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

Revision as of 02:25, 3 April 2017

Latest revision as of 20:35, 29 August 2025

(42 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Article history

{{GAR/link|17:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)|page=2|GARpage=1|status= }}

| action1 = GAN

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

| action1date = 16:07, 18 March 2014

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

|archive action1link = Talk:SpaceX reusable launch system development program/Archive 1GA1

{{WikiProject Rocketry |class=GA}}

| action1result = listed

{{Template:American English}}

| action1oldid = 600209295

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

{{archive banner}}

| action2 = GAR

{{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.}}

| action2date = 17:55, 1 April 2017

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

| action2result = kept

| action2oldid = 830684485

| currentstatus = GA

| topic = Computing and engineering

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

}}

{{Template:American English}}

{{WikiProject Rocketrybanner shell|class=GA}}|

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

{{WikiProject Spaceflight |class=GARocketry |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

}}

== Community reassessment ==

== First stage velocity at separation ==

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

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> -->

{{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>

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

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>

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.

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)

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

== Flight 22 landing: Significance of extra push - consequently phrasing looks wrong ==

<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)

{{ping|N2e}}

There was an agreement that an extra push would be given to reduce time to reach final orbit. This came from '''second''' stage being run until depletion of fuel rather than shutting down when a target orbit was reached. This has very little, if any, effect on amount of fuel left in '''first''' stage. I don't mind this piece of information being given - Not quite sure where I would move it to. Seems well covered in [[Falcon_9_Flight_22]] and not sure it needs to be here as well. However, I do object to phrasing that indicates that because of the extra push there is little fuel left to land the first stage. Far, far, more important is that the payload was heavy for being lifted to GTO. Unless you have or there is a reference indicating such importance, such a level of importance should not be implied by the article. So the phrasing should reflect this. If other editors want to insist on including mention of the extra push fine but for accuracy don't phrase to indicate this is primary reason for little fuel being left to land first stage. Can we please change the phrasing or remove it? [[User:C-randles|crandles]] ([[User talk:C-randles|talk]]) 14:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

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

:I get your two points. I don't have time to relook a the sources just now, but in the long news conference by the SES executive Halliwell I recall him mentioning the extra push, and impact on the probability that SpaceX successfully landing the first stage would go down. It seemed to me, as I heard that and other sources, that given SpaceX's loss of flight 19, and subsequent 6 or so month delay to the return-to-flight, it pushed SES back a bunch, and thus reduced SES near-term revenue statements (SES were going public on that in securities regulation announcements), and since SES is a really good (though not exclusive) SpaceX customer, SpaceX decided to "take one for the customer" and burn harder/longer, and reduce landing probability of the experimental controlled-descent first stage. No problem; all good business. But the push or extra burn or whatever was mentioned by Halliwell, and picked up by space media who covered that. So I think the extra push should not be left out of the article. On your second point, I have not seen sources that clarify how much of the extra push was first stage vs. second stage. Given the extra push was talked about, and sourced, it is not at all clear that just because the second stage did a "burn to (safe) depletion" rather than a "burn to target orbit", then that would mean the first stage didn't give some extra push also, and thus use up some of the propellant that would have been part of its return and landing prop margin; SpaceX clearly decided to do a special 3-engine landing burn on flight 22, never before even tested, in order to have a (small probability) shot at bringing the thing in and landing it. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 18:55, 9 April 2016 (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.

::I fully agree with [[User:C-randles|crandles]] on {{diff||714371128||this edit}} which improves the reader's understanding that mass and speed are the key factors in setting practical limits to booster recovery. Here we had a rocket which couldn't reduce its re-entry velocity as much as would be feasible on a LEO Dragon launch, for example. That being said, I would assume that the negotiated supersynchronous trajectory had an impact on the first stage as well as the second stage, taking both of them to their limits? However we are surely going down the sweet and sour path of [[WP:OR]]... This case was undoubtedly a great way to push the envelope on what these Falcons can withstand! — [[User:JFG|JFG]] ^{[[User talk:JFG|talk]]} 07:26, 10 April 2016 (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)

