Talk:SpaceX COTS Demo Flight 1
 | It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Article name
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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Definitely agree with the name change. Thanks RadioFan. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- And where will we put the first OSC COTS Demo Flight? --GW… 10:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- And where will we put the first OSC COTS Demo Flight? --GW… 10:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Definitely agree with the name change. Thanks RadioFan. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
