This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
A news item involving SpaceX COTS Demo Flight 2 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 22 May 2012.
Wikipedia
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Seems like C2 and C3 has been merged into C2 to be launched on October 8th? Can someone confirm that? The Falcon 9 article states that C2 and C3 have been merged into C3. Since there is no C2, should this article be deleted and link to the C3 article? user:mnw200019:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems so, but no official word. Non-NASA, and non-SpaceX websites have stated that they are combined, but there is so much conflicting information out there right now, that this makes writing reliably about this mission, nearly impossible at the moment. I will be marking part of the article as dubious, mainly because we do not currently have reliable sources to cite, at least about the combined mission and the launch date.--Abebenjoe (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. We have a confirming article, [1], that seem to confirm that C2 and C3 have been merged into one mission scheduled to launch on November 30th (a new date) with rendezvous and berthing with the ISS on December 7th. This article and several others need to be updated with this new information. I understand that this is not a official government or SpaceX article, but it seems to refer to a official meeting. This is good information as we move forward with these articles. Should the C2 and C3 articles be merged into a single article? mnw2000 (talk)17:35, July 22, 2011 (UTC)
Key question is do we call the new article, C2, C3 or C2/C3? It could be seen that C2 has been "cancelled". However, some of the mission of C2 will now be part of the new C3 mission. I suggest we refer to the new article as C2/C3 for now. C2 and C3 should redirect to new article. When SpaceX formally names the new mission, we can clean up the article. user:mnw200000:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it will be NASA that decides the COTS name, which likely will be C2, or in the tradition of the Apollo mission types, "C2-Prime". I hope there will be an official announcement within the next two-weeks; but, it appears to hinge on what SpaceX does with its non-NASA contract to orbit two communications satellites. Judging from what COTS 3 flight mission-plan intended, SpaceX will now have to reschedule the non-NASA flight, or find a way that satisfies NASA that it won't jeopardize the mission. We'll see.--Abebenjoe (talk) 02:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NASA seems to be calling the mission "C2-plus." That's the name used at the news conference today, by Mike Horkachuck, NASA's project executive for SpaceX during Flight Review.--Abebenjoe (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delays in the final approval by NASA: related to carrying Orbcom secondary payloads on the F9
There is substantial information about one of (the major?) factor in delaying approval by NASA of the Dragon C2/C3 mission plan. Seems the "Visiting Vehicles" safety folks at NASA are publicly saying that they have concerns about the two Orbcom satellites that SpaceX intends to carry along as secondary payloads on the mission. Here is a source for that, should someone want to add this dimension to the article prose: ISS managers evaluating SpaceX via safety reviews ahead of debut arrival, 16 Aug 2011 article date. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article reads "The proposed mission plan, which combines the COTS 2 and 3 flights into a single mission". I think this is incorrectly worded. What has been decided, and what the article should state, is that the objectives of C3 have been merged or combined into C2. The next Falcon9/Dragon flight for NASA will be CRS 1. Assuming C2 succeeds, C3 will have been a canceled mission by SpaceX, although it may still happen by another company assuming NASA names it COTS 3. Wingtipvortex (talk) 01:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
During Elon Musk's press conference at the national press club he mentioned that due to the possibility of the ISS having to be 'evacuated' due to the Soyouz failure, the COTS Demo 2 will likely happen in January of 2012 as they want to make sure NASA has the right astronauts (who have undergone training with Dragon) at the station when Dragon arrives. Wingtipvortex (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Details emerge about the COTS 2/3 combined mission
The originally planned Demo 2 & 3 missions have been merged. For the new "Dragon" Combined Demo, "Commanding from ISS" via the CCP will be demonstrated while the spacecraft flies 2.5 km under the ISS.
