Talk:SpaceX reusable launch system development program/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Talk:SpaceX reusable launch system development program) (bot |
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Talk:SpaceX reusable launch system development program) (bot |
||
| (17 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 33:
::{{u|N2e}}, I'm always willing to help with images, where possible. The issue is that SpaceX is a private company and their Grasshopper testing has been done in-house, without NASA photogs present :D I've scoured available resources for free images of Grasshopper, and what's on Commons is what's available. F9-R is even more problematic since it is such a new program. To be honest, it is highly unlikely that any free images of the new landing system will be available until it actually comes into use, and it is entirely possible images won't be available even then. This is just a note about the realities of the situation, and I'll continue checking to see if resources come available. I'll also try reaching out to SpaceX public affairs to see if they would be willing to release ''something'' under a free license (they've done so in the past, but only for early F1 material, iirc). <span style="white-space:nowrap; text-shadow:gray 5px 3px 1px;">— [[User:Huntster|Huntster]] <small>([[User talk:Huntster|t]] [[Special:Emailuser/Huntster|@]] [[Special:Contributions/Huntster|c]])</small></span> 06:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Just a suggestion for images, there might be some scope to put a Falcon 9 image in either the background and/or testing sections. --'''''[[User:WDGraham|<
:{{done}} — I took your suggestion and added an in-flight photo of the [[Falcon 9 Flight 6]] launch vehicle, just minutes before it did the first-ever retro-deceleration and controlled-descent flight test. So while we don't have any Wiki-license friendly pics of the test we can use, we can show the same rocket on the same day shortly before that flight test was run.
Line 58:
::::However, the Mach numbers are still listed first, which is contrary to what the B-class reviewer ([[User:WDGraham]]) suggested: that the SI units (km/h) go first, ahead of the Mach no. and mph numbers. I have asked for some help on changing the order. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 23:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
:::::If we drop the mph unit entirely, then the desired result is possible from the conversion templates: {{convert/sandboxlua|6|Mach|105000|km/s|1|disp=flip|sp=us}}. Keeping the mph output does not seem to work with this approach, unless the template itself is edited to put the metric unit before the customary unit in the default output. (At least, I can't figure out how to get the template to spit out two non-default conversions from one input!) The conversion template is in the middle of a massive re-write, and {{tl|convert/q}} is one of the gateways to the new version. (However, on further research {{tl|convert/sandboxlua}} might be more appropriate.) [[Special:Contributions/130.216.218.47|130.216.218.47]] ([[User talk:130.216.218.47|talk]]) 05:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
::::::I'd suggest retaining mph since it is probably of use to American readers - my suggestion would be x.x km/s (Mach y, zzzzzz mph). If the template doesn't currently support it, using static text could be an option. --'''''[[User:WDGraham|<
:::::::Thanks for the explicit guidance, WDGraham. I've done a little experimenting with {{tl|convert/q}} in my sandbox, and will try to get back to this article soon to fix it in the way you suggest: probably with a combination of {{tl|convert/q}} template conversion plus a "static text" option to get the mph handled too, since the template doesn't seem able to handle both km/s and mph along with the Mach no. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 18:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
::::::::I've gone ahead and changed these Mach numbers to plain text. While I love the Convert template, it cannot handle all situations, and it's better to be completely plain text rather than a mix of template and plain text. <span style="white-space:nowrap; text-shadow:gray 5px 3px 1px;">— [[User:Huntster|Huntster]] <small>([[User talk:Huntster|t]] [[Special:Emailuser/Huntster|@]] [[Special:Contributions/Huntster|c]])</small></span> 20:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Line 64:
::::::::::Strongly disagree. I don't believe 1.8 km/s would be nearly as meaningful to readers as 6546 km/h. While "per second" is the official SI form, "per hour" is for use by BIPM. <span style="white-space:nowrap; text-shadow:gray 5px 3px 1px;">— [[User:Huntster|Huntster]] <small>([[User talk:Huntster|t]] [[Special:Emailuser/Huntster|@]] [[Special:Contributions/Huntster|c]])</small></span> 01:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::Two thoughts. 1) On the km/s vs. km/h, it appears that you (Huntster) and WDGraham have different views. I don't believe that needs to be resolved here as part of the B-Class review, so I'll stay agnostic on that, for now, and perhaps we'll discuss it further later on. 2) on the Mach conversions, I found one more use of the convert|Mach template in the article that was rendering badly; so I have replaced it with the identical manual conversion numbers you put in the lede. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 01:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
:::{{od|::::::::}} km/h first is better than Mach first, and I think that is sufficient for the B-class review. Moving forward, would it be possible to adopt a similar compromise to the one reached at [[International Space Station]], with km/s first but kph given as an alternative unit, or would that just result in there being too many different conversions? --'''''[[User:WDGraham|<
::*{{done}}—for purposes of this B-Class review, I believe that now both issues related to Mach nos.—the non-US spellings and the conversions for Mach nos., leading with SI units—are complete. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 01:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Line 77:
::* ('''under discussion''')—see Talk page section below working on a new article name.—02:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
::*{{Inconclusive}}—The "Article name" discussion, below, reached "no consensus." I don't believe the "little bit odd" article title should preclude the completion of the B-Class review, unless you want to go further and say that it is more than a "little bit odd" and is an "unacceptable" title for a B-Class article. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 01:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
--'''''[[User:WDGraham|<
:::*Although there is no consensus on where to move the page to, I'd say there is a strong consensus that ''it should be moved''. I'm going to provisionally mark this a B-class, on the condition that this issue is resolved by the end of the year. --'''''[[User:WDGraham|<
:::::Thanks for the review! And I agree with you on the move: all three who weighed in were in agreement that a move was necessary; they just didn't come together on one of the early suggestions. I'll try to get back here when I have more time to see if we can't get more editors involved for a second time around. A bit too busy to do it today.[[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 02:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
::::::Move has been completed, per the consensus developed below, so I believe that completes any concerns you had in your provisional pass at B-class review. Please let me know if you have any other concerns. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 16:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Line 110:
:::But the end result is still a rocket that is reusable. If you include ground systems in this mix, even current tech is (mostly) reusable. The rocket is what matters here, in my mind. <span style="white-space:nowrap; text-shadow:gray 5px 3px 1px;">— [[User:Huntster|Huntster]] <small>([[User talk:Huntster|t]] [[Special:Emailuser/Huntster|@]] [[Special:Contributions/Huntster|c]])</small></span> 16:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
:Of the four options suggested above my preferences would be #1 or #2. The third option is too wordy and in any case the end result of the programme will hopefully be a reusable rocket rather than just technology which might lead to one. I'm not sure about the scope on #4 either; this article will cover the development of the rocket but I would expect a separate article will be created when it actually starts flying. --'''''[[User:WDGraham|<
::Thinking about it a bit more, I much prefer #2, principally because it avoids the impression of the development of a single rocket. This development program is building a set of technologies that will be used as new piece parts of the booster of two existing rockets ([[Falcon 9]] and [[Falcon Heavy]]), and will be worked in in later years into one or more rocket second stages. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 04:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Line 153:
::Maybe this is what you were talking about Huntster, but mach is a relative term. Mach 1 at sea level is not the same as mach 1 at 10km above sea level. So how exactly do we convert those units into SI when we don't have at the very least altitudes to work with?
