Template:WPSpace

I didn't mind the change from Flight 2 to CTOS Flight 1, but Dragon C1? SpaceX themselves never call it that. And from the source it looks like it's just the name of the payload spacecraft. I think it should be reverted back TMV943 (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "it looks like it's just the name of the payload spacecraft" - so why shouldn't that be the name of an article about said spacecraft? --GW… 02:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't about the spacecraft, it's about the mission. The spacecraft already has it's own article, if there's anything special to note about the "C1" specifically, it could be noted as a section there, but for this article, we should go with a mission name SpaceX or NASA use TMV943 (talk) 05:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the arguments of both previous commenters, I tend to agree with TMV943: it is a mission that is unique, not really the spacecraft capsule alone. The mission, of course, will necessarily cover both the spacecraft capsule (which of course has substantial new instrumentation that was not on the privious capsule flight) as well as the entire Falcon 9 launcher system. Thus, at this point, I would support an article name change more in line with the mission, rather than merely the capsule. Cheers. N2e (talk) 06:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article name needs to be change. This is an article on the mission, not the vehicle. There will be other missions with that vehicle. --RadioFan (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree with the name change. Thanks RadioFan. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And where will we put the first OSC COTS Demo Flight? --GW… 10:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We'll deal with that when a name is settled on for that mission. Nomenclature is a bit more all over the place with this program than we've been used to with previous (NASA) programs. I've seen COTS Demo Flight 1 called a dozen different things in the press and half a dozen things in SpaceX press releases over the years. It took until the press kit was available for this flight this time, I'm thinking it wont take as long next time.--RadioFan (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think the title is a bit ambiguous too: what would we call those demo flights by other spacecrafts under the COTS program (e.g. Cygnus)? How about "Dragon COTS Demo Flight 1" or "SpaceX COTS Flight 1"? Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think including Dragon in the title would be a good idea. That would also help to allay some of my other concerns over the current title. --GW… 13:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pics on SpaceflightNow.com showed a fire about midway up the launch tower lasting for a few seconds at the start of the launch. Appears to me to have been some burning fuel - possibly from fuelling line. It'll be interesting to see what SpaceX has to say about it. --71.214.211.240 (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Musk addressed this in the news conference. He said that, of course, they would have to do full analysis, check the hardware at the launch pad, etc. But he did offer that it was likely an incomplete closure of a checkvalve on the launch-side fueling line that would have allowed some RP-1 out into the air which was then ignited by the rocket exhaust. N2e (talk) 06:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]