Talk:SpaceX reusable launch system development program: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:37, 2 May 2021

Latest revision as of 20:35, 29 August 2025

(17 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)

Line 14:

| currentstatus = GA

| topic = Computing and engineering

{{dyktalk|dyk1date=11 May| 2014|entrydyk1entry= ... that '''[[SpaceX reusable launch system development program|SpaceX]]''' is working on bringing orbital rockets back to the launchpad and landing them on landing legs?}}

}}

{{American English}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|

{{WPBS|

{{WikiProject Spaceflight |class=GA |importance=High|spacex=yes}}

{{WikiProject Rocketry |class=GA |importance=High}}

{{WPUSAWikiProject |class=GAUnited States|importance=Low}}

}}

{{dyktalk|11 May|2014|entry= ... that '''[[SpaceX reusable launch system development program|SpaceX]]''' is working on bringing orbital rockets back to the launchpad and landing them on landing legs?}}

{{archives|age=90|banner=yes}}

{{mbox|text=This talk page is '''automatically archived''' by [[User:MiszaBot III|MiszaBot III]]. Any sections older than '''90''' days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|minthreadsleft = 6

|minthreadstoarchive = 1

|algo = old(90d)

|maxarchivesize = 150K

|archive = Talk:SpaceX reusable launch system development program/Archive 1

|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}

|archive = Talk:SpaceX reusable launch system development program/Archive 1%(counter)d

}}

Line 34 ⟶ 36:

{{WP:Good article reassessment/SpaceX reusable launch system development program/1}}

== 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)

== "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)

== 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)

== Orphaned references in [[:SpaceX reusable launch system development program]] ==

Line 79 ⟶ 59:

== Space Shuttle ==

Strange page, as the Space Shuttle is mentioned only once, despite being the benchmak of all the spacecraft that want to achieve reusablility. (post left by IP editor: 181.126.211.193)

:Not sure I've ever seen a source that supports your assertion: Space Shuttle "being the benchmark of all the spacecraft that want to achieve reusablility." But do feel free to find that source or those sources; after all [[WP:ANYONECANEDIT]].

:It did achieve a (very expensive; >$1B per flight) reusability of the upper stage and human capsule, but it expended the main orbital flight structure and propellant tanks. The Solid Rocket Boosters were recovered following parachute descent into the water, but were essentially just recovering the steel cases, with the entirety of the SRBs needed to be rebuilt from the multiple segments. In short, the Space Shuttle and it's rebuilt SRBs and new main rocket structure cost much more for each flight than an equivalent [[expendable launch vehicle]] would have cost, even at the high costs of US government cost-plus contracting launch costs, which the GAO had said the average exceeded US$200 million per orbital launch, and perhaps 300-400 million per launch for the larger [[Delta IV]] LVs that would have been required for the heaviest payloads.

:That is rather hugely unlike an entirely intact first stage liquid propellant booster that is now recovered routinely by SpaceX, and then the company does future flights for < c.US$50 million dollars per future orbital flight. Musk is on record saying he would have failed if Falcon 9 booster reuse ended up costing more than equivalent payloads on expendable rockets would have cost. Cheers. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 20:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

* [[commons:File:SpaceX Starship SN8 launch as viewed from South Padre Island.jpg|SpaceX Starship SN8 launch as viewed from South Padre Island.jpg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2022-06-06T05:21:46.151030 | SpaceX Starship SN8 launch as viewed from South Padre Island.jpg -->

Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:SpaceX Starship SN8 launch as viewed from South Padre Island.jpg|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 05:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

== Cleanup ==

I think an extensive cleanup of thes page is overdue. Too much now outdated or extensively detailed clutter as piled up, including statements like "SpaceX is expected to significantly reduce the cost of access to space" which sound humourous nowadays. Some stremlining and reduction to the core information is necessary, to make it understandable for the common layperson to visit it. [[Special:Contributions/47.69.68.181|47.69.68.181]] ([[User talk:47.69.68.181|talk]]) 11:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

:Agreed.

:The current state of the article does not match its "Good Article" Status. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 19:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

== A good secondary source article on the SpaceX reusable technology 10 years on ==

Long-time space journalist Eric Berger/Ars Technica published a good secondary source summary of the results of the SpaceX reusable technology, in the 10th year after SpaceX first brought a booster back to the launch area in December 2015. [https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/08/with-recent-falcon-9-milestones-spacex-vindicates-its-dumb-approach-to-reuse/ With recent Falcon 9 milestones, SpaceX vindicates its “dumb” approach to reuse], Eric Berger, [[Ars Technica]], 28 August 2025. Would be useful to improve the article. — [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 20:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)