This is an archive of past discussions about SpaceX CRS-1. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I've created this given that this will be SpaceX's next mission and information about it will start to appear now that COTS Demo 2 is complete. I know there is a lot more info than what I've put in, it will be added as I find sources for it. The help of more experienced editors will be appreciated. Wingtipvortex (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Proposed move to SpaceX CRS-1 or Dragon CRS-1
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Move to CRS SpX-1.
"Dragon C3" is incorrect, because this isn't a COTS demonstration flight. So you may ask than what should we call it? Well NASA calls the mission SpX-1 but that title would be confusing because SpaceX has flown other missions. Sometimes NASA refers to the mission as CRS-1 and subsequent SpaceX missions as CRS-2, CRS-3, CRS-4...but that title would also be confusing because Orbital Sciences also has CRS missions that are called CRS-1, CRS-2, CRS-3.... So I propose we move this page to SpaceX CRS-1 or Dragon CRS-1.--Craigboy (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, if we call it Dragon CRS-1 (Like I originally called it and moved it to Dragon C3 due to this discussion http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:COTS_Demo_Flight_3#Merger_proposal), then that would mean if SpaceX ever uses a different vehicle, we start counting again. If we use SpaceX CRS-1 and they stat using a different vehicle (or Dragon v2 for that matter), we continue with the numbering. Where it is going to get really confusing is when Dragon starts flying non-NASA missions. I don't disagree with you, the name doesn't matter to me. I think the biggest question is what does the 'C' stand for? is is for COTS? CRS? or Cargo? I assumed it was cargo, therefore my original move. The COTS flights weren't named 'Dragon COTS Demo Flight #,' so if we follow that standartd, these flights should be just 'CRS-#.' If it is cargo, then I think the current name is the correct one. If a non-NASA flight comes up, then it would be Dragon C# (assuming cargo flight) in the same numbering; the name of the mission (i.e. CRS, COTS, etc...) can be listed in the intro. If it is not Cargo, then yes, a move would be appropriate. Whatever the case, what we decide now will set how all the future Dragon flights are named, so we must choose carefully. I'm very open about this, lets just make sure we make a good decision. Wingtipvortex (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Upon further research it seems like others are also calling this spacecraft Dragon C4, which also makes me very confused about what the C actually stands for. The "COTS Demo Flight 2" page will probably be renamed to "SpaceX COTS Demo Flight 2" once the Orbital Sciences' demo gets closer. We need to decide if this article is about the Dragon spacecraft being used on the mission or if it's about the SpaceX CRS-1 mission itself, although I prefer the later. For DragonLab missions, the articles could be called DragonLab 1, 2, 3.... And for the Bigelow missions they probably wouldn't use the same acronym, so they might call it Bigelow Cargo Resupply-1 or something. When Dragon capsules start to be reused and they began to be given names then I think we should follow the Space Shuttle page model (EX: Explorer (Dragon spacecraft)).--Craigboy (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
There is also the possibility that COTS Demo missions are sequential, and Cygnus will fly COTS Demo Flight 3... Some further thoughts: It seems pretty conclusive that Dragon C# are the names of the spacecraft, whatever the C stands for. Eventually Dragons will be reusable and named, with the same capsule being used for several missions. So whatever they are called (assuming there is a 'fleet' of Dragons, or not), we'd have several articles with the same name if we name them after the spacecraft. So this article should be CRS-1, which is the mission name. My guess is that it will simply be CRS-1, and if a Cygnus flight takes place next('pretend' situation), it'd be CRS-2. If that is the case, then we don't need to worry about SpaceX, Dragon, Cygnus or Orbital prior to the mission identifier. Then, in the article, we indicate which company and spacecraft fly the mission. Much like Shuttle flights, which are STS-#, and then in the article it mentions which orbiter. In this case, it would be CRS-1, flown for NASA by SpaceX's Dragon C3. I'm not surprised some are calling this C4. I really doubt the boilerplate Dragon that flew on Falcon 9 Flight 1 should count as C1, as it was not an operational