Talk:SpaceX CRS-1

Dragon CRS-1 merged to Dragon C3 on 2012-06-01.

Unsuccessful Secondary Payload

ORBCOMM is saying that due to the anomaly in Engine 1, the second stage could not complete the second burn for placement of their prototype in the proper orbit.

The OG2 prototype satellite, flying as a secondary payload on this mission, was separated from the Falcon 9 launch vehicle at approximately 9:00 pm EST. However, due to an anomaly on one of the Falcon 9’s first stage engines, the rocket did not comply with a pre-planned International Space Station (ISS) safety gate to allow it to execute the second burn. For this reason, the OG2 prototype satellite was deployed into an orbit that was lower than intended. ORBCOMM and Sierra Nevada Corporation engineers have been in contact with the satellite and are working to determine if and the extent to which the orbit can be raised to an operational orbit using the satellite’s on-board propulsion system.

— ORBCOMM

--Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 17:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That is consistent with all the sources I've read. Since the ORBCOMM statement is a primary source, it is probably best to source the rationale for the ORBCOMM OG2 sat not being taken to the higher orbit by the Falcon 9 second stage from one of the many secondary sources that are now, a couple days after the launch, covering the topic. (Including some of the newer sources now used in the article, but published in the last day or so.) So feel free to improve the article on the topic of the outcome of the secondary payload. N2e (talk) 02:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

However, just a note on this: in the space industry, and space "market" such as it exists recently in the near-total monopsony of government-purchased space services (and, usually, government-purchased spacecraft too), do note that any launch provider is quite happy when the the primary payload is 100% successful (as the primary payload customer pays 95%-99% of the cost of the mission, determines the launch date/time, determines the orbital plane, and places a large number of contractual constraints on the secondary payload [providers (e.g., when the secondary payload can be powered on (usually, only after primary payload separation), when the upper stage can (or cannot) be reignited for a second burn to an alternate orbit, etc.). Why, because the secondary payload pays a MUCH lower rate, and the insurance costs for secondary payloads assume the higher risk on secondary payload mission success precisely because of those many limitations. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that Orbcomm has said mostly the same thing:

"Had Orbcomm been the primary payload on this mission, as planned for the upcoming launches, we believe the OG2 prototype would have reached the desired orbit," Orbcomm said Thursday. --http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/121011orbcomm/

Orbcomm is filing for an insurance claim due to the failure, but they were able to test some critical sub-systems that will enable Orbcomm to deploy their next generation satellites in the future as a prime customer. The only issue that needs to be pointed out is that this was originally supposed to be a payload on a Falcon 1, but due to restructuring at SpaceX and apparently a loss of demand by customers, the Falcon 1 isn't flying. I don't know how much that decision has impacted flights like this, but it will be interesting to see how this impacts the future of the SpaceX manifest. --Robert Horning (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

One other thing that might be worth mentioning. Technically, the Falcon could have placed Orbcomm satellite into the desired orbit. That is, it had enough fuel and guidance control to do so. The reason it wasn't placed into the desired orbit was because of safety protocols for the ISS. This dictated that the Orbcomm satellite be released when it was. --71.214.222.30 (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, there are no sources indicating it was a technological failure of the rocket. Per the sources, it seems merely to be a case of the primary payload provider insisting on a fairly restrictive safety protocol, which is entirely the right of the contract negotiators making the contract between SpaceX and the primary payload purchaser, and that Orbcomm signed up for this launch opportunity under those known contractual conditins. That is, there was some contractual risk that the secondary payload would not be delivered to the higher orbit, and that risk was entirely accepted by, and borne by, Orbcomm and its insurers. This is why secondary payload launch fees are 1/40th to 1/50th of the cost of the launch to the primary payload contractor. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Ice Cream

With all the buzz about the ice cream, should we include information about it? It seems like it could be a controversial addition to the article, so I'd prefer to have consensus for adding it before it is done. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

For things like this I would strongly recommend that you try to establish some notability to the issue (aka have at least two or three independent sources discussing this item) and watching out for WP:UNDUE violations. In spite of the fact that it is a silly item in the manifest and completely irrelevant to the mission or the operation of the ISS, it was widely talked about in a number of places and was therefore something relevant for discussion in this article on Wikipedia as a sentence or two in a discussion of the payload in general.

