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

Revision as of 01:21, 9 December 2013

Latest revision as of 20:35, 29 August 2025

(198 intermediate revisions by 47 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Article history

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

| action1 = GAN

| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = yes

| 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)

: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):

::{{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|<font color="#115566">W.</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:WDGraham|<font color="#364966">D.</font>]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/WDGraham|<font color="#496636">Graham</font>]]''''' 12:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

:{{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.

:Also added a contextual diagram of the Falcon rockets, so we could say to which two of them (F9 v1.1 and Falcon Heavy) the reusable technology is being developed for.

:If anyone has an idea for how another good-license image might be used, please leave that suggestion here. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 17:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

==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.

* <s>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.</s>

::*{{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. The Mach/miles per hour/km per hour issue seems to be the result of the default output of the {convert|Mach} template; I have endeavored to fix it with the usual "<nowiki><code>|disp=flip</code></nowiki>" parm; but it seems to be broken and does not work as it normally does with the standard convert template. The velocities in the source document were given in terms of Mach number, and not either km/h or mph. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 03:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

::::A couple of editors have come along and made some changes to the Mach numbers and conversion template. The first ([[User:Glmory]])cleaned up some odd errors from the convert/Mach use (errors I had not previously seen in the article), and another editor (IP 130.216.218.47 ) came along and used a somewhat different template, {{tl|convert/q}}, to get the (previously broken) mph and km/h conversions added back to the article. This seemed to fix the errors, and keep conversions of the Mach numbers—which were the way the velocities are given in the source—to both km/h and mph.

::::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|<font color="#115566">W.</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:WDGraham|<font color="#364966">D.</font>]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/WDGraham|<font color="#496636">Graham</font>]]''''' 12:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::::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)

:::::::::Yeah, that works for me. The convert template is amazing, but it's not all things to all people. What did you think about WDG's suggestion of using km/s for the first SI velocity, then mph and Mach for the conversions? [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 01:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

::::::::::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)

::::::::::::{{done}}—for purposes of this B-Class review, I believe that now both 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)

* 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?

== Community reassessment ==

::* ('''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)

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

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

: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)

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.

::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)

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

== Article name ==

<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)

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"

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

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.)

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.

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)

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)

: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)

== Space Shuttle ==

::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)

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)

:::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)

: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]].

: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)

: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.

::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)

: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)

:::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)

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

::::Well you might have partially answered the question: if we were to say, "rocket technology development program", that would not be so unclear. But to date, no one has suggested that particular name. While there seems to be no consensus on any name as of yet, my sense is the "rocket development program" implies the development of a single rocket, which seems an incorrect impression to leave our readers. On the other hand, "launch system development program" seems to better summarize/imply in a title that a set of technologies are involved in the "launch system", whereas "rocket" does not provide that impression. Cheers. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 01:51, 1 December 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 ==

{{outdent}} Well, it's been a week and no one else has joined the discussion. The discussion above did not reach a consensus on a name change. I'm not formally "[[WP:CLOSE|closing]]" the discussion, just noting the "no consensus" result. If someone else wants to propose an article name change, propose away, perhaps starting a new section below. Cheers. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 01:21, 9 December 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)