::On the other points N2e brought up, I'll agree with both suggestions. Rounding to two significant figures would be fine, and km/s is probably better, even though it's less likely to be understood by a casual non-technical reader. If they want they can click on a wikilink and see what it means. — [[User:Gopher65|Gopher65]]<sub><small>[[User_talk:Gopher65|<
:::This is exactly what I was referring to Gopher...we'd need a source which gives the altitudes of first stage sep to properly convert the Mach figures. The Mach 10 sep figures for existing F9 rockets shouldn't be difficult to find, but I don't know that the Mach 6 altitudes are going to be available. If we can't find these altitude figures, it will be entirely inappropriate to provide conversions, as they will simply be wrong. I still do feel catering to the casual reader is important, though; I think most will know that "km/s" is kilometers per second, but I'm not sure that it will be nearly as meaningful as kilometers per hour...simply clicking a link isn't going to increase innate understanding of the figures. <span style="white-space:nowrap; text-shadow:gray 5px 3px 1px;">— [[User:Huntster|Huntster]] <small>([[User talk:Huntster|t]] [[Special:Emailuser/Huntster|@]] [[Special:Contributions/Huntster|c]])</small></span> 01:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
::::Huntster, good point about the altitude. I'll offer two comments. 1) however much we need the altitude as the article is today, with four significant digits in the conversion, we need worry about it a ''bit'' less when we are going only for two-significant digits in the converted numbers. 2) an easy way out, which solves the significant digit issue AND the less-than-certain altitude problem, is to use either an "approximately x.y km/s" or perhaps could provide a range of speeds that would cover the estimated altitude range. Either way, I don't think we should go with leaving only a Mach no. in an encyclopedia article for a general readership. Cheers. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 01:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
:::As I understand it, you're proposing that we switch to only mach numbers, because you don't have the altitude at which those mach values are correct. If you don't know the altitude then what use are the mach numbers anyway? It's just an arbitrary figure. --'''''[[User:WDGraham|<
::::It's an interesting point. The mach numbers really are fairly meaningless here ''except'' that it gives readers an idea that there is a significant speed difference for first stage sep between F9 and F9R. <span style="white-space:nowrap; text-shadow:gray 5px 3px 1px;">— [[User:Huntster|Huntster]] <small>([[User talk:Huntster|t]] [[Special:Emailuser/Huntster|@]] [[Special:Contributions/Huntster|c]])</small></span> 12:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Line 328:
::I agree that the wording is poor and should be changed (it isn't almost impossible, it's "merely" difficult. Heh. Merely.). However, that bit about the "3% of the mass of the rocket" is quite true. In most 2 stage rockets, like the Falcon 9, it's more like a little less than 2%. Some particularly well designed, highly efficient, low safety margin, 3 stage rockets can hit 4%. It doesn't go much higher than that. Chemical fuel just isn't energetic enough for better numbers.
::The issue is that adding reuseability to a rocket is estimated to reduce payload to orbit by a bit more than 2 percentage points. For most 2 stage rockets that would mean the extra mass would be enough to stop them from obtaining orbit (less than 2% - more than 2% = nothing making it to orbit). Or, as Musk put it, they have a "negative payload to orbit". The 3% given in the article is just an averaging of the industry standard 2-4% figure. It should be replaced by "2 to 4 percent" IMO. SSTO vehicles face similar problems, by the way. The added weight reduces their payload to orbit to negative numbers. — [[User:Gopher65|Gopher65]]<sub><small>[[User_talk:Gopher65|<
:::Not all of it is true. It's true that payload fractions are only a few percentage points, but that can be overcome by using multiple stages. Whether that is economical is another question, but there is no doubt that it is physically possible. Whether (reusable) single stage to orbit is possible is not certain. Some believe it is, others are skeptical. Two stage to orbit is generally believed to be possible, and three stage to orbit should be no problem. [[User:Mmeijeri|Martijn Meijering]] ([[User talk:Mmeijeri|talk]]) 08:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Line 381:
:I had added that to flight 4 recently, only after re-reading the Aviation Week article and seeing the ''zero velocity at zero altitude'' locution mentioned. If you have checked that source carefully and believe the context was only speaking aspirationally, and not stating that it was achieved on the flight where the thermal imaging data was captured (which was how I had read it), then you should go ahead and edit the article to make it accurate to whatever is supported by the source. I'm certainly not trying to make it say any more than the source, and may have read it wrong when I made that edit. Cheers. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 18:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
== BRD on recent deletion ==
Editor [[User:Winged Brick|Winged Brick]] deleted a section, and left a rationale in the edit comment. I reverted in order to discuss the matter on the Talk page, per [[WP:BRD]]. My view: long-term stable section in a [[WP:GA|good article]] should be discussed on the Talk page, and consensus built, before such a large removal. Beyond that, I'll let Winged Brick articulate the rational for the deletion here, and other editors can weigh in on the merits. Cheers. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 20:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
:Ah, I figured it would be obvious. the section, "Popular Culture" implies that content is both popular and part of the culture. Two passing references to Buck Rogers do not qualify in any way for inclusion in pop culture. Even if they did, their inclusion in an article on a test program for a reusable launch system seem very difficult to connect with Buck Rogers. --[[User:Winged Brick|Winged Brick]] ([[User talk:Winged Brick|talk]]) 02:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::I must agree with WB on this...section is (in my view) nothing more than trivia. <span style="white-space:nowrap; text-shadow:gray 5px 3px 1px;">— [[User:Huntster|Huntster]] <small>([[User talk:Huntster|t]] [[Special:Emailuser/Huntster|@]] [[Special:Contributions/Huntster|c]])</small></span> 05:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
:::I'll put in my own thought on this now. I don't believe policy is such that this popular culture reference would be inappropriate given the two sources, or have to be removed. Having said that, my interest was mainly to get multiple-editor discussion and consensus on it, and I'll try to help that here. So let me address both aspects.