spacecraft. Furthermore, the COTS Demo 1 patch/logo says C1. Your suggestion for DragonLab agrees with this: DragonLab # flown with Dragon C#. Then whatever Bigelow decides to name their missions, flown by Dragon C#. When DragonRider starts doing runs, CCDev-#(or whatever they end up being called) for NASA, taking into account that SierraNevada will fly missions too, and those may use the same sequence of mission numbers. My suggestion is to forget the prefeix (SpaceX, Dragon, etc..) and just name this CRS-1. If it turns out that Cygnus uses its own numbering of CRS flights, then we can rename to SpaceX or Dragon. I'm still not decided one way or another if it should be the company name or the vehicle name that precedes the mission name if it came to that. Whatever the case, we need consistency in both all COTS/CRS flights (Dragon, Cygnus), and all SpaceX flights. Adding complexity to the situation, Falcon 9 will fly its own satellite delivery missions, which will make 'Falcon 9 Flight #' articles necessary when no dragon is atop. Speaking of which, we should set redirects for the Falcon 9 flights with Dragons to the mission page. What do you think? Drop prefixes and just go with CRS-1? Wingtipvortex (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I misspoke when I said "Dragon C4", I meant to say "Dragon C3". The demo flights don't appear be entirely sequential, I believe this because I've never heard of Orbitals' "COTS Demo Flight 4". On ISS Flight Plans, NASA refers to the CRS missions as either "SpX-#" or "Orb-#" (source). "CRS-#" only seems to be used when when its clear which vehicle they are talking about it (source) and even then the SpX and OSC mission numbers remain independent from one another. So with that in mind, I listed some possible names below.--Craigboy (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
A.SpaceX CRS-1 (SpX CRS-1) and Orbital CRS-1 (Orb CRS-1) - Closest to the actual designation but the name "Orbital CRS-1" may be confusing to readers.
B.SpaceX CRS-1 (SpX CRS-1) and Orbital Sciences Corporation CRS-1 (OSC CRS-1) - Pretty close to actual designation but "Orbital Sciences Corporation CRS-1" may be too long of a title.
C.Dragon CRS-1 and Cygnus CRS-1 - Short and not confusing but not that similar to the actual designations. Also Dragon V2 may throw off the naming system. Names might not be able to be acronymed further unlike the previous two suggestions.
Of those three options, I'd agree with you and think A is the most appropriate. I think it OK to shorten to Orbital, as we don't ever really write Space Exploration Technologies for SpaceX. I however, want to suggest two more options:
D.CRS SpX-# and CRS Orb-# - These would have the actual mission designation, preceded by CRS, which is the program under which each mission is flown.
E.CRS SpaceX-# and CRS Orbital-# - Not the actual mission designations, but closest while retaining some clarity (nobody would have to guess what SpX or Orb mean).
D makes most sense to me, given that it is what NASA calls them. Going off your first document, it means we would have to change the Demo names to CRS SpX-D# and CRS Orb-D#. This would work out quite nicely I think, as the difference between COTS and CRS can confuse readers. COTS are just the demo flights for CRS. What do you think? I'm with D, we'd have the actual mission designation, and we can always clarify in the intro. Wingtipvortex (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I like D. You can move this page to "CRS SpX-1" when you want. For now I think we should still put off renaming the COTS Demonstration Flight pages.--Craigboy (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Good news! Apparently NASA calls the missions CRS SpX-1 and CRS Orb-1. See slide 25.
A toast to our genius! Lets keep that guy handy in case there are ever any disputes about the article names. It still remains to possibly rename the COTS flights. Those are discussions to have in those article's talk pages. No hurry though, I think. WingtipvorteX(talk)∅15:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes thank goodness. It is really disheartening how little information is available about these flights and how disorganized their site is. Every meaningless detail is there for all their missions, if you know where to look, but these commercial missions, which are supposedly theirs as well, are a big blank. I'm not expecting SpaceX to be as open as NASA, they are a private company, but thankfully they share more information than, say, Blue Origin, of which we know basically zero. Sorry, </rant> now. Back to work. :) WingtipvorteX(talk)∅03:57, 22 June 2012 (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.
