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

Revision as of 14:09, 25 November 2013

Latest revision as of 20:35, 29 August 2025

(227 intermediate revisions by 48 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Article history

{{WikiProject Spaceflight |class=C |importance=Mid |needs-image=yes

| action1 = GAN

| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = no

| action1date = 16:07, 18 March 2014

| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = yes

| action1link = Talk:SpaceX reusable launch system development program/GA1

| b3 <!--Structure --> = yes

| action1result = listed

| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = no

| action1oldid = 600209295

| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = no

| b6 <!--Accessibility --> = yes

| action2 = GAR

| action2date = 17:55, 1 April 2017

| action2link = Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/SpaceX reusable launch system development program/1

| action2result = kept

| action2oldid = 830684485

| currentstatus = GA

| topic = Computing and engineering

|dyk1date=11 May 2014|dyk1entry=... that '''[[SpaceX reusable launch system development program|SpaceX]]''' is working on bringing orbital rockets back to the launchpad and landing them on landing legs?

}}

{{Template:American English}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|

{{WikiProject Spaceflight |class=C |importance=Mid High|needs-imagespacex=yes}}

{{WikiProject Rocketry |importance=High}}

{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low}}

}}

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

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|minthreadsleft = 6

|minthreadstoarchive = 1

|algo = old(90d)

|maxarchivesize = 150K

|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}

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

}}

== Community reassessment ==

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

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

I check pages listed in [[:Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting]] to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for [[User:AnomieBOT/docs/OrphanReferenceFixer|orphaned references]] in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of [[:SpaceX reusable launch system development program]]'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for ''this'' article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

<b>Reference named "trati20181224":</b><ul>

<li>From [[BFR (rocket)]]: {{cite news |last=Ralph |first=Eric |url=https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-elon-musk-starship-prototype-three-raptors-mirror-finish/ |title=SpaceX CEO Elon Musk: Starship prototype to have 3 Raptors and "mirror finish" |work=Teslarati |date=24 December 2018 |accessdate=24 December 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181224133103/https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-elon-musk-starship-prototype-three-raptors-mirror-finish/ |archive-date=24 December 2018 |url-status=live }}</li>

<li>From [[SpaceX Starship]]:

{{cite news |last=Ralph|first=Eric |url=https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-elon-musk-starship-prototype-three-raptors-mirror-finish/ |title=SpaceX CEO Elon Musk: Starship prototype to have 3 Raptors and "mirror finish" |work=[[Teslarati]] |date=24 December 2018 |accessdate=24 December 2018 }}</li>

<li>From [[SpaceX]]:

{{cite news |last=Ralph|first=Eric |url=https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-elon-musk-starship-prototype-three-raptors-mirror-finish/ |title=SpaceX CEO Elon Musk: Starship prototype to have 3 Raptors and "mirror finish" |work=Teslarati |date=24 December 2018 |accessdate=24 December 2018 }}</li>

</ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. [[User:AnomieBOT|AnomieBOT]][[User talk:AnomieBOT|<span style="color:#880">⚡</span>]] 05:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

==Info==

[https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/330053450261987328/photo/1 "F9R (pronounced F-niner)"]

--[[User:Craigboy|Craigboy]] ([[User talk:Craigboy|talk]]) 23:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

== Another list of the many rocket technologies needed for reuse ==

[http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/news/spacex-president-gwynne-shotwell-the-case-for-commercial-rockets-15608331?src=spr_TWITTER&spr_id=1457_9791972 "I think we're a year away from being able to recover stages, then we'll take a look at them and extrapolate how many missions each stage can undergo. I hope to be reflying them a year after that. Rapid reusability, maybe another year. So in total, two to three years from now." - Gwynne Shotwell (June 2013)]--[[User:Craigboy|Craigboy]] ([[User talk:Craigboy|talk]]) 04:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

From CNBC space reporter Michael Sheetz: [https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1251155738421899273 Here] is another fairly-comprehensive list of the many rocket technologies needed for reuse. These technologies need to be developed by each rocket company (as only SpaceX has already gone up that learning curve with their engineers and operational staff) and also need to be operated on every flight that has a reusable landing.

[http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/06/reducing-risk-ground-testing-recipe-spacex-success/#.UcMRgBSX1v4.twitter "Essentially the v.1.1 and F 9-R are the same vehicle, although the upgraded F9 will not fly with the key reusable hardware – such as landing legs – until a later date."]--[[User:Craigboy|Craigboy]] ([[User talk:Craigboy|talk]]) 05:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The list is from another US rocket company, [[United Launch Alliance|ULA]], but seems to capture a lot of ideas, and might be useful for improving this article and the list of many technologies necessary for reusable boosters (and, later, reusable 2nd stages). BTW, ULA here argues that in order to be cost-effective to do this, their "estimate remains around 10 flights as a fleet average to achieve a consistent breakeven point ... and that no one has come anywhere close." (SpaceX has only ever done up to 5 launches on the same booster, to date.) [https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1251155738421899273 Source], Michael Sheetz, CNBC space journalist, 17 April 2020. —— [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 17:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

== Article improvement, with a purpose ==

== Space Shuttle ==

With the recent progress in the development and test of this [[RLV]] technology, and the publically-announced plan that SpaceX is going to try for a [[flight test|test-flight]] [[VTVL|return-and-vertical-landing]] of a [[Falcon 9 v1.1]] booster stage, on ''[[land|Terra firma]]''—while the second stage and payload continue on an operational orbital trajectory—as soon as February 2014, it is probably time to ramp up the effort on improving this article.

