inspiration 4 would have launched with a bigger crew if it were possible, but that's not a reference. Our choices are to either change them both to 4, change them both to 7, or note the discrepancy in both places (in a footnote, perhaps). -Arch dude (talk) 04:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I changed the infobox from 4 to 7 and added a footnote for the discrepancy until we can find a source that shows that the "4" is obsolete. -Arch dude (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Is it possible NASA is allowed to have different requirements than commercial flights, and so Shotwell’s quote only refers to commercial crew. A brief Google search revels a lot of sources from 2020/2021 claiming 7, but they may be getting that from the website. I’m at a loss as how to reconcile it. Your change looks good to me. Grey Wanderer (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not find a ref for the "NASA restriction to 4" thing even though we mention it (without a ref) in the body of the article. My search was very cursory. If you have the time, could you please find a ref? We can add it to the footnote and also use it for the statement in the running text. -Arch dude (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

What Delta-V is Dragon-2 capable of
Can we say What Delta-V is Dragon-2 capable of ? and maybe how it's used, before/after docking at ISS ? With ref, (Could work it out from spec but that would be OR). - Rod57 (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * eg use Isp (313 sec?), and "Dragon could contain up to 5,650 pounds of propellant, which includes 3,500 pounds of NTO and 2,150 pounds of MMH." and mass (see comment below). - Rod57 (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Various estimates are around 420m/s or 430 m/s - Rod57 (talk) 08:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

What mass is Dragon 2 capsule and trunk
What mass is Dragon 2 capsule and trunk, dry, and with fluids (as launched) ? Dragon 1 has Dry mass	4,201 kilograms. Apollo CSM and Orion (spacecraft) have dry mass and launch mass. Even Boeing Starliner has launch mass. - There was some discussion (before the Dragon 1 & 2 article split : []. Gives details from NASA & FAA docs, eg "Dragon 2 mass is 17,000 pounds without cargo, and the Dragon 2 contains approximately 5,650 pounds of rocket propellant." "Therefore the dry mass of the Dragon 2 can be no greater than 11,350 pounds (or 5,153 kg).", and also "Another data point: Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for SpaceX Falcon Launches at Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, July 2020 [Reddit] Dragon-2 weighs approximately 18,000 pounds without cargo. Dragon could contain up to 5,650 pounds of propellant, which includes 3,500 pounds of NTO and 2,150 pounds of MMH." - Rod57 (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 17,000 lbs is 7711 kg, 18,000 lbs is 8,165 kg. - Rod57 (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Color Coding on Vehicles
All active vehicles should be the same color, even when they are on-route, in orbit or docked at the ISS. Text will specify which it is.

user:mnw2000 15:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)