Main Image
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was leave current image
Craigboy: I just wanted to get your opinion on the image in the infobox right now. I don't dislike it, but given that we now have public domain pics of a Dragon berthed/being berthed to ISS, wouldn't we prefer to have one of those until we have the mission logo? I've uploaded a few already, and can upload a few more. Wingtipvortex (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I see your point. I personally don't like the rendering much, as some of the details are a bit off the actual Dragon/Canadarm2/ISS, and it is a bit overused(just about every SpaceX and COTS related articles seem to have it. Enough to where I'd rather use a picture from a previous mission until we have imagery (patch/logo, hardware even if it is just sitting in a hangar) from this mission. Truthfully, it doesn't matter much, and I'm OK with leaving it as is until we can add more to the article. Wingtipvortex (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Well hopefully one of these days NASA will toss together a CRS program logo and we'll be able to use that for missions that don't yet have patches.--Craigboy (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2012 (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.
Edits by Andropolis0023
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Please add proper references to those launch dates. We need to have where you got the information from. I won't revert your edits just yet, but I haven't found anything updating the launch date. That is something you need to do quickly(think 12 hours or so), we can't be giving mistaken information and citing a reference that does not contain supporting information. WingtipvorteX(talk)∅18:11, 13 June 2012 (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.
General reminder
It is not surprising that the scheduled launch date changes as we get closer. It is OK to change it, but when we do so, we need to either add a reference for that new date or make sure the references already there support that change. We've now had a few instances of editors (IPs and non-Wikipiedia users) changing the date(s) and leaving the old refs without adding new ones while the old ones did not indicate a change. Remember that all content must be verifiable and the burden of evidence resides with the one making changes. If you find the date to have changed and either don't know how to add a ref or for some reason can't provide one, post in the talk page and we'll work it out. But so long as unreferenced dates keep making their way into their article, they will be removed.--WingtipvorteX(talk)∅18:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Rating this article on the project's importance scale
Both the previous flights are rated High-class on the Spaceflight importance scale. I'm not sure if this flight qualifies as a "High-profile single spaceflights, highly-used "series spacecraft" (high) since
1) we don't know if it will be high profile, and
2) it is not a single spaceflight, it will be the first of a series of flights.
Mid importance is "Most non-routine spaceflights, most manned spaceflights." This is neither a manned flight, and it will be the first of a series of routine flights.
Low importance is "Routine spaceflights, many non-unique spacecraft." This seems to be the best fit.
Right now CRS missions are not routine, so this flight may qualify for mid importance. If it does become high-profile then it is a no brainier, but I'm not sure we can predict that.
Any thoughts? --WingtipvorteX(talk)∅19:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I rated this mission as low importance, as this is a relatively routine mission, and definitely not as important as the Dragon C2+ mission.--Abebenjoe (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Just added the tag. Seems like the last updates the sources were put in parenthetical referencing, while we had been using a reference section at the end of the article. I will try to get to it, but don't have a timeline. Tagged just in case someone can fix it. --WingtipvorteXPTT∅02:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Given that we now have pictures of the actual hardware that will be used for this mission, would anyone object to removing the rendering in the infobox, placing it in the gallery, and then placing the WDR image in the infobox? --WingtipvorteXPTT∅03:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
"The Dragon will be filled with about 1,000 pounds of supplies. This includes critical materials to support the 166 investigations planned for the station's Expedition 33 crew, including 63 new investigations. The Dragon will return about 734 pounds of scientific materials, including results from human research, biotechnology, materials and educational experiments, as well as about 504 pounds of space station hardware.
Materials being launched on Dragon will support experiments in plant cell biology, human biotechnology and various materials technology demonstrations, among others. One experiment, called Micro 6, will examine the effects of microgravity on the opportunistic yeast Candida albicans, which is present on all humans. Another experiment, called Resist Tubule, will evaluate how microgravity affects the growth of cell walls in a plant called Arabidopsis. About 50 percent of the energy expended by terrestrial-bound plants is dedicated to structural support to overcome gravity. Understanding how the genes that control this energy expenditure operate in microgravity could have implications for future genetically modified plants and food supply. Both Micro 6 and Resist Tubule will return with the Dragon at the end of its mission.