:::Wikipedia is written, and read, largely by younger people of a particular cultural and experiential background, and ''most'' of ''those'' people are little familiar with the multi-decade cultural norm in the early part of the 20th century that perceived these (mostly) future rockets to be of the type that, overwhelmingly, would land vertically. Moreover, ''Buck Rogers'', although a fictional character, was a widely-known cultural reference in the newspaper age over several decades of that period. I have recently asked several 70 to 90 year old American's "what does the name ''"Buck Rogers"'' mean? Who was he?". This is anecdotal, so not determinative, but they have "known" who he was, from the comic strips that were in newspapers for decades prior to the 1960s. There are thousands of "popular culture" type references in Wikipedia today that have meaning to other fairly narrow demographic groups, and some have much less support in sources than these we are discussing. So my take is that if Wikipedia is written to be the "encyclopedia of human knowledge", and have a relatively-long-term use, and not be mere news articles, we editors must keep in mind that we write for a potential readership that is much wider than the cultural ''milieu'' that we tend to inhabit.
:::Having said all that, I don't think it is [[Wikipedia:There is no deadline|critical ''right now'']] to have the broader cultural reference in this article. The two sources given back the statement, and refer to SpaceX and their reusable rocket projects, but they are each a bit oblique. If the material is removed for now, until better sources are located in the future, it won't harm the article (much, although it won't have the cultural reference for a group of our less-frequent readers). But I will support the consensus, whichever way it falls out. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 12:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
So, are we ready to delete the section again? Two for deletion; one abstain? I do understand that the term "Buck Rogers" means something in relation to pop culture in the early 20th century, but the application to this article is just silly. Two passing mentions in articles do not warrant inclusion here. In fact, inclusion here amounts to more popular culture notoriety (undeserved) than the two citations. I'm going to delete it tomorrow. --[[User:Winged Brick|Winged Brick]] ([[User talk:Winged Brick|talk]]) 19:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
== Discussing a couple of recent edits ==
Hey [[User:Appable|Appable]], you recently attempted to clean up and reorganize some of the info about the series of test flights. The clean-up/reorg was needed, but I'm not sure about a few details of what you did. Could probably do a [[WP:BRD]] to discuss it, but I think some of it is useful, so let's just discuss.
#I think the table of contents is getting rather too many levels, and levels on too low a detail, with your movement of the faux headers to headers. I don't feel strongly about this if you feel the opposite, but I just note that not every subsection is terribly beneficial to readers to be listed in the TOC, and I have observed in the past that many other articles I've run use faux headers for the very lowest level, seemingly with the intent to keep them from showing up in the TOC. I've never even looked up wiki-guidelines on the matter; just leaving an observation here on that item. But do step back and take a look at the current TOC after your edits; I'm thinking it's a bit ugly, and too much detail in the TOC.
#The main mission—transporting cargo to some planned [[orbital spaceflight|orbital]] trajectory—is the only mission that is associated with the ''"mission name"'' (e.g., CRS-n, or AsiaSat-n, etc.), SpaceX has always been rather clear that any testing they might do on an expended (trash, if not otherwise used) booster stage—i.e. a suborbital test flight—is in no way a part of the main mission. This is quite different from almost all other previous spaceflights where, say, some national provider like the NASA or ESA or the US DOD owns every part of the launch and mission once the launch vehicle leaves the ground. SpaceX is just selling a space transport service, and NASA etc. just has no say in what SpaceX does with their booster after a successful stage sep. Moreover, SpaceX is funding all of the incremental costs of any test flights they do.
::Therefore, '''I don't believe it is appropriate to conflate the test flights SpaceX may or may not do on some launches with the primary mission name.''' They are, rather, merely tests that happen on a particular Falcon 9 v1.1 launch. I think this is especially true at the section header level. We just don't have source support that these tests are explicitly associated with the main mission of whomever SpaceX is selling each payload to. They are merely coincidental tests that SpaceX does following some uses of their expendable booster when they think they can advance their own development objectives for the reusable technology. This item seems a bit more important to me, and I really believe we give the reader the wrong impression with the mission names as primary descriptors for each controlled-descent test flight.
::I'm not sure of the solution. Now that there have been so many of these controlled-descent test flights, about a half-dozen in the past 18 months, maybe adding a table summarizing the main info might be in order, and if we did that, maybe get rid of the header distinction between "ocean over water tests" and "floating platform attempted landings"; we could perhaps just show which type it is in a column of the table. Or maybe even (eventually, if not now) moving the details of flight tests (clearly notable since covered by so much media) to a separate article, since this article is a ''[[WP:GA|Wikipedia good article]]''. This is what was done with the "[[SpaceShipTwo]]" vs. "[[VMS Eve]]" article. The details of flight tests are associated with a particular (notable) vehicle, but left out of the main article. In a similar way, perhaps we might want to consider leaving the detail out of the main technology development article (getting rather long in any case; its nearly 100,000 bytes) and put the test details in a separate (and non-"good article"). Or something else?