Thanks. Still, it leaves NASA to decide, virtually at the last minute, if they will allow the berthing or not, so there is still a possibility for a third demo flight. Good to have the info though, and I'll attempt to incorporate it into the article.--Abebenjoe (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, right. NASA never indicated that they might approve a plan to combine COTS2 and COTS3 in such a way that 3 would be done on a single 2/3 mission no matter how badly the COTS2 objectives were missed. All SpaceX ever asked NASA for, and all NASA has ever considered, was to allow the COTS3 demo mission objectives to be attempted on the same launch/mission IF the COTS2 demo mission objectives were achieved in the initial part of that "combined" mission. N2e (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Timeline:
03/01/12 - Wet Dress Rehearsal
04/16/12 - Flight Readiness Review followed by press conference
04/22/12 - SpaceX internal readiness review
04/23/12 - SpaceX and NASA will get together, discus flight with one another
04/30/12 - Static fire of the Falcon 9
05/19/12 - Launch attempt 1, launch was automatically aborted at T -.5 seconds when combustion chamber pressure was higher then expected.
05/22/12 - Launch
05/24/12 - Dragon will approach ISS
05/25/12 - Dragon will be grappled by Canadarm2 and berthed to Harmony nadir
05/26/12 - The hatch to Dragon will be opened and the crew will enter the spacecraft
05/31/12 - Dragon will be unberthed, re-enter the atmosphere, splashdown in the Pacific and be recovered. (Source)--Craigboy (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It will be the longest amount of time an American spacecraft has visited the ISS (mission duration has been shortened) and it will be the first time since STS-135 that an American spacecraft visited the ISS.--Craigboy (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New static fire test for the Falcon 9 booster has been rescheduled to 30 April at 1500 EDT (1900 UTC), live stream begins from SpaceX's website at 1430 EDT.--Abebenjoe (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the 7 May launch will be pushed back, according to updates 2 and 3 of Chris Bergin's article. If this happens, then a delay of at least a week, likely more, due to range issues and traffic at the ISS.--Abebenjoe (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
News post-abort news conference just announced the tentative date as 22 or 23 May, because they want to inspect engine 5, an engine swap out would delay the flight even later.--Abebenjoe (talk) 10:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through NASA's article on the launch, I noticed the launch window is instantaneous. Off the top of my head I don't know if that is in this article or not, but I think it would be worth explaining why the launch window is instantaneous as opposed to the Space Shuttle that had a larger window (several minutes). Wingtipvortex (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the SpaceX pre-launch briefing this afternoon, it was termed "a near instantaneous" launch window. They could launch later, but the extra penalties for fuel consumption caused by trying catch up with the ISS would create problems with safety margins for consumables.--Abebenjoe (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The vehicle is capable of supporting a larger window but for this launch, that capability is not being used and a razor thin launch window was chosen instead. As Abebenjoe referred, launching later than the middle of the window it's capable of supporting would cost propellent which, at least for this demo flight, is better saved for any contingencies on orbit.--RadioFan (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good info. I know this is not a forum, so the reason I ask is for further improvements to the article. One more question. Admittedly, this flight is going to maneuver around ISS a lot more than any other resupply mission as it has to do all its demonstrations, thereby using more fuel. Is the fuel that gives it a wider launch window in the Dragon itself and not in the 2nd stage? Wingtipvortex (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly rasonably discussion for this talk page. I'd put information about the launch window but I dont have a good reference. If anyone else has it somewhere, please speak up. SpaceX doesn't put press releases out very often and they dont include this kind of detail nor do the press kits. Perhaps we'll find this detail in an interview somewhere.--RadioFan (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fuel question is related to Dragon, not the Falcon's second stage. If placed in the most fuel-efficient orbit by Falcon, Dragon can conserve its onboard fuel supplies. Due to the amount of testing involved in qualifying Dragon, before it attempts to berth with the ISS, it is using more fuel than it would normally use on an operational mission. So, the near-instant launch window is specifically for this mission, and a larger window of at least a few minutes would be available during an operational resupply mission. I don't specifically have the information about the operational launch window, so that info can't be put in the article.--Abebenjoe (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures and high quality video during the mission
Elon Musk just posted in a newsletter the following:
Throughout the mission high-resolution photos will be posted at spacexlaunch.zenfolio.com and broadcast quality videos will be posted at vimeo.com/spacexlaunch.