Expedition 33 Commander Sunita Williams of NASA and Aki Hoshide of the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency will use a robot arm to grapple the Dragon following its rendezvous with the station on Wednesday, Oct. 10. They will attach the Dragon to the Earth-facing port of the station's Harmony module for a few weeks while crew members unload cargo and load experiment samples for return to Earth."
NASASpaceflight.com's L2 Premium section is also starting to fill up with interesting information, but much of that info is pay-wall protected, so it is harder to use with this article. If I see something startling wrong in the article, and there are no other sources but the pay-wall ones, than I likely use that info in that context only.--Abebenjoe (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
You can also discuss it here (on talk page) if you see any contradictions between what's in the article and what's on L2.--Craigboy (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Why is even the second flight to the ISS only loaded to 15% (550kg)? Is the Falcon9 still at and thrust level incompatible with the 3310kg payload?--Stone (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Great question. I was flabbergasted when I read that low published mass payload number as well. If anyone has a source that explains it, the info ought to definitely be used to improve the CRS SpX-1 article, and perhaps the main Dragon (spacecraft) article as well. It is difficult to believe NASA isn't taking up all the cargo capacity that is a) needed in the station, b) approved for carriage on Dragon (e.g., I don't think Dragon was built to do the large amount of hypergolic propellant that is carried on-board the Russian Prospect resupply spacecraft; could be other special cargo types as well), and c) would fit in the Dragon. Is it perhaps that the pressurized cargo volume maxima is being reached and it just happens that such low-density cargo does not get close to the mass maxima for the space transport trip? Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I've heard some speculation but nothing solid. But I'm pretty confident the upload mass will increase on the later flights.--Craigboy (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps this is worth mentioning in the article? I don't suggest we speculate why, but simply state the published max capacity as opposed to what is going up this time. --WingtipvorteXPTT∅00:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
In the pre-launch news conference on 6 Oct, SpaceX prez Gwynne Shotwell pretty much answered this question head on (it was the first question of the Q&A portion of the news conference). The cargo upmass on this flight is relatively low-density. A few minutes earlier, in her prepared remarks, she indicated that the interior pressurized cargo volume of the Dragon would be more full than was seen on the COTS 2/3 mission, appearing to fill up each of the major areas where cargo can be stowed, including the central region which was unused on the last flight. The NASA guy also seemed to indicate that their might have been some payload processing snafus on the NASA side, but that was less explicit. I suspect we'll see this covered in the space press in the next day or two and will be able to locate a secondary source for this info. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
SpaceX CRS-1/Dragon Pre-Launch Briefing has three nice facts stated:1) the 165kg of the secondary satelite 2) the low density of the chargo for this flight 3) 60 metric tonns for the 12 flights up and down . Making 5318 kg for each following missions going to 59% lading for the 6000kg up and 3000kg down. The low density is strange, but OK. The 60t estimate for 12 flights sounds challenging but we will see what CRS-is lifting.--Stone (talk) 09:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Those numbers you analyze are useful, Stone. I wonder if a part of our confusion, in trying to get all this represented correctly in a Wikipedia article, is that there doesn't seem to be a clear source on how much of the upmass they are carrying in the internal pressurized space, versus the external (exposed to space) cargo trunk? Is the 20 MT contracted amount for the 12 flights all internal pressurized cargo on the upmass side of the equation? (Obviously, all the downmass will be in the pressurized space.) Does SpaceX get any mass credit on their contract for the larger/bulkier-but-unpressurized cargo they carry to ISS in the trunk? (cargo that is then removed by the CanadaArm, presumably, and affixed to one of the external platforms on the ISS.) N2e (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
NASA is now calling this mission CRS-1 or SpaceX CRS-1 see here. But there is also SpaceX-1 CRS and a few other combinations. I don't think we should move anything yet. I'm simply bringing this up as a note that we will have to deal with it later. --WingtipvorteXPTT∅20:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Support an article move. I would have liked to see "SpaceX" spelled out, rather than "SpX", even before the patch came out, as Wikipedia naming conventions go for full names in article titles. I think the patch makes it sufficiently official to do the move now. N2e (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Done -- the move was completed, by Craigboy, on 6 Oct 2012.