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)

To that end, I intend to invite some serious copy-editing from a non-technical copy-editor from the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|Guild of Copy Editors]], and perhaps from a technical (but non-space biased) copy-editor as well. Then I propose to ask a non-involved editor from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight|WikiProject Spaceflight]] to evaluate the article against that project's [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spaceflight/Assessment#Quality_scale|B-class article quality criteria]]. Assuming it makes it through those reviews and interest remains, I believe it might be useful to strive to get the article to ''[[Wikipedia:Good article criteria|Good article]]'' status by the time of that first booster return test flight in early 2014. Rationale: if successful, that test flight will be an achievement in the [[History of technology]], and will likely be of interest to a larger group of Wikipedia readers around the time of that flight.

: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]].

I would very much welcome any other [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service|editors who might choose to pitch in and help]]. Cheers. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 21:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

: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.

===B-class article review===

*A request for for a B-class article review was requested on 24 November 2013 by [[User:N2e|N2e]].

*[[User:WDGraham]] did the review on 25 November 2013 (UTC); see below.

: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)

===Photo/image improvement===

The article currently has only a single lonely photo, one of [[Steve Jurvetson]]'s Flickr-stream photos of the early-Grasshopper v1.0 tank sitting on the test pad in a field in Texas: the photo is a very early shot, and was taken while the Grasshopper was not even yet completed. Moreover, the [[Grasshopper v1.0]] is now retired, and the really important part of the eight GHv1.0 flights to date is the landing, not the mere sitting on a pad, nor the ascent or even rocket hover. It is that descent and landing aspect that has made each of the GH videos go viral on YouTube, and get wide coverage by the Space industry media, and what is the critical technology being developed by SpaceX to pull off the "rapid and full reusability" objective.

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

More importantly, the [[SpaceX reusable rocket launching system]] <u>technology is so very much more than just Grasshopper, and really needs a few photos to illustrate different aspects of the technology development effort</u>.

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 ==

In order to get to ''good article'' status, any candidate article needs the images/photos to be brought up to a [[WP:GACR|certain standard]]. I am not a photo/image savvy Wikipedia editor, and I am assuming that we will need to find one to help bring this article up to GA status by the end of January 2014.

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)

SpaceX and media sites have released a LOT of photos of this technology, both Grasshopper and new [[F9-R]] landing legs, a couple of shots of the first booster return test flight in late-Sep 2013, etc. Anyone want to help, and figure out what we can do under what licensing authority to radically improve the photo game of this article [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 05:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

:Agreed.

==B class review ==

: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)

I have reviewed the article against the B-class criteria, and have found that it is ''very close'' to meeting the requirements, however there are a few minor issues which I think should be resolved before B-class status is conferred.

* Referencing: Two very minor issues; reference #5 is currently a raw URL and needs to be formatted, and whether #39 is a reliable source is questionable - indeed another user has tagged it as such.

* Grammar/Style: Again, very minor. I noticed at least one point in the article where figures are given in non-SI values before SI values (speeds in the lead given in Mach) Kilometres per second would probably be the best SI unit to use here. I would also recommend changing all British spellings in the article to American ones.

* The article could benefit from one or two more images, and ideally one in the top right corner of the page.

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

One other thing, the page title is a little bit odd - "rocket" and "launching system" are redundant to each other and it makes it sound as if it is a reusable system for launching rockets, rather than a reusable rocket development programme. Do you think a page move would be appropriate? --'''''[[User:WDGraham|<font color="#115566">W.</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:WDGraham|<font color="#364966">D.</font>]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/WDGraham|<font color="#496636">Graham</font>]]''''' 12:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

:1) Ref #5 is handled...it no longer exists on the SpaceX site as far as I can tell, so I pulled from Archive.org. Performed ''lots'' of other citation fixes, including fixing a couple of URLs that were incorrect. I also agree that the forum cite should be removed...if a replacement cannot be located, the material needs to be excised. In my opinion, all the newspacewatch.com articles should be replaced since they've gone completely paywall (I'll be surprised if they survive), even though I've added archive links to all four of those cites.

:2) I'll come back and clean up various conversion issues (definitely SI before non-SI in space-related articles), but I didn't immediately see much in the way of spelling issues. There's some formatting work to be done, but doesn't seem too bad.

:3) As for images...they simply don't exist at this point in time (SpaceX is, after all, a private company, and conducts their testing in-house). I'm always keeping an eye out for them, but I don't expect anything until this version of the rocket is used for a NASA mission. However, lack of media ''should not'' disqualify the article from any status, even as Featured Article (I recall one last year that was passed without free media). Editors cannot be held responsible in situations like this.

:4) I agree that "rocket" could be dropped from the title as redundant. Or, use something like "SpaceX reusable rocket program". Eh? <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> 14:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)