:::Looking again at the ref http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/02/24/falcon-9-rocket-to-give-ses-9-telecom-satellite-an-extra-boost/] "Halliwell said SES’s contract with SpaceX called for the rocket to deploy SES 9 into a “sub-synchronous” transfer orbit with an apogee around 16,155 miles (26,000 kilometers) in altitude. ... The change in the Falcon 9’s launch profile will put SES 9 into an initial orbit with an apogee approximately 24,419 miles (39,300 kilometers) above Earth." 26000km to 39300km is quite a difference that doesn't seem likely to come from just a couple of extra seconds burn from the second stage. This makes it seem to have a more significant effect than I was thinking when reading the change was just a slightly longer burn on the second stage. Would still suggest payload weight "heavier than the Falcon 9 rocket’s advertised lift capacity to geosynchronous transfer orbit" is likely a major effect but without reference we shouldn't indicate which is more important. Can we find a wording that suggests both are factors without indicating one is more important than the other? Perhaps I will have a go at adding a little more. Hope bit added serves. [[User:C-randles|crandles]] ([[User talk:C-randles|talk]]) 11:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

== Space Shuttle ==

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

::::Sure, give it a go. That was why I suggested we beat it around on the Talk page for a bit. Just was a shame to lose that aspect of the extra energy added for movement of the trajectory to a higher energy orbit, and one that was beyond what the contract called for. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 02:23, 12 April 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]].

== Source ==

: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.

This video of Musk news conference following the second successful landing of a booster (first one was Dec 2015, on land), and the first one on a droneship, explains a bit about the test philosophy, and why do it on an active orbital mission rather than as most government-funded missions to date where the test flight itself would be a single planned dedicated mission. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNygOavo2mYElon Musk Discusses CRS-8 Successes with Media], 8 April 2016, at 19:20-21:50. Would be a good source to potentially improve the article. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 02:44, 16 April 2016 (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)

== Fairing ==

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

SpaceX is working on fairing reusability. I may add a mention of that. --[[User:Pmsyyz|Pmsyyz]] ([[User talk:Pmsyyz|talk]]) 16:23, 6 March 2017 (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)

== SourceCleanup ==

:And they achieved a recovery on the 30 March 2017 launch. It is now mentioned in the article, and sourced. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 04:55, 1 April 2017 (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)

== Deeper and more analytical secondary sources ==

:Agreed.

Now that it's been over a day since the successful launch and flight of a "flight-proven" booster stage, the deeper and more serious pieces of space media journalism are being posted.

: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)

* this one has a good bit of sourced info on costs, flight rates, etc. [https://www.spaceintelreport.com/spacexs-reusability-effort-faces-one-more-big-challenge https://www.spaceintelreport.com/spacexs-reusability-effort-faces-one-more-big-challenge].

* [https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/03/spacex-historic-falcon-9-re-flight-ses-10/ https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/03/spacex-historic-falcon-9-re-flight-ses-10/] [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 05:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

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

== Community reassessment ==

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

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)

== Rename article? ==

Given that the system has now been used for a real mission, is it perhaps time to rename this article to "[[SpaceX reusable launch system]]"? Certainly, development is continuing, as SpaceX works to reduce costs and turnaround times, and to make even more parts of the system resusable, but the system is now no longer purely in an R&D phase; it exists, and is operational. -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] ([[User talk:The Anome|talk]]) 09:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

:SpaceX has indeed reached a key milestone in their drive towards full reusability, but that's not a reason to rename this article, which documents their R&D process. The resulting operational system is described at [[Falcon 9 Full Thrust]], [[Falcon 9 Block 5]], [[Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship]], [[Landing Zone 1]], [[SpaceX]] and probably other pages. Meanwhile R&D activities continue: half a fairing was recovered, there is work to enable fast "refuel and relaunch" turnaround, and just this weekend Musk mused about trying to enable recovery of the second stage. Plus some ITS work would come here too. All in all, more reasons to keep the page as a description of reusability R&D efforts. — [[User:JFG|JFG]] ^{[[User talk:JFG|talk]]} 02:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)