Dragon C106
spacecraft manufactured by SpaceX
SpaceX Dragon C106 is a Dragon space capsule built by SpaceX. It is the first reused SpaceX Dragon capsule to be reflown into space, having its second launch in 2017. C106 was first used on CRS-4, and then used again for the CRS-11 and CRS-19 missions. It was the second capsule after C108 to be used a third time, marking a milestone in SpaceX's drive to reduce space launch costs through reusing hardware.
History
C106 was built as the sixth production Dragon capsule. This new Dragon was launched in September 2014 for the CRS-4 mission to the International Space Station (ISS). It splashed down in October 2014, and was successfully retrieved. To prepare for its second flight, it had its heatshield replaced while the hull, avionics, and Draco thrusters were refurbished. The refurbished Dragon was relaunched in June 2017 for the CRS-11 mission to the ISS. It splashed down and was successfully recovered in July 2017. After undergoing another refurbishment, C106 was launched again for the CRS-19 mission.
Flights
See also
Falcon 9 booster B1029, the second SpaceX Falcon 9 booster to be reused
Falcon 9 booster B1021, the first SpaceX Falcon 9 booster to be reused
Falcon 9 booster B1019, the first SpaceX Falcon 9 booster to be successfully landed
Gemini spacecraft No.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Dragon C106” as spacecraft manufactured by SpaceX. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as spacecraft manufactured by SpaceX. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 12, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q30105506. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2017 and 2014.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Dragon C106”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Dragon C106 primary sources, Dragon C106 archive and Dragon research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Dragon C106”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Dragon C106” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.