Those were my two main thoughts. What do you, or others reading this page, think about this? [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 20:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
:Thanks for writing this up. After looking at the table of contents, it does seem to be a bit crowded at this point. As you suggested below, a table summarizing the information would probably be the best solution. There could be a summary that SpaceX has done both "ocean" and "floating platform" landing tests on this article, with a main article link that extensively covers both landing tests extensively. Besides, the headers are getting really messy on this article even with the faux-headers, so it would be best to do a split. Given the many flights planned and the recent announcement of the F9 v1.2 (I have no idea what they'll call it, but the upgraded performance Falcon) it's likely that the test flight section will only grow larger. It might be best to move immediately to a new page as the test flights ramp up, as delaying would only add to the work required to split the article.
:If it was split, would it be worth including Grasshopper and F9v1.1 Dev-1 flights (about 13 flights in total) alongside the Falcon 9 post-mission tests to form a [[SpaceX prototype vehicle flight testing]] page? Or instead just a [[Falcon 9 booster post-mission, controlled-descent tests]] page?
:For thoughts on the primary mission naming scheme on the section headers: SpaceX publishes mission names and names such as "Falcon 9 Flight 13". After looking at the article, it might give the wrong impression to refer to them by mission names. But at the same time, the issue I had with the older scheme (based on chronological order of test flights) was that it wasn't a common way to refer to the vehicles. SpaceX seems to publish both a mission name (Orbcomm OG2 Mission 1) and a vehicle name (Falcon 9 Flight 10). While there's no evidence that the mission is related to the test, it's common sense that the vehicle is related to the test. Because of that, I'd support modification of the headers to reflect the vehicle names.
:Thanks for having this discussion and proposing methods of resolving article clutter.[[User:Appable|Appable]] ([[User talk:Appable|talk]]) 20:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
:::{{u|Appable}}, all that sounds good to me. As mentioned, I really didn't like the mission name conflation; but agree that the [[Falcon 9 Flight 16]] (for example) descriptor works. I'm also fine with splitting off the test flights now, as the detail is over-weighting this article, but still the info is notable.
:::Don't really care much whether it is the one scope (broader) or the other (narrower, just the high-altitude, high-velocity controlled-descent flights). However, perhaps for symmetry, both names might start with "Falcon 9"; e.g., [[Falcon 9 prototype vehicle flight testing]] rather than [[SpaceX prototype vehicle flight testing]]. But your alternative is also fine with me, too: [[Falcon 9 booster post-mission, controlled-descent tests]]. As further food for thought, we generally have very little news coverage of the [[Grasshopper]] and [[F9R Dev]] vehicle flights that have occurred in Texas; and I would think we won't get much when the New Mexico flights with [[F9R Dev2]] get started, either. So pretty much all the info we have is already covered in the (relatively sparse) tables in the [[Grasshopper]] and [[F9R Dev]] articles. We have much more publically-released info on the booster controlled-descent tests that happen after ''some'' orbital missions.
:::I'll step back and let you re-make the changes to get away from the ''mission-name'' conflation issue that occured with the recent edits. You might want to do that first, here in this article, before doing any split. Let me know if you want more comment from me. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 01:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::I've moved all mission names to vehicle names. Looking at it with vehicle names, it seems like a split is very much needed to avoid overcrowding this article. Does anyone have an opinion on whether a split should be done, and what the scope of the split article should be? [[User:Appable|Appable]] ([[User talk:Appable|talk]]) 03:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::I'd certainly support a split of the detailed summaries of each (obviously notable) test flights into a separate article. Thanks for making the changes to eliminate the impression that these privately-funded test flights were a part of the original "mission" flights, as opposed to merely happening subsequent to their lofting since that is what makes the booster available for testing on a descent and landing test. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 22:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Hey {{U|appable}}, here's one more idea for an article name for the split article: [[Falcon 9 ocean booster landing tests]]. I set up a [[WP:REDIRECT|redirect]] with that name a long time ago, and I [http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Falcon%209%20ocean%20booster%20landing%20tests looked today and saw that name has already been getting a few tens of hits per day], with several hundred hits around the time of launches that have these tests on the agenda by SpaceX. Maybe that name would work better than the (also descriptive, but very long) [[Falcon 9 booster post-mission, controlled-descent tests]]. I'm fine with either one though [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 11:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC).
== Sources on the 7th controlled-descent test ==
Looks like SpaceX is discussing publically some parts of the 7th controlled-descent test on Falcon 9 Flight 17, which landed, (maybe a landing leg broke off; unclear), booster tipped over, and the tank broke open and a [[deflagration]] (kaboom) ensued. See the video SpaceX released on 15 April and is now in the article.
Other sources could be useful for improving the article. I'll start adding the sources I find here:
*[http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/space/2015/04/15/spacex-ground-attempt-reusable-landing-sea/25827625/ Defense News interview with Shotwell], 15 April. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 00:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
*[http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/fine-tuning-falcon-9-landing-throttle-valve-response/ Fine-tuning Falcon 9 landing focuses on throttle valve response], 19 April. <== and another one. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 21:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
== Article was split ==
For the record: Because this article was getting too large, and per the discussion in the Talk page section immediately above this one ("Discussing a couple of recent edits"), the article was [[WP:SPLIT|split]] on 2015-04-23T23:30:12 by [[User:Appable]], removing "34,456 Bytes", with the following edit comment by Appable: (Splitting article, this article was getting massive. See talk page of this article for details, additionally see the main article Falcon 9 ocean booster landing tests, which includes all of the removed content.)
