|
| 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? }}▼}}
{{American English}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|
{{WPBS|
{{WikiProject Spaceflight |class=GA |importance=High|spacex=yes}}
{{WikiProject Rocketry |class=GA |importance=High}}
{{WPUSAWikiProject |class=GAUnited States|importance=Low}}
}}
▲{{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 archives|age=90|banner=yes}}
{{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.}}
{{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 1%(counter)d
}}
== Deeper and more analytical secondary sources ==
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.
* 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)
== Community reassessment ==
{{WP:Good article reassessment/SpaceX reusable launch system development program/1}}
== Orphaned references in [[:SpaceX reusable launch system development program]] ==
== 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)
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.
: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]] <sup>[[User talk:JFG|talk]]</sup> 02:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
::Agree with [[User:JFG|JFG]]. This article is an encyclopedic description of the overall development program to achieve this significant advancement in human technology. Took years, broad vision, and the overall technology advancement here is much larger than any particular reusable launch system. This is about a set of ''multiple'' technologies--in engines; materials science; guidance, navigation and control; hypersonic ==> subsonic atmospheric flight controls; business; private incentives; competition; interdisciplanary systems development; etc.--being used on ''multiple'' reusable launch systems: Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy and the Interplanetary Transport System. Not even all of the technologies used/tried/engineered/iterated and experimented with even made it to the final system in use in F9 today, let alone what will be developed for the next-generation interplanetary launch vehicles and spacecraft.
<b>Reference named "trati20181224":</b><ul>
:: Having said that, there may one day be room (or need) for an article on some particular current reusable launch system, that would not have all the encyclopedic breadth of this article. That's fine, when the need arises. But this article's scope would be misrepresented by re-titling it as proposed. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 19:53, 20 April 2017 (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)
== External links modified ==
== Another list of the many rocket technologies needed for reuse ==
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
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 have just modified 3 external links on [[SpaceX reusable launch system development program]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=780011123 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131207085028/http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/environmental/nepa_docs/review/documents_progress/spacex_texas_launch_site_environmental_impact_statement/media/SpaceX_Texas_Launch_Site_Draft_EIS_V1.pdf to http://1.usa.gov/YtxBzo
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140322013556/http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2212-BWB-2014-03-21.mp3 to http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2212-BWB-2014-03-21.mp3
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140322013556/http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2212-BWB-2014-03-21.mp3 to http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2212-BWB-2014-03-21.mp3
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)
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
== Space Shuttle ==
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
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)
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 11:38, 12 May 2017 (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]].
== Second stage as spaceship ==
: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.
The "Second-stage reuse" section of the article currently states an, "integrated second-stage-with-spaceship design [...] has not been commonly used in previous launch vehicles." But see [[RM-81 Agena]]. The final launch was in 1987; 365 were flown. Does that flight history somehow fail to qualify Agena as having been "commonly used?" ([[User:Sdsds|sdsds]] - ''[[User talk:Sdsds|talk]]'') 06:15, 22 May 2018 (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)
:Just saw this question [[User:Sdsds|sdsds]]. Is a good one. I had time only to skim that Wikipedia article prose, but not go after the sources. Do you think there is a good source anywhere that does a solid job explicating just how the Agena might be thought to have been an "integrated second-stage-with-spaceship design"? Otherwise, it seems a bit like Agena, and maybe even a few of the Chinese second stages being used today, are more "integrated second-stage-with-attached satellite" designs. But even that might be worth mentioning to improve this article if we could find sources that are descriptive of some sort of integrated-second-stage designs in contrast to the BFR design integrated reusable spaceship designs. Cheers. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 14:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
== "Starship hopper"? ==
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 ==
There is a section heading in the article now entitled "Starship hopper." Do we have a source where SpaceX is calling the first test article "Starship hopper"? If not, is is a widely used name such that it might be sort of a "common name" for it?
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)
I've seen the name used somewhere... but I've also seen media calling it the "BFR dev ship", a "hopper", the "BFH", the "BFWT" (water tank, 'cause that's what it was thought to be as build began in Dec 2018 in what later became the Boca Chica Spaceshipyard), etc. Descriptively, and not trying to use any one particular cute name, it is simply just the ''Starship test flight rocket.'' . In other words, not sure Wikipedia should be using something that isn't a common name, nor a name SpaceX is calling it. Cheers. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 01:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
:Agreed.
== Recent edits ==
: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 ==
I reverted the recent [[WP:BOLD|Bold]] and [[WP:AGF|good faith]] edits that added a detailed numeric list of all the many years of test flights to this [[WP:GA]] good article. Let's [[WP:BRD|discuss]] it on first and see if ther is a consensus for this change.
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)
This article describes a long-term multi-year program of technology development for many different launch and spacecraft systems at SpaceX, and describes the development of fundamental rocket technology that Musk has said SpaceX will have failed if they don't eventually get there: fully and rapidly reusable rockets. I don't believe it will be helpful to have yet another article with a detailed count of every test flight and success/failure/who knows. Rather, this article can reference those other articles that maintain detailed counts by the particular vehicle. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 12:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
| 