Image gallery
Here is the Kennedy Media Gallery, which has some good pictures of for the mission. There are some great ones of the Dragon/F9 mating that would likely have a good place in the article. --WingtipvorteXPTT∅20:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
One of them has since been added, I've also uploaded many more of the higher quality/unique ones onto wikicommons.--Craigboy (talk) 03:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Press Kit now available
As of today there is a new mission patch. It is displayed on the SpaceX Press Kit off of their website. I think its addition would be nice. I don't know how to do it myself. 69.161.16.61 (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC) Joe 10/04/2012
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.161.16.61 (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
It also contains a mission timeline and the Cargo Manifest. Both important to the article. And the patch and kit call the mission SpaceX CRS-1. --WingtipvorteXPTT∅00:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Pre-Launch Briefing on Saturday, October 6th at 6:00 PM EDT (20:00 UTC)
As I was watching the NASA ISS update yesterday, they mentioned the CRS-1 launch has an instantaneous launch window. For the previous dragon flight we had guessed this was because of all the fuel that would be needed to maneuver around the station for tests. This time they are not doing that, so is there an explanation why the window is instantaneous? I'm not only curious, but this might be worthy of being included in the article. --WingtipvorteXPTT∅15:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
It's instantaneous because Dragon has to launch when the ISS is in certain place in orbit. SpX-1 and all future missions will have daily launch opportunities as opposed to the every three days launch opportunities we had for COTS 2.--Craigboy (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Right, I understand the relative position in orbit. I recall the shuttle had a much wider launch window by comparison (they could launch early and get ahead of the station, or launch late and catch up to it). Obviously there isn't as much room here, but is this something that will change with F9v1.1? Or is it strictly dependent on Dragon? As far as daily launch opportunities, do you have a link that explains it? Not that I don't believe you (plus, it is published that the second attempt is the next day!), I'm just trying to satisfy my inner space geek and learn how it works, as I had thought the correct alignment of the ISS ground-track and the Cape had to be fairly close for Dragon (Soyuz has the capability). --WingtipvorteXPTT∅18:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Done SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell explained this in the pre-launch press conference. The launch window is not, technically, an instantaneous launch window this time around, as it was on COTS-2+. However, the launch window is sufficiently short (I don't believe she specified the number, but 7 to 10 minutes would be about the expected norm for Falcon 9) that -- should any problem develop that necessitated a halt in the countdown -- that the minimum normal reset time to assure everything is in order to restart the countdown would be longer than the window. Thus, there is effectively an instantaneous launch window for this launch. If the first window had been halted for ANY reason, they would have moved the launch back at least one day to the second scheduled launch window. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, this makes a lot of sense. Either SpaceX is reading this talk page (as they answer all our questions), or we are really, really average minds and come come up with hard questions :P --WingtipvorteXPTT∅14:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
First-stage engine anomaly
There was an engine anomaly in one of the nine first stage engines that resulted in automatic shutdown of that engine, and a resultant longer burn of the remaining eight engines, in order to place the rocket at the proper velocity and position to prepare for second-stage ignition. I have added a stub of this information to the article, with a citation. Obviously, much more information will appear in the mainstream space press in the next few days, and we should definitely plan to update that entire section in the details are published. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Maybe this should go in the flight day 1 section of the article? What is interesting to me is that SpaceX didn't mention this in their email, they must not be too happy about it. Did the anomaly happen before the normal 2 engine cut off? Or if afterward, did an engine restart? It seems odd that they would have had 8 engines on, as it is 9 at launch, and 7 a few minutes afterward. --WingtipvorteXPTT∅14:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
As I am reading more and more about this, I can't help but feel something is odd about this 'anomaly.' Some say it was an explosion, SpaceX disagrees. The video does show parts of the rocket coming off. SpaceX claims this was part of a system to relieve pressure in the engine should something bad happen. This sounds like a whole load of BS to me: I've never heard of such system. Has anyone? As far as I know, SpaceX has never advertized this. It seems to me this would add complexity to a rocket designed to be simple. I know I'm crystal balling and this is all speculation on my part. Anyone else think something is out of place in the information being published? --WingtipvorteXPTT∅03:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think they claim there was a system to relieve pressure, but that the engine turning happened to create enough pressure to break the fairing that covers the corner of Engine 1, I think they are trying to distinguish it from a full on explosion TMV943 (talk) 04:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. While there is not exactly a system designed to relieve pressure, there are Kevlar layers in some of the material between strategic parts of the engines, and any good designer would make such a ballistic shielding design have a weaker area that is, under high pressure, more likely to stand up on the sides toward the other engines and be weaker on the sides to the outside of the rocket. I work with a couple of propulsion engineers and they have talked about what is usually done on these sorts of multi-engine designs. It won't contain a catastrophic engine explosion, but for something like this, where the real-time sensors sensed the pressure drop in the engine, and then rapidly cut off fuel flow to the engine, it is quite plausible that the pressure would be substantially more relieved on the outside (thus taking apart the rather thin fairing around the no. 1 engine (but also covers the nos. 3, 7 and 9 "corner" engines) rather than, necessarily, cause a problem with an adjacent engine. This is exactly the sort of good design that one would expect to see in a launch system explicitly designed for "engine out" capability.