For these pictures to be used, they have to be rights free, public domain. If it is from SpaceX, they are claiming copyright. If it is from NASA, than it most likely is in the public domain.--Abebenjoe (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm by far no expert in Wikipedia Politics, but I would support that this article be featured in the "In the News' section of the Main Page, given that the first commercial flight to the ISS is to be something of high historical significance. Wingtipvortex (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can suggest In the News candidates here. However, it seems someone has already suggested this article and it has been posted. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1]20:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However, if we want this to become a "Featured Article" WP:FEATURE, we must continue to use public domain pictures, cite the heck out of everything, and write good prose. After the mission is over, I am going to propose that the article be peer-reviewed WP:REVIEW, which will point out the article's defects, and then try to correct them to get this to a Featured-class article as soon as possible. I think we are already missing information that explicitly states the significance this mission has to human spaceflight activities, but I digress. Since there are three to six active editors complementing each other, I think we may be able to get this article to Featured Status by late summer or early fall (there needs to be a period of editing stability before it qualifies for Feature status).--Abebenjoe (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since most of this article was written ahead of the mission, and is explaining many of the mission milestones in future-tense, we have to daily update the sections that occurred. I'll try to make these fixes, but I have a hunch that we won't be able to fully fix this issue, until after the mission is over next week. It is a real issue, and thank you goes out to N2e for catching this.--Abebenjoe (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did it faster than I expected. It's uploaded and in the article's gallery. Dragon C2+ capture and berthing with the ISS 25 May 2012. --Abebenjoe (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that SpaceX and NASA refer to this mission as "commercial," but is it? The only difference between this vehicle and, say, the space shuttle, is the contracting form -- fixed price (mostly) vs. cost-plus. Plenty of fixed price contracts are let in the military and they are not referred to as "commercial." HyperCapitalist (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts lead me to conclude that the reason it is called "commercial" is the fact that NASA contracted the flight from a company that sells flights to other entities as well. The flights are not limited to NASA (who is actually referred to as a customer by SpaceX) as opposed to the military contracts that, as far as my on-the-fly knowledge tells me, are launches and vehicles to be used only by the military or, if by other entities, by the approval of the military. SpaceX is not as restricted in whom it can sell flights to, nor is it forced to sell flights to NASA. The way most military contracts work is the companies get substantial cash up front to develop the end product. SpaceX built their vehicles with seed money and the contract with NASA ($1.2B or so) does not become effective until the successful completion of the demonstration flights. Truth be told however, I don't know when the contract money actually changes hands... Those are my thoughts anyway; food for your though if not convincing enough. Regardless, since "everyone" calls these flights commercial, we're stuck calling them as such as well. Cheers! Wingtipvortex (talk) 03:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"commercial" as in the spacecraft and launcher were commercially developed, and not government contracted or development of an ICBM (unlike the Orion/Constellation projects, Titan IV, Delta V, etc). So... the F-20 Tigershark would be a commerical jet fighter, while the P-80 Shooting Star would not. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The old F-5/F-20 was a commercial fighter, as it was not restricted by its home government. However, I would use the term we use here in Canada: Private-Public Partnership or "3-P." SpaceX owns the launcher, the spacecraft and most of the technology, where as the Space Shuttle was not owned by Boeing for instance, as its former Rockwell subsidiary built it under a contract specifically for NASA. Falcon and Dragon were already on the drawing boards, NASA gave seed money to speed up their development. Since NASA is paying SpaceX for each launch, like it does to Boeing and Lockheed for satellite launches, then it is commercial. Satellite launches are commercial, and now supplying the ISS is commercial. Eventually sending astronauts to the ISS will be commercialized, as NASA is only a paying customer, similar to the way they contract for launchers for its satellites.--Abebenjoe (talk) 05:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abebenjoe, I see and appreciate your point. I wonder though: I think Rockwell (now Boeing), could have built and commercially sold shuttle flights (with a partnership with Martin and Thiokol perhaps) back in the day if someone was insane enough to pay for it. I don't think there was anything about the cost plus contract that (short of national security) that would have prevented this. HyperCapitalist (talk) 05:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the key is, who owns it? In this case SpaceX, not NASA. The proper comparison is the commercial satellite launch service industry. SpaceX, with this cargo flight, is in the same league as the satellite launch providers, not the builders of the Space Shuttle.--Abebenjoe (talk) 06:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SpaceX owns the Dragon capsule and design. More responsibilities were given to the provider/contractor. The Dragon spacecraft was developed with fixed-priced milestones and some private funding as opposed to the traditional cost-plus contract. For the operational part of the CRS program, NASA only pays a fixed price for cargo and not for any of the recurring costs needed to maintain the Falcon 9/Dragon system. SpaceX can perform Dragon missions for other customers (EX: Bigelow Aerospace or DragonLab) without assistance from NASA (the program was designed to allow this).