Thanks to Appable for doing the work! [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 03:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
::Thanks for the summary in the talk page. If you'd like to read more on the split, there's a discussion on it right above. Thanks [[User:N2e|N2e]] and all the contributors for your work on this article and the comprehensive coverage of each landing test! Content there was great.
::Incidentally, the lead section on the new main article [[Falcon 9 ocean booster landing tests]] sounds like a section header, and I personally don't think it shows [[WP:N|notability]] as well as it should. I'll try to work on it over the next few days, but please add any content or streamline content so that it feels less obviously "split". [[User:Appable|Appable]] ([[User talk:Appable|talk]]) 03:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
== Relevance of New Shepard launch ==
Apologies in advance as I'm a new editor, but I'm not sure the [[New Shepard]] launch, currently mentioned under History, is relevant to this article. Musk himself tweeted that the recovery of a booster from a suborbital flight is a much different goal than the recovery of the Falcon 9 orbital stages and it doesn't seem to affect SpaceX's program. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to put New Shepard under a "See Also" heading? [[User:Gnugnug|Gnugnug]] ([[User talk:Gnugnug|talk]]) 09:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
: Yes, I completely agree. At this point in time, the Blue Origin results are more relevant to the other suborbital tourism players like Virgin Galactic and XCOR Aerospace. --[[User:IanOsgood|IanOsgood]] ([[User talk:IanOsgood|talk]]) 22:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
: I concur. While interesting to many, the Blue Origin test program is both for a very different purpose than the SpaceX orbital booster as well as unrelated to SpaceX' own program, as is perhaps obvious by a clean up edit I made and edit comment I left recently. It fits in Wikipedia. Just not ''this'' article. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 00:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
:: Thanks for confirming. I've made the change. [[User:Gnugnug|Gnugnug]] ([[User talk:Gnugnug|talk]]) 11:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
== What happens to Falcon 9 Flight 20's booster now? ==
After its landing, I'd imagine that Falcon 9 Flight 20's booster will now be torn down by SpaceX into its component parts for analysis, but that's just my guess. Do we have any authoritative/[[WP:RS]] information about what SpaceX's plans are for this? -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] ([[User talk:The Anome|talk]]) 12:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
:We seem to have our answer: [http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/21/10642028/spacex-falcon-9-landing-elon-musk-wont-fly]. It looks like it's going to be taken away from the landing site, refueled and static fired once, then dismantled for analysis. -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] ([[User talk:The Anome|talk]]) 22:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
::Yes, in the main. I just added some prose to the article based on a source I found. One detail relative to what you said: I also listened to a recording of the 15-20 minute phone call teleconference that the press had with Elon Musk after the flight, and I don't believe anything was said about "dismantling" the F9 Flight 20 vehicle. I suspect what is more likely is that, after evaluating the overall structure in fine detail, some pieces from key areas of stress may be cut out or otherwise removed for [[destructive testing]]. I don't think that will happen to such an extent that the vehicle is hugely disfigured; Musk seems to want the rocket to stand as a memorial or museum piece, since he thinks they will have quite a few stages to refly in the near future (not all future flights, but thinks likely to have stages back from most of them). Cheers. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 05:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
== 22 December 2015 post-landing news conference with Elon Musk ==
Here is a recording (link [http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38148.msg1463773#msg1463773 here]) of the post-launch and post-landing teleconference with the press that Elon Musk gave, only an hour or two after the landing. The audio has quite a bit of wind noise on the microphone; but you can hear everything the reporters heard. That YouTube audio was posted yesterday, 23 Dec 2015.
Today, someone has helpfully posted a full transcript of the recording. (link [http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/postlanding-teleconference-with-elon-musk-2015-12-22 here]). If you use any of this as a primary source to details about the launch, flight, landing, future plans, etc., you should recognize this is a [[WP:PRIMARYSOURCE|primary source]], and while okay to use for [[WP:V|verifiability]] purposes in some cases, is not considered as good a source for Wikipedia as a secondary source, something written on by a reliable source (like a newspaper, or one of the space media journalists). Cheers. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 10:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
== Disagreement between Intro and History ==
The first paragraph of the Introduction states that "the project's long-term objectives include returning a launch vehicle first stage to the launch site in minutes and to return a second stage to the launch pad" - this is at odds with the last paragraph of the History section which states that "by late 2014, SpaceX suspended or abandoned the plan to recover and reuse the Falcon 9 second stage". <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:JHarvey418|JHarvey418]] ([[User talk:JHarvey418|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/JHarvey418|contribs]]) 18:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Good observation. We should probably clean up the text. But I think the contradiction dissapears when one recalls that this SpaceX technology development program is not specific to just the Falcon 9 launch vehicle. The company has decided ''not'' to pursue Falcon 9 second-stage reuse; they absolutely have a long-term goal of second-stage reuse also as a part of this tech dev program. It would appear, based on company statements to date, that the second-stage reuse will get additional development effort when the [[MCT launch vehicle]] development get's underway with more than the skeleton crew of current design resources. Cheers. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 19:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
::Since this discussion in August, I've added some prose to endeavor to explicate the distinction: aiming for both stages long term, but the near-term Falcon 9 focus is only on the first stage. See what you think. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 05:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
== Maintenance + unmanned ==
High maintenance costs ruined the economics of the reusable Space Shuttle. But that was presumably at least partly due to the Shuttle having to be extra safe to carry people, so that Falcon 9 may perhaps avoid similar problems if its payloads stay unmanned. Are there no reliable sources discussing these matters, or if there are, shouldn't they appear in the article? (The Space Shuttle's problems meant that I assumed Falcon 9 was just hype until I worked out the above arguments, but if those arguments are correct I shouldn't have had to try to work them out for myself, and neither should our other readers).[[User:Tlhslobus|Tlhslobus]] ([[User talk:Tlhslobus|talk]]) 13:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