Something else that may useful with this is a poster that was added to the payload by the SpaceX team which built the Dragon capsule, where the crew who built the capsule signed their names on the poster with a picture of the whole development team on the factory floor of SpaceX. Also whimsical, if enough sources talk about it there should be some mention in the article. --Robert Horning (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that is what I was thinking. If it is added, it should be carefully done and with the consensus of all the editors who regularly work on the article. I don't much care personally if we mention the ice cream or not, but the media is making such a big deal out of it. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Article update in progress

Dragon's hatch was closed at about 18:00 UTC (11:00 PST) on 27 October 2012.

Dragon was released at 13:29 UTC (06:29 PST) on 28 October 2012.

Dragon splashed down at 19:22 UTC (12:22 PST) on 28 October 2012.

Dragon was retrieved from the ocean by the American Islander.

Dragon arrived at the Port of Los Angeles on 30 October 2012. (http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/121030port/)

--Craigboy (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting that it was ground operators who performed most of the un-berthing operations. Definitely worth mentioning in the article, I think. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 15:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

This is news to me, do have a link to an article where I can read about it?--Craigboy (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

No article, but this video. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 14:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. You can go ahead and add if you like.--Craigboy (talk) 04:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I'm very out of time now, so unfortunately I won't be able to add it. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It's 2016, and section "Remainder of mission (11 to 28 October)" (2012) is still in future tense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.75.41.170 (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

A record that goes unnoticed

SpaceX CRS-1 spent roughly 18 days attached at the International Space Station, which is the longest amount of time for any American spacecraft. STS-123, which previously held the duration record, was attached to the ISS for only 11 days and 20 hours.--Craigboy (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Anomaly information

http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/spacex-and-nasa-still-determining-reasons-for-falcon-9-engine-failure

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/004/121114anomalies/#.UKVmI4b0bKh

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/707197main_Suffredini_ISS_NAC_20121114.pdf

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385&plckPostId=Blog%3A04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385Post%3Aa8b87703-93f9-4cdf-885f-9429605e14df --Craigboy (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Good info on the OS of the Dragon and F9 in that interview. Probably even a good source for the Shuttle flight computers as well.--Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

"Another issue with the CRS-1 flight was the loss of power to a freezer carrying biological samples on the spacecraft upon splashdown. Suffredini said that none of the samples were compromised by the loss of freezer power. He said SpaceX was working to limit water intrusion into those systems. “The fix that was necessary was to a better job of sealing up the boxes,” he said. Those components will be sealed up better for CRS-2, with an “ultimate” redesign planned for CRS-3".

https://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385&plckPostId=Blog:04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385Post:929ec15c-3c9e-4e8d-b3db-bf0f65af09ad --Craigboy (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Rename SpaceX CRS-n missions to Dragon CRS-n

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: Withdrawn by nominator after considering pertinent responses from fellow editors — JFG ^talk 10:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

---

– The naming of Dragon missions is an anomaly compared to all the other unmanned spaceflights to the ISS, or even to all spaceflights, which usually bear the name of the spacecraft, not the manufacturer or LSP. See Progress M-29M, Kounotori 5, Cygnus CRS OA-6, etc. This would improve the clarity in lists of spaceflights such as {{Orbital launches in 2015}} or ISS#Scheduled missions. We don't launch a Korolev, we launch a Progress. We don't launch an Orbital, we launch a Cygnus. We don't launch a SpaceX, we launch a Dragon. — JFG ^talk 10:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. No such user (talk) 10:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree, as per JFG's argument. Rmvandijk (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The argument against would be that most sources to those articles, including all NASA documents, refer to the missions as "SpaceX CRS-n". With that logic the Cygnus CRS-n articles should be renamed to Orbital ATK CRS-n though. I don't have a strong opinion. Ulflund (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Support using the spacecraft name, not the company's. While you are at it, also move all Orbital-CRSn to Cygnus-CRSn. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

No change needed; those articles are already titled Cygnus CRS missions, that's part of the point. — JFG ^talk 20:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose, NASA has been moving away from a government program concept to a commercial resupply concept. This is why the ISS in the Cygnus case is moving to the OA naming for Orbital ATK. They named things for Progress, Soyuz, etc because those are government programs. Now NASA is contracting a company to deliver cargo. NASA calls it SpaceX CRS-xx, SpaceX calls it CRS-xx mission, and the ISS program office calls it SPX-xx. If you are not convinced, let's just wait until commercial crew naming appears and then we can go for consistency. – Baldusi (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I have trouble following your line of thought. I don't see how the fact that a spacecraft is commissioned by a public or private entity should have any influence on the title of its page. All satellite articles are titled after the name of the thing that flies, not the manufacturer's or the LSP. — JFG ^talk 20:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