There have been other "commercial programs". One example is the Air Force's EELV program for the Delta IV and Atlas V. NASA also buys fixed price launches from those rockets for its science missions. Some have called the EELV program a failure for not lowering the cost to space but even if it is then that does not mean the commercial model is also a failure.--Craigboy (talk) 06:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
International collaboration does not automatically mean that this article automatically uses British English. This is an American mission, an American spacecraft, supported by an American space agency. The point about the Candarm is moot, as that is part of the ISS, not the capsule. Furthermore, if you say that there's no berthing without Canada, I'd say there's no spacecraft at all without the US.
The strong national ties provision of the manual of style should thus apply, meaning the article would use American spelling. Even if that was for some reason not true, the article has been established in American English, so the retention clause applies too.
There should be no British English whatsoever in any ISS article. Britain didn't pay for any ESA related human projects since the UK didn't want to pay for manned space programs. There are no British modules on the ISS, unlike Canada or USA. The only two English variants with any relationship to the ISS are American and Canadian. -- in the case of this article, it should use AmE (US English) 70.24.251.208 (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll abide by Hamiltonstone and Jamsta's reasoning and ignore the anonymous ip editors, since they could be sock puppets for all I, or anyone else knows. If you are serious about editing on Wikipedia, get a username.--Abebenjoe (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that COTS Demo Flight 3 be merged into COTS Demo Flight 2. I think that the content in the Flight 3 article can easily be explained in the context of the Dragon C2+, which in fact, it already is. The COTS 2 article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of COTS 3 will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Abebenjoe (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True. Do note however, that the template has been nominated for deletion as a fork of the cargo spacecraft. If this one does get modified, I'd ask that you also add support for related missions. Wingtipvortex (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per W. D. Graham's merge, this article now contains both the COTS flights 2 and 3 information. A lot of research went into the name for the CRS SpX-1 article, which is the next mission SpaceX will fly. Our discussion for the naming can be found here. In short, we found that 'Dragon C#' are not the actual mission designations that NASA uses, but rather, that appears to be the name of the Dragon capsule itself. As can be seen in this document, this mission was actually called SpX-D. Given that this was the second SpaceX demo, Cygnus demos have a number, and to create consistency with all the CRS flights, I propose moving this article. We have some options:
A. CRS SpX-D
B. CRS SpX-D2
C. CRS SpX-D2+
I suggest option "C," as it was the second SpaceX demo flight of the CRS program and since it was a combination of 2 and 3, the + is very appropriate. Keep in mind that COTS missions are the demo flights of the CRS program, so by saying it is a demo CRS flight, we imply COTS. We can keep the Dragon C2+ in the article as the name of the vehicle that flew the mission. WingtipvorteX(talk)∅18:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The SpX-X designations are actually obscure ISS programme reference designations and not mission names, and I doubt if they will mean much to anybody. Most other articles are named after the spacecraft not the mission anyway, so I don't think there is any harm in using this title, which also appears to be the more common name. --W.D.Graham19:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NASA really dropped the ball with this mission name because I've heard about eight variations of names for it. Any way, Graham the reason why Wingtipvortex and I were against naming Dragon missions after their spacecraft is because they eventually planned to become reusable. So instead we chose a "STS-X"-like style, because Dragon spacecraft-specific pages would become very long if we had to describe all the missions each spacecraft flew (which according to SpaceX may be up to ten flights). For this mission I personnelly think we should go with CRS SpX-D2+ or CRS SpX-Demo 2+. We might need to contact NASA PAO and see what the official name ended up being.