Talk:SpaceX Red Dragon

Useful info

http://digitalvideo.8m.net/SpaceX/RedDragon/karcz-red_dragon-nac-2011-10-29-1.pdf --Craigboy (talk) 14:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/marsconcepts2012/pdf/4216.pdf
http://www.livestream.com/marsconcepts2012/video?clipId=pla_93f6e4fc-0442-4533-a9ee-ff895fce0cf2 (starts around 45 minutes)
--Craigboy (talk) 07:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

NASA Discovery mission

There is no Announcement if Opportunity for any new NASA Discovery mission. The last AO was 2010 and this is now Insight launch 2016. How do they apply for funding for a mission with the launch in 2018? This looks like a made up story to look like a possible mission. --Stone (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Although the players are NASA and Space X, you got a good point. Should we change it to: "it has not been formally proposed"? -Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The rationale for researching Mars ice

Is the rationale that humans want not only to find water for a future colony, but that they need water ice and dry ice to make methane and liquid oxygen locally in Mars, because SpaceX has to fuel the Raptor rocket engine if the transportation is to be two-way? Elon Musk has talked about the "Mars people mover" and surely the vehicle has to be fueled with local sources of methane and oxygen... and that requires the local production of those, as the cost of sending those from Earth would be likely higher than locally producing those. Therefore, the resources have to be mapped and analyzed. --85.76.119.213 (talk) 05:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

A SpaceX mission to mars which has to use self-made fuel for I fly back is decades away. There will be countless missions before that mapping ice and dry ice (the atmosphere is a lot of CO2 so dry ice is not needed as source). The shift in Falcon9 V1.1 and all minimal payload to ISS and a lot of press rumour about a suggestion of a red-ragon for 2018 I have not seen yet make me think that like most companies there is a lot merchandising going on.--Stone (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Odd information

The beginning of the article, the summary, seems to be describing a somewhat different mission from the Proposal section. Greg (talk) 05:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Red Dragon Name

Something that would be a great idea is to add in the article how the name was decided. Does anyone know why SpaceX chose to call it Red Dragon?

The Dragon capsule going to the "Red Planet". BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Possible timing?

[1] says "If SpaceX misses the 2018 launch window, it will have to wait until 2020 – which might be long enough to come up with a scientific experiment to send with it. If not 2020, then 2022." Human mission to Mars indicates windows every 26 months. Is there a source for when such a window occurs in 2018 and how long long such a window lasts? Or perhaps it depends on whether using Hohmann transfer orbit or Ballistic capture? crandles (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Insight scheduled for 5 May 2018 [2] "The space agency announced Wednesday the InSight mission’s launch has been rescheduled for May 5, 2018, the next time Earth and Mars are properly positioned to permit a direct route to the red planet." crandles (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Any source for the SpaceX 2018 mission being called "Red Dragon"?

Sometime during April 2016, during many edits and updates to this article, the article lede got changed to say that the 2018 SpaceX mission to Mars with a modified Dragon was the "Red Dragon" mission.

I cannot find that in any source.

What we know, and is sourced, is that Red Dragon was a name for a conceptual Mars mission put forward by NASA Ames in 2011, and that that NASA proposal (to be later submitted for NASA funding) was to be called Red Dragon. NASA never funded that mission.

We then have new statements (light on detail) in approx. April 2016 that SpaceX is going to, itself, launch a Falcon Heavy with a modified Dragon spacecraft to Mars to do research in 2018.

Without a source, it would appear to be synthesis and original research to say that the SpaceX 2018 mission is, in fact, the Red Dragon mission. Does anyone have a source to counter what I'm seeing here? Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

1. SpaceX's Red Dragon: A Private Mars Mission Plan in Pictures.
2. NASA spells out support for SpaceX’s Red Dragon Mars mission.
3. NASA Outlines Mars 'Red Dragon' Deal With SpaceX.

Of course, Musk could change the name any moment to "Call me Back" or sumthin'.

I think that next month he will reveal his plan, and where the modified Dragons fit in the scheme of the Mars Transporter. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Cool. That counts as a recent source that identifies the mission still as Red Dragon. I hadn't seen those, and that term was not used in some of the articles I had seen. Thanks for finding those. I don't have time to look right now, so will just assume for now that someone has ensured those sources are used in the article itself. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Cancelled or indefinitely postphoned or ...

This article has been changed to a pretty definite cancelled, which seems at odds with the source which seems full of 'suggests' and similar terms indicating doubt. The Dragon 2 article says indefinitely postponed. I am not sure either is accurate. We seem to know for sure propulsive landing is not being developed at this time and there will be no legs therefore red dragon cannot land on Mars. AFAICS, we don't know if it is cancelled, or indefinitely postponed or still going to orbit Mars but not land. How do we give this position? Perhaps something like: 'These plans have been put in doubt by the cessation of development of propulsive landings'? crandles (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@C-randles: Red Dragon, as it was envisioned (a capsule that can land on Mars) is definitely cancelled, so that was what I was referencing with 'cancelled'. At the least, we have a source showing that clearly Red Dragon cannot land on Mars, and we have no sources saying that there is any plan to orbit Mars or that such a vehicle would still be called Red Dragon. I understand what you're saying about the sources expressing doubt, but I think it's a bit weak to say "these plans have been put in doubt". If they can't propulsively land, they cannot land on Mars. I'd be open to some wording less strong than cancelled (which implies official and direct confirmation) but more strong than doubt (which seems to more imply that some rumors exist). Some sources also interpreted it this way, for example this and [3]. Still, I do think 'cancelled' is the best wording, as Musk's statements seem to clearly indicate their future plans are much bigger than Red Dragon. Appable (talk | contributions) 22:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

OK I will accept that 'doubt' is a bit weak. Maybe something more like: 'This means that Red Dragon cannot land on Mars but in absence of confirmation it remains unclear whether the mission is indefinitely postponed, cancelled, or might be reworked to some different objective.' That might be saying something that isn't sourced but given all the suggests in the sources and the warning that there isn't confirmation, perhaps that might be reasonable? crandles (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@C-randles: Yeah, I like that version a lot more (I would also mention Musk's tweet regarding "much larger" Mars ship, etc. What do you think the correct tense would be for the article, then? If the mission is "indefinitely postponed, cancelled, or reworked" to a non-landing mission, then at least the discussion of potential payloads, testing goals, and so on are no longer applicable. However, if the mission was just reworked, it isn't fair to say that "Red Dragon was a...". Appable (talk | contributions) 00:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes slightly tricky on tense. I think we are reporting on what the plan 'was' with nothing to suggest ongoing work so it seems past tense is appropriate. Shall I have a go, but if issues arrive feel free to amend or bring it back here? ...

Had a go now. Not sure if it is getting rather repetitious with similar things at end of introduction, 2016 concept and landing sections. crandles (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Great work, guys, thanks! I have further edited the "Landing system" section, so article is fully is past tense and future conditional (or whatever grammarians call the "would have been" construct). — JFG ^talk 22:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on SpaceX Red Dragon. 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/20130120203325/http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2012/01/23/NAC_Science_Meeting_ReportOctober_31-November_1_2011-finalTAGGED.pdf to https://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2012/01/23/NAC_Science_Meeting_ReportOctober_31-November_1_2011-finalTAGGED.pdf

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) 08:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)