: As I understand it, many parts of the Space Shuttle had to be stripped down and rebuilt with every flight. I believe SpaceX's aim is to be able to just refuel and relaunch, in the same way as an aircraft can be refueled and relaunched. Presumably they intend to use telemetry and non-destructive inspection techniques to avoid the need for a full maintenance inspection every time. SpaceX certainly intend to make the Falcon man-rated. -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] ([[User talk:The Anome|talk]]) 13:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
::Thanks. But the article currently has no mention at all of any of that in the Economic Issues and Technical Feasibility sections, which is where sceptical-but-open-to-persuasion readers like me are going to head, and not much of it elsewhere either, in the sense that it's perhaps implicit in Elon Musk's stated wishes, but an owner's wish list is not a very informative discussion of an issue. Indeed apart from wishful talk about hoping to colonize Mars (which we've been hearing for 50 years, despite the discovery of serious problems with solar flares, and cosmic rays, and the lack of any serious '[[Artificial gravity]]' research programme on any of the various space stations), the article gives the impression that the serious plans are currently only for reusable rocket stages 1 and 2, which for a manned rocket is the equivalent of re-using the rockets but throwing away the manned bits, at least leaving the impression that any manned flight will be much less reusable than the Space Shuttle. [[User:Tlhslobus|Tlhslobus]] ([[User talk:Tlhslobus|talk]]) 14:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
:::If you're talking about Earth-bound missions, I believe that SpaceX intends to make all three components reusable: the first stage and second stage boosters, and the Dragon capsule, all landing vertically on their own rocket thrust. In the case of the Dragon, the landing rockets are also planned to serve as the attitude thrusters and launch escape mechanism. I can't find a reference for this at the moment, but they released a video last year (with a backing track by Muse, IIRC) showing an animation of how the whole process is intended to work. We really need to have this covered in more detail in the article. Mars I don't know about. -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] ([[User talk:The Anome|talk]]) 14:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::You are correct, in the long term, but not for the nearer term, with the Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy. Both are addressed in the article prose, but perhaps could be made more clear.
::::::#In the lede it says "The project's '''long-term''' objectives include returning a launch vehicle first stage to the launch site in minutes and to return a second stage to the launch pad following orbital realignment with the launch site and atmospheric reentry in up to 24 hours. SpaceX '''long term''' goal is that both stages of their orbital launch vehicle will be designed to allow reuse a few hours after return.[1]". (emphasis added)
::::::#In the History section, it says: "By late 2014, SpaceX suspended or abandoned the plan to recover and reuse the Falcon 9 second stage;[33] the additional mass of the required heat shield, landing gear, and low-powered landing engines would incur too great a performance penalty."
::::::So, using all extant sources we have, SpaceX is still aiming for this, but in their [[MCT launch vehicle]] and in the [[Mars Colonial Transporter]]; ''not'' with the [[Falcon 9]] nor [[Falcon Heavy]]. (however, with the new USAF contract to SpaceX earlier this month for SpaceX to develop an "upper stage" Raptor-like methane-fueled full-flow-staged-combustion '''prototype''' engine for the F9 and FH (see the article lede of [[Raptor (rocket engine)]] for a source), there is some speculation that a newer/newish second stage design for F9/FH ''might'' be able to be reusable, like Musk originally wanted, rather than like SpaceX decided to drop development resources from in late 2014, as shown in the quotation above. SpaceX, however, has neither confirmed nor denied any interest in even making a stage that would ever fly with the new USAF-1/3-paid-for prototype engine, nor publically said anything about making such a hypothetical stage reusable, ''contra'' the earlier late 2014 plans. YMMV.) Cheers. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 23:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
::::Thanks for the great info, {{U|The Anome}}. I wonder can that video be used as an acceptable RS, if it can be found? Also, do you by any chance know whether they say anything anywhere about returning to the Moon (or is it all just about Mars, with its far greater and possibly insuperable problems for the human body)?
:::::Think I have seen a Elon Musk interview where on being asked this question he likened it to if you build an aircraft capable of crossing the Atlantic then are there going to be other people flying across the English Channel? That of course doesn't indicate that SpaceX have moon plans and may tend to indicate either they don't or they don't want to disclose any plans they have. Impression was he thinks it is inconceivable we would do Mars and not also have someone else doing something on the moon. [[User:C-randles|crandles]] ([[User talk:C-randles|talk]]) 17:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::He used boats rather than planes. See [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y13jbl7ASxY&feature=youtu.be&t=23m20s] [[User:C-randles|crandles]] ([[User talk:C-randles|talk]]) 23:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
== First stage velocity at separation ==
It is probably time to revisit the article info on separation speeds before booster flyback. New, specific, info is available on the first two actual flights of the [[Falcon 9 full thrust]] version of the rocket is now available: [[Falcon 9 Flight 20]] in Dec 2015 and [[Falcon 9 Flight 22]], slated for launch later today. This source (<!-- <ref name=reuters20160223> -->
{{cite news |last=Klotz |first=Irene |url=http://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-spacex-ses-idUSKCN0VW2O7 |title=Satellite operator SES says interested in used SpaceX rocket |work=Reuters |date=2016-02-23 |accessdate=2016-02-24 }}<!-- </ref> -->) provides clear info on the Falcon 9 part of the question:
<blockquote>the rocket launching this week will be flying almost twice as fast as the one used in December - between 4,971- to 5,592 mph ( 8,000- to 9,000 kph), compared to 3,107 mph (5,000 kph) - by the time it separates from the second-stage motor, SpaceX said. </blockquote>
FWIW, the info on these velocities that is currently in the first paragraph of this article, is based on orginal forward-looking design information from several years ago in 2012 (and there was lengthy Talk page discussion getting to that...):
<blockquote> If the technology is used on a reusable Falcon 9 rocket, the first-stage separation would occur at a velocity of approximately 2.0 km/s (6,500 km/h; 4,100 mph; Mach 6) rather than the 3.4 km/s (11,000 km/h; 7,000 mph; Mach 10) for an expendable Falcon 9, to provide the residual fuel necessary for the deceleration and turnaround maneuver and the controlled descent and landing.</blockquote>