They are not delivering a Dragon, they are delivering cargo to the ISS. Dragon is part of the transport stack. If SpaceX tomorrow was using a different craft, it would still be SpaceX CRS-xx. Besides, that's the name the mission owners call it. – Baldusi (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I understand your point now, thanks. Still, the world names orbiting spacecraft, not their cargo, check the relevant COSPAR IDs: 2012-054A is "Dragon CRS-1", 2013-010A is "Dragon CRS-2", etc. If SpaceX switched to a new craft model "Hydra", each such spacecraft would probably be designated "Hydra CRS-32" and so on. I guess the debate is whether we should choose the mission name (SpaceX CRS-1) or the spacecraft name (Dragon CRS-1) as a page title. I support the spacecraft name for consistency. — JFG ^talk 06:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia exists to record data, not to create it. If NASA and SpaceX wish to call the missions SpaceX CRS-n, that's what we should call it. Wikipedia should not be about making things up so it has internal consistency. That's why Categories are for. I remember the disasters made because they wanted to rename Dnepr (the rocket). They went as far as invent a new name: Dnepr-1. Luckily reason arrived and was renamed to Dnepr (rocket). But deleting old links and modifying articles from that contraption took me a while. Let's not get into that. Wikipedia should record reality, no matter how inconsistent it is. – Baldusi (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I claim credit for renaming Dnepr-1 to Dnepr (rocket); glad to see we agree on that, and thanks for your work changing incoming links there. — JFG ^talk 13:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose, The articles are now about a missions, so changing them to be about spacecraft would require many changes not just to the article names. I have only heard the specific spacecraft referred to as CRS-n Dragon rather than the other way around. I think we should wait with articles about the individual spacecraft until they start to get reused. Should we achieve consistency by renaming the Cygnus articles instead? Ulflund (talk) 07:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Another valid point you raise. SpaceX calls their spacecrafts Dragon C1 (the COTS 1), Dragon C2 (COTS 2/3), Dragon C3 (SpaceX CRS-1), etc. They will star reusing them. In which case we can make an article about the spacecraft. But SpaceX CRS-x are resupply missions. If anyone want to make an article about the spacecraft in particular, they should use the Dragon Cxx name. And we don't know what Elon will decide to name them when they introduce Dragon v2. Consistency in naming is not exactly SpaceX forte. Nor should Wikipedia try change that. We should make a clear record of all naming through the project's life, though. – Baldusi (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Baldusi on the additional point, beyond the current question, as well. Time will come when we will no doubt have articles on specific reusable space capsules (where a name like Dragon xyz might be appropriate, depending on what SpaceX names them) and also on individual launch vehicles, just like we do today with notable maritime vehicles or trains or even, in some cases, particular automobiles. N2e (talk) 12:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose, the current name is more accurate. SpaceX has a contract to provide a set of services to NASA for each of the various CRS missions. These include both the launch on a Falcon 9 launch vehicle—as the launch service provider for the mission—and also the on-orbit payload (Dragon) operational management to get it to the ISS and do the SpaceX-needed side of getting it in position for berthing. Thus, SpaceX is the main operator here, and it runs the CRS-n mission from launch to capture to (later, post-release) safely moving away from the ISS and into a trajectory for a nominal pinpoint reentry. Article scope, quite rationally, includes all aspects of the contract responsibilities that SpaceX takes on and must perform to. N2e (talk) 11:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Withdrawal – @Baldusi, Ulflund, and N2e: Thank you for articulating several good reasons to keep the current names. @Rmvandijk and BatteryIncluded: Thank you for supporting my initial move rationale. Given the balance of the arguments emerging from the discussion, I shall withdraw my move request and simply create redirects from Dragon CRS-n to SpaceX CRS-n when they are missing, to facilitate incoming links from articles where that name flows better in the prose or makes more sense in a table. — JFG ^talk 10:31, 30 August 2016 (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.

After reading the arguments, I (again) agree with JFG's decision to withdraw the move request and make redirects. Rmvandijk (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on SpaceX CRS-1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130212070813/http://www.spaceflight101.com/dragon-crs-1-mission-updates.html to http://www.spaceflight101.com/dragon-crs-1-mission-updates.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newspacewatch.com/articles/spacex-crs-1-spacex-statement-review-of-1st-stage-engine-failure.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.newspacewatch.com/articles/spacex-crs-1-post-conference-press-conference.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newspacewatch.com/articles/spacex-crs-1-review-board-formed-to-investigate-engine-failure.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)