--Craigboy (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that the names are just for the spacecraft, though, and in any case if they do start re-flying them and the designations are reused, we can sort it out then. All three proposed titles return zero Google results, so I think we should retain for now a name which is not obscure, and will have meaning to casual readers and not just people with a more detailed understanding of the mission. If "Dragon C2+" flies again, then we can split the flight details out leaving an article on the spacecraft itself. --W.D.Graham07:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we put off this issue now then its going to be a nightmare to have to go back and change all the mission names and formatting. I actually received some results for SpX-D and SpX-D2, "Dragon C2+" received no results from any NASA page. Even if the mission was called "Dragon C2+", we still wouldn't know what the C in "Dragon C2+" stands for, it could stand for COTS which means the naming system may not carry over to the CRS missions. There seems to be no consistent name used for this mission. The names that have been stated by NASA and SpaceX for this mission include (all sources are from after the mission was combined): NASA COTS – Demo 2 (as seen on SpaceX flight manifest), SpaceX Demonstration/SpaceX-D/SpX-D, COTS 2 (as seen on the press kit), SpaceX - COTS Demo 2 (as seen on mission patch), SpaceX - COTS Demo 2/3, SpaceX COTS C2+, Demo C2+ and then there's a few other variations. What's stranger is that the naming system for the COTS demo missions on NASA's last few flight manifests don't match up between the SpaceX and the Orbital flights. In them they call the second SpaceX demo "SpX-D" but they call the Orbital demo "Orb-D1", Orbital Sciences only has a single demo, so why is there a one there?--Craigboy (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there is no consistently used name. In addition to the above, SATCAT and NSSDC list it as "Dragon C2/C3". I think we should wait until at least the first CRS mission flies, as that should give us a better idea of how these missions are being named. --W.D.Graham13:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the thing: we don't really know for sure what 'Dragon C#' stands for. We're pretty sure it is the spacecraft name, but not 100%; in any case, we are pretty sure it is not the mission name. We definitely don't know what the 'C' stands for. I understand the concern for using a common name, but we have plenty of examples of other space missions where the mission name is used, regardless of the fact it is not 'common' (STS-#, Soyuz TM*-##*). Graham, I know you've expressed dislike of overly descriptive mission names before (COTS Demo Flight #); I think what we are proposing is not the case. From what I can tell, most articles are named for the mission and not for the vehicle name (Apollo, Mercury, Gemini, Vostok, Voskhod, Soyuz, STS, Skylab - in each of these cases, it is the program name followed by the number of the mission in that program). Granted many of those were manned, but I think it still applies. If we are to follow all these other WP articles' naming for spaceflight articles, we should stick to mission names, and as far as we can tell with such limited information, it should be CRS (program name) SpX(company carrying out flight) -#(flight number flown by that company). WingtipvorteX(talk)∅17:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen any evidence that they aren't mission names. All I'm asking is that we don't rush into something and later regret it; it might be "a nightmare to have to go back and change all the mission names and formatting" if we don't standardise, but it will be worse if we standardise incorrectly. Let's wait, and see what they start calling the CRS missions. --W.D.Graham16:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you it will be a nightmare changing all the names, either now or later. I agree we should carefully decide this and don't suggest we rush into it. Honestly though, I don't think the first CRS flight will shed any light on what we should name this mission. WingtipvorteX(talk)∅04:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree we shouldn't rush. Maybe you're right about the CRS mission shedding light on this mission's name. Although if Dragon C4 is truly the next mission's name then it will cause some issues once these vehicles are eventually reflown that we might just have to accept. Anyway if this mission doesn't turn out to be called Dragon 2+ or Dragon 2/3, then how about we go with "SpaceX COTS Demo 2" (as seen on Mission patch), its somewhat common and we don't have to worry about the name conflicting with the Orbital Demo.--Craigboy (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are right Craigboy, about the patch. That is probably the best reference for its name. Not that I like it or that it is what NASA calls the mission, but it is what SpaceX calls it. WingtipvorteX(talk)∅02:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is true as well. The consensus seems to be to wait for the September flight or information about it. Lets do that unless another editor has suggestions. WingtipvorteX(talk)∅22:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, support the consensus to wait until the CRS missions start flying, then bring it back up to consider renaming the early NASA-contracted test flights. N2e (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 3 external links on Dragon C2+. 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:
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.
I'm a bit puzzled by the reference to the capsule from the COTS Demo Flight 2 mission having been put on permanent display in Hawthorne. This seems to be an error.
My understanding was that it's C101 in Hawthorne, and C102 is actually at Kennedy SC following the nationwide tour.
.jpg){kind=small}