So the article will definitely need an update, and I don't have time to do it just now. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 12:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
== Flight 22 landing: Significance of extra push - consequently phrasing looks wrong ==
{{ping|N2e}}
There was an agreement that an extra push would be given to reduce time to reach final orbit. This came from '''second''' stage being run until depletion of fuel rather than shutting down when a target orbit was reached. This has very little, if any, effect on amount of fuel left in '''first''' stage. I don't mind this piece of information being given - Not quite sure where I would move it to. Seems well covered in [[Falcon_9_Flight_22]] and not sure it needs to be here as well. However, I do object to phrasing that indicates that because of the extra push there is little fuel left to land the first stage. Far, far, more important is that the payload was heavy for being lifted to GTO. Unless you have or there is a reference indicating such importance, such a level of importance should not be implied by the article. So the phrasing should reflect this. If other editors want to insist on including mention of the extra push fine but for accuracy don't phrase to indicate this is primary reason for little fuel being left to land first stage. Can we please change the phrasing or remove it? [[User:C-randles|crandles]] ([[User talk:C-randles|talk]]) 14:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
:I get your two points. I don't have time to relook a the sources just now, but in the long news conference by the SES executive Halliwell I recall him mentioning the extra push, and impact on the probability that SpaceX successfully landing the first stage would go down. It seemed to me, as I heard that and other sources, that given SpaceX's loss of flight 19, and subsequent 6 or so month delay to the return-to-flight, it pushed SES back a bunch, and thus reduced SES near-term revenue statements (SES were going public on that in securities regulation announcements), and since SES is a really good (though not exclusive) SpaceX customer, SpaceX decided to "take one for the customer" and burn harder/longer, and reduce landing probability of the experimental controlled-descent first stage. No problem; all good business. But the push or extra burn or whatever was mentioned by Halliwell, and picked up by space media who covered that. So I think the extra push should not be left out of the article. On your second point, I have not seen sources that clarify how much of the extra push was first stage vs. second stage. Given the extra push was talked about, and sourced, it is not at all clear that just because the second stage did a "burn to (safe) depletion" rather than a "burn to target orbit", then that would mean the first stage didn't give some extra push also, and thus use up some of the propellant that would have been part of its return and landing prop margin; SpaceX clearly decided to do a special 3-engine landing burn on flight 22, never before even tested, in order to have a (small probability) shot at bringing the thing in and landing it. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 18:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
::I fully agree with [[User:C-randles|crandles]] on {{diff||714371128||this edit}} which improves the reader's understanding that mass and speed are the key factors in setting practical limits to booster recovery. Here we had a rocket which couldn't reduce its re-entry velocity as much as would be feasible on a LEO Dragon launch, for example. That being said, I would assume that the negotiated supersynchronous trajectory had an impact on the first stage as well as the second stage, taking both of them to their limits? However we are surely going down the sweet and sour path of [[WP:OR]]... This case was undoubtedly a great way to push the envelope on what these Falcons can withstand! — [[User:JFG|JFG]] <sup>[[User talk:JFG|talk]]</sup> 07:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
:::Looking again at the ref http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/02/24/falcon-9-rocket-to-give-ses-9-telecom-satellite-an-extra-boost/] "Halliwell said SES’s contract with SpaceX called for the rocket to deploy SES 9 into a “sub-synchronous” transfer orbit with an apogee around 16,155 miles (26,000 kilometers) in altitude. ... The change in the Falcon 9’s launch profile will put SES 9 into an initial orbit with an apogee approximately 24,419 miles (39,300 kilometers) above Earth." 26000km to 39300km is quite a difference that doesn't seem likely to come from just a couple of extra seconds burn from the second stage. This makes it seem to have a more significant effect than I was thinking when reading the change was just a slightly longer burn on the second stage. Would still suggest payload weight "heavier than the Falcon 9 rocket’s advertised lift capacity to geosynchronous transfer orbit" is likely a major effect but without reference we shouldn't indicate which is more important. Can we find a wording that suggests both are factors without indicating one is more important than the other? Perhaps I will have a go at adding a little more. Hope bit added serves. [[User:C-randles|crandles]] ([[User talk:C-randles|talk]]) 11:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
::::Sure, give it a go. That was why I suggested we beat it around on the Talk page for a bit. Just was a shame to lose that aspect of the extra energy added for movement of the trajectory to a higher energy orbit, and one that was beyond what the contract called for. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 02:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
== Source ==
This video of Musk news conference following the second successful landing of a booster (first one was Dec 2015, on land), and the first one on a droneship, explains a bit about the test philosophy, and why do it on an active orbital mission rather than as most government-funded missions to date where the test flight itself would be a single planned dedicated mission. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNygOavo2mYElon Musk Discusses CRS-8 Successes with Media], 8 April 2016, at 19:20-21:50. Would be a good source to potentially improve the article. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 02:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
== Fairing ==
SpaceX is working on fairing reusability. I may add a mention of that. --[[User:Pmsyyz|Pmsyyz]] ([[User talk:Pmsyyz|talk]]) 16:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
:And they achieved a recovery on the 30 March 2017 launch. It is now mentioned in the article, and sourced. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 04:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
== Deeper and more analytical secondary sources ==
Now that it's been over a day since the successful launch and flight of a "flight-proven" booster stage, the deeper and more serious pieces of space media journalism are being posted.
* this one has a good bit of sourced info on costs, flight rates, etc. [https://www.spaceintelreport.com/spacexs-reusability-effort-faces-one-more-big-challenge https://www.spaceintelreport.com/spacexs-reusability-effort-faces-one-more-big-challenge].
