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

Revision as of 03:18, 28 November 2013

Latest revision as of 20:35, 29 August 2025

(214 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

}}

{{Template:American English}}

| action2 = GAR

==Info==

| action2date = 17:55, 1 April 2017

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

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

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

| action2result = kept

| action2oldid = 830684485

| currentstatus = GA

[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)

| 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?

}}

{{American English}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|

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

{{WikiProject Rocketry |importance=High}}

{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low}}

}}

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

[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)

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|minthreadsleft = 6

== Article improvement, with a purpose ==

|minthreadstoarchive = 1

|algo = old(90d)

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.

|maxarchivesize = 150K

|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}

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.

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

}}

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)

===B-class article review===

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

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

===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.

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>.

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.

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)

== Community reassessment ==

:I asked [[User:Huntster]], whose wiki-image ''[[Kung fu|fu]]'' is strong, to take a look at the photo-related questions here. This is his response (originally published on his Talk page):

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

::{{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)

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

==B class review ==

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.

::*{{done}} fixed by [[User:Huntster|Huntster]] and [[User:N2e|N2e]]—02:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

* 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.

::*('''partially done''') the non-US_English spellings were the result of the default output of the {{tl|convert}} template; fixed by [[User:Chris the speller|Chris the speller]] who was invited to come over here and have a look.—02:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

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

::* ('''under discussion''') may not be possible to be easily fixed per [[User:Huntster|Huntster]] comments in the above section ([[Talk:SpaceX_reusable_rocket_launching_system#Photo.2Fimage_improvement]]) .—02:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

*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?

::* ('''under discussion''')—see Talk page section below working on a new article name.—02:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

--'''''[[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)

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>

: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.

<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>

: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.

<li>From [[SpaceX Starship]]:

: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.

{{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>

: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)

<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)

::5) Ref #39 is handled. I removed it for now, pending a reliable source, and opened a Talk page section on it below to let the editor who added that know why it was removed, and how it can get back in.

::6) I believe that all of the non-US English issues are resolved. I asked editor [[User:Chris the speller|Chris the speller]] to stop by and he helpfully found a way to make the {{tl|convert}} template uses put the units in with US English spellings. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 02:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

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

== Article name ==

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.

The article name was, when the article was created in early-2013, [[SpaceX reusable rocket launching system]], and has been to date (November 2013). The recent ''B class review'' (see above) suggested a name change may be in order as "rocket" and "launching system" are redundant, rather than a "reusable rocket development programme"

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)

I concur with the reviewer, [[User:WDGraham]]. This article is about a fairly complex development program for multiple rockets and parts of rockets (first stages, second stages) using multiple engines (e.g., LOX/RP1, LOX/Methane) and other technologies (various control systems designs, multiple kinds/designs of landing gear), eventually full [[Thermal protection system|TPS]] for second stages, etc). Moreover, the program, as stated by the company and supported by sources, is occurring, and will continue to occur, over multiple years. (and when first named, I added this hidden text to the first sentence of the lede: <code><nowiki>"The '''SpaceX reusable rocket launching system'''<!-- there may be a better name in the future, but this is the name used in the Feb 2012 source --> is ..."</nowiki></code>, knowing a name change would need to be accomplished later.)

== Space Shuttle ==

Here are some ideas. I'm not sure of my own view yet on any one of them as being the most correct, so have not written this as a ''proposal'' for any one particular name. But I am personally partial to it being a "''development program''" rather than a "''launching system''" as I had originally named the article, as it is not some sort of single or comprehensive system at all.

*[[SpaceX reusable rocket development program]] – mentioned by WDGraham in the B class review comment

*[[SpaceX reusable launch system development program]] – seems rather descriptive; is it too long or cumbersome?

*[[SpaceX reusable launch system technology development program]] – more cumbersome?

*[[SpaceX reusable rocket program]] – mentioned by Hunster earlier today

If you have other ideas to kick around, please add them with bullets. Cheers. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 15:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

:The first seems just fine, the second and third feel too wordy to me. No comment on the fourth :P <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> 15:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

: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]].

::Somehow "rocket" seems a bit on the narrow side to me. Since we call the rockets that do regular launches [[launch vehicle]]s, and it seems that this is really more of a ''[[system]]'', including ground systems, than merely a rocket. Clearly, SpaceX is developing a set of technologies to accomplish a large/complex goal: fully/rapidly reusable launch vehicles: a system. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 15:31, 25 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.

:::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)

: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)

: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|<font color="#115566">W.</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:WDGraham|<font color="#364966">D.</font>]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/WDGraham|<font color="#496636">Graham</font>]]''''' 18:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

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

::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)

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 ==

:::How does #1 imply a single rocket? I certainly don't read it that way. Besides, it's rocket technology being developed, seems like it would be appropriate to use that word in the title. I'm not going to get worked up over the issue, though, so I'll step away for now. <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> 04:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

== 9 engines or 3 engines in the Grasshopper v1.1 flight test vehicle? ==

:Agreed.

A statement was recently added to the article that questioned whether Grasshopper v1.1 will have all 9 engines, as the current source in the article asserts, or perhaps only 3. The question is a good one, and the argument for only three is a strong one. However, we have no [[WP:RS|reliable source]] for the statement; so I have removed it for now. This is the statement removed:

: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 ==

<blockquote><nowiki>There is some debate though on the question of whether on this first version of the upgraded Grasshopper if it will use all nine engines, since for testing only three engines will be used. This is supported by an image showing a Grasshopper in construction with slots for only three engines in an online image.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://thespaceport.us/forum/topic/38529-spacex-grasshopper-updates/?p=482632 |title=SpaceX Grasshopper (updates), post #204 |work=TheSpacePort.us forum |date=October 20, 2013}}{{full|date=November 2013}}</ref>{{verify credibility|date=November 2013}}</nowiki></blockquote>

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)

We can add it back when a reliable source is found, which will likely be in the next few months, to confirm either way. Cheers. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 02:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)