While we'll all have to wait for the full details on this (and you can be sure that the NASA contract with SpaceX will require NASA access to the detailed sensor data from the flight so that NASA can do independent analysis), the data released by SpaceX to date is a quite plausible explanation for a rocket engine problem. And the flight's continuation and successful orbital trajectory of the primary payload speaks a great deal for a fault-tolerant design that SpaceX employed here. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, that seems more logical than what I was thiking. Here is what I got from SpaceX, also on their website:
Approximately one minute and 19 seconds into last night's launch, the Falcon 9 rocket detected an anomaly on one first stage engine. Initial data suggests that one of the rocket's nine Merlin engines, Engine 1, lost pressure suddenly and an engine shutdown command was issued. We know the engine did not explode, because we continued to receive data from it. Panels designed to relieve pressure within the engine bay were ejected to protect the stage and other engines. Our review of flight data indicates that neither the rocket stage nor any of the other eight engines were negatively affected by this event.
— SpaceX, SPACEX CRS-1 MISSION UPDATE, October 8, 2012
They way they said it, "Panels designed to relieve pressure within the engine bay were ejected" sounded to me as if they (or the rocket) chose to eject them. As you said, they have to tell NASA exactly what happened. Hopefully NASA has to make the information public. In any case, it wasn't a nominal launch as they both claimed. A successful launch where everything worked as it is supposed to, yes. Not a launch where there weren't any problems. --WingtipvorteXPTT∅14:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Not necessarily. A component can be designed to eject due to a failure severing designed weak points, such as in a fairing, rather than permit pressure or components to remain within the assembly and result in further damage. From the video, there appeared to be a flare from the engine, then what appeared to be a section of fairing being lit by the engine exhaust. The telemetry should help with a post-mortem analysis of the engine failure, such as turbo pump failure, high pressure line failure, etc and I'm willing to guess that SpaceX will post the determination of cause of the failure.Wzrd1 (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because the reason given for its proposed deletion is untrue - I fail to find "patent nonsense". --Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because it looks like a coherent article to me.
Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... I see no problem with this page. It is perfectly coherent and I fail to see why it is even under consideration. Basically, an argument in defense of the article would be improper because there is no valid argument for its deletion. Why was this notice posted? Either the article has been heavily (and I mean mean HEAVILY) edited since the notice was first posted or its posting was an act of trolling) --ValekHalfHeart (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
What Wingtip said. When a page is nominated for CSD or PROD deletion, and is clearly inappropriate, you may simply reverse the nomination. I've just done so; the evidence indicates that the user who nominated this page is simply vandalizing. NTox · talk23:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Imperial units
For a mission of international interest to the international space station, one would assume that we would use metric measurements by default, not Imperial units. (And for the record, I live in the U.S.) Kaldari (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
You are correct, in a sense. Not because it is an international project, but because it is a science-related article. See WP:UNIT, should be SI first, then converted to US. I guess the argument could be made that this isn't a science-related article, but that would be a weak argument IMO. --WingtipvorteXPTT∅17:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Fixed. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Done -- the move was completed, by Craigboy, on 6 Oct 2012.