Talk:SpaceX reusable launch system development program/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 06:57, 16 April 2015

Revision as of 07:19, 25 April 2015

Line 332:

::::I just came upon this discussion from a couple of months ago. Took a look. I have added another source to that section about the challenge of achieving reusability on orbital launches from Earth. Hope that helps. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 03:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

== Jeff Foust economic fallacy ==

I deleted a paragraph from the article citing Jeff Foust stating that profits for SpaceX could decrease even if SpaceX was successful. This is nonsensical. For one thing, SpaceX offers launch services, not rockets for sale, so if they are successful, demand for their services will be unaffected. SpaceX will keep their hardware, and could charge just as much per launch while maintaining the same number of annual contracts. SpaceX would only decrease the price if demand is elastic and thus would increase profits, they would only sell the rockets if liquidating was most profitable. Innovation never leads to loss of revenue. The deleted paragraph is highly dubious to say the least #econfallacy <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Fauble2000|Fauble2000]] ([[User talk:Fauble2000|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Fauble2000|contribs]]) 23:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Hmmm. Well, a few things:

:* I thank you for explicitly bringing your rationale for your edit to the Talk page. That's good process.

:* I'm going to be agnostic on whether the material stays or goes, principally because I have developed a fair bit of the content in this particular ''[[WP:GA|Good article]]'' and want other editors to weigh in on a debate like this. I will, however, offer some thoughts for other editors who may happen upon this discussion.

::# Within the rocket industry, the argument you removed is an argument that is rather frequently made about reusability. And it is sometimes made by serious people (who may or may not understand economics).

::# As an economist myself, teaching at university level economics, I have an opinion on this. However, my opinion is, from a Wikipedia point of view as regards statements in the article space, merely [[WP:OR|original research]]; which is what the opinions of other editors are as well. So we use [[WP:V|verifiable]] [[WP:RS|secondary sources]] to reflect in article content, rather than our opinions.

::# The author of that article (Michael Belfiore) is a serious space journalist, and he has (in this case) chosen to use an analytical view expressed by Jeff Foust, who is a serious spaceflight and technology analyst. Moreover, Belfiore published that piece in the rather respectable ''MIT Technology Review.'' Now, Foust might very well be wrong, or right, but this is not something that should be dismissed out of hand just [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT|on one editor's view]]. Thus the comment I'm writing here.

::# SpaceX has had a fairly remarkable series of accomplishments here, and a fairly successful test program to date. Thus, the article reads rather positively for this company with respect to this particular technology. As a matter of balance, it may be appropriate to reflect some doubts about the economics that have been expressed by serious space analysts and covered by serious space journalists published in mainline technology news.

::#The economics of reusability, and how reusability of rocket stages may, or may not, affect the economic return for companies in the launch industry is certainly relevant to this article on reusable launch technology development.

:I'll leave the rest of the debate, and consensus building, to other editors. Cheers. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 18:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

::In my opinion the article gives [[WP:UNDUE | undue weight]] to the optimistic side, and in particular the "Economic issues" section would benefit from a broader presentation of the pessimistic view. As an aid to others, the Belfiore article is at http://www.technologyreview.com/news/525426/spacex-set-to-launch-the-worlds-first-reusable-booster/. It seems to me the paragraph that was removed did not adequately summarize the article's coverage of Foust's opinion. The Foust quote which is likely causing controversy here is, “A reusable system with much lower launch costs might actually result in lower revenue for that company unless they can significantly increase demand.” I don't believe that quote fully captures Foust's thinking, but I haven't found a different quote in which he covers this scenario more explicitly and shows the steps in his chain of logic. ([[User:Sdsds|sdsds]] - ''[[User talk:Sdsds|talk]]'') 04:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

:::True, and that is another reason that I originally added the counterargument that appears in the Belfiore piece by space analyst Foust. Doesn't matter whether we, as wiki editors, agree with it or not; if [[WP:V|verifiable]] and [[WP:RS|sourced]] info is out there that criticizes or provides an alternative view, then it needs to be covered in the article.

:::More generally, we want to avoid [[WP:UNDUE]]. So any sourced info that provides a counter to the "optimistic side" should be freely and liberally added to the article. I think part of the reason it seems as optimistic as it does today is that, prior to the demise of the F9R development vehicle in Texas a couple of months ago, things have been going rather swimmmingly for SpaceX, and even AvWeek, which is not known as a particular supporter of the emerging [[NewSpace]] side of the industry, has come out rather positive on SpaceX' accomplishments, and held them up