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

Revision as of 12:57, 24 February 2016

Revision as of 20:35, 29 August 2025

(64 intermediate revisions by 26 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Article history

{{GA|16:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)|topic=Engineering and technology|page=1|oldid=600209295}}

| action1 = GAN

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

| action1date = 16:07, 18 March 2014

{{Template:American English}}

{{dyktalk|11 May|2014|entry=action1link ... that '''[[= Talk:SpaceX reusable launch system development program|SpaceX]]''' is working on bringing orbital rockets back to the launchpad and landing them on landing legs?}}/GA1

| action1result = listed

{{archive banner}}

| action1oldid = 600209295

{{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.}}

| 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?

}}

{{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}}

{{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 %(counter)d

}}

== ArticleCommunity was splitreassessment ==

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)

== 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">—&nbsp;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)

== Relevance of New Shepard launch ==

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

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)

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

== 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)

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.

: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)

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

::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)

<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)

== Maintenance + unmanned ==

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

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)

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.

: 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)

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)

::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)

== Space Shuttle ==

:::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)

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)

::::::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)

: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]].

::::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)?

: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.

:::::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)

: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)

== 22 December 2015 post-landing news conference with Elon Musk ==

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

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.

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 ==

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)

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)

== First stage velocity at separation ==

:Agreed.

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> -->

: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)

{{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>

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

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>

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)

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)