* [https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/03/spacex-historic-falcon-9-re-flight-ses-10/ https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/03/spacex-historic-falcon-9-re-flight-ses-10/] [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 05:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
== Rename article? ==
Given that the system has now been used for a real mission, is it perhaps time to rename this article to "[[SpaceX reusable launch system]]"? Certainly, development is continuing, as SpaceX works to reduce costs and turnaround times, and to make even more parts of the system resusable, but the system is now no longer purely in an R&D phase; it exists, and is operational. -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] ([[User talk:The Anome|talk]]) 09:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
:SpaceX has indeed reached a key milestone in their drive towards full reusability, but that's not a reason to rename this article, which documents their R&D process. The resulting operational system is described at [[Falcon 9 Full Thrust]], [[Falcon 9 Block 5]], [[Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship]], [[Landing Zone 1]], [[SpaceX]] and probably other pages. Meanwhile R&D activities continue: half a fairing was recovered, there is work to enable fast "refuel and relaunch" turnaround, and just this weekend Musk mused about trying to enable recovery of the second stage. Plus some ITS work would come here too. All in all, more reasons to keep the page as a description of reusability R&D efforts. — [[User:JFG|JFG]] <sup>[[User talk:JFG|talk]]</sup> 02:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
::Agree with [[User:JFG|JFG]]. This article is an encyclopedic description of the overall development program to achieve this significant advancement in human technology. Took years, broad vision, and the overall technology advancement here is much larger than any particular reusable launch system. This is about a set of ''multiple'' technologies--in engines; materials science; guidance, navigation and control; hypersonic ==> subsonic atmospheric flight controls; business; private incentives; competition; interdisciplanary systems development; etc.--being used on ''multiple'' reusable launch systems: Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy and the Interplanetary Transport System. Not even all of the technologies used/tried/engineered/iterated and experimented with even made it to the final system in use in F9 today, let alone what will be developed for the next-generation interplanetary launch vehicles and spacecraft.
:: Having said that, there may one day be room (or need) for an article on some particular current reusable launch system, that would not have all the encyclopedic breadth of this article. That's fine, when the need arises. But this article's scope would be misrepresented by re-titling it as proposed. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 19:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
== External links modified ==
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on [[SpaceX reusable launch system development program]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=780011123 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131207085028/http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/environmental/nepa_docs/review/documents_progress/spacex_texas_launch_site_environmental_impact_statement/media/SpaceX_Texas_Launch_Site_Draft_EIS_V1.pdf to http://1.usa.gov/YtxBzo
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140322013556/http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2212-BWB-2014-03-21.mp3 to http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2212-BWB-2014-03-21.mp3
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140322013556/http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2212-BWB-2014-03-21.mp3 to http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2212-BWB-2014-03-21.mp3
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 11:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
== "Starship hopper"? ==
There is a section heading in the article now entitled "Starship hopper." Do we have a source where SpaceX is calling the first test article "Starship hopper"? If not, is is a widely used name such that it might be sort of a "common name" for it?
I've seen the name used somewhere... but I've also seen media calling it the "BFR dev ship", a "hopper", the "BFH", the "BFWT" (water tank, 'cause that's what it was thought to be as build began in Dec 2018 in what later became the Boca Chica Spaceshipyard), etc. Descriptively, and not trying to use any one particular cute name, it is simply just the ''Starship test flight rocket.'' . In other words, not sure Wikipedia should be using something that isn't a common name, nor a name SpaceX is calling it. Cheers. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 01:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
== Second stage as spaceship ==
The "Second-stage reuse" section of the article currently states an, "integrated second-stage-with-spaceship design [...] has not been commonly used in previous launch vehicles." But see [[RM-81 Agena]]. The final launch was in 1987; 365 were flown. Does that flight history somehow fail to qualify Agena as having been "commonly used?" ([[User:Sdsds|sdsds]] - ''[[User talk:Sdsds|talk]]'') 06:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
:Just saw this question [[User:Sdsds|sdsds]]. Is a good one. I had time only to skim that Wikipedia article prose, but not go after the sources. Do you think there is a good source anywhere that does a solid job explicating just how the Agena might be thought to have been an "integrated second-stage-with-spaceship design"? Otherwise, it seems a bit like Agena, and maybe even a few of the Chinese second stages being used today, are more "integrated second-stage-with-attached satellite" designs. But even that might be worth mentioning to improve this article if we could find sources that are descriptive of some sort of integrated-second-stage designs in contrast to the BFR design integrated reusable spaceship designs. Cheers. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 14:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
::Ah, thanks [[User:N2e|N2e]] your thinking on this is good. Musk (the cited source) pretty clearly knows "spaceship" can refer to both a human-carrying and a satellite- or probe-carrying vehicle, but he might mean us in this context to be thinking of human-carrying vehicles where (to my knowledge) nothing quite like what's envisioned for BFS was ever "commonly used." (Or ever used at all?)
::I'm sure there are sources we could cite describing Agena (and the others you mention) as being integrated second-stage and payload vehicles but in the context of Musk's assertion, mentioning that what he said might be misconstrued would probably be out of place! ([[User:Sdsds|sdsds]] - ''[[User talk:Sdsds|talk]]'') 02:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
== Recent edits ==
I reverted the recent [[WP:BOLD|Bold]] and [[WP:AGF|good faith]] edits that added a detailed numeric list of all the many years of test flights to this [[WP:GA]] good article. Let's [[WP:BRD|discuss]] it on first and see if ther is a consensus for this change.
This article describes a long-term multi-year program of technology development for many different launch and spacecraft systems at SpaceX, and describes the development of fundamental rocket technology that Musk has said SpaceX will have failed if they don't eventually get there: fully and rapidly reusable rockets. I don't believe it will be helpful to have yet another article with a detailed count of every test flight and success/failure/who knows. Rather, this article can reference those other articles that maintain detailed counts by the particular vehicle. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 12:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
:You also reverted several other good changes. You also added back information that is obviously outdated. Could you please only revert the part you object to and not just blindly revert everything because you object to half a sentence? There was no "detailed numeric list", there was a first and last flight. We also list the first and last flight for a couple of other vehicles in the article, I don't see what would be different for Starhopper. --[[User:Mfb|mfb]] ([[User talk:Mfb|talk]]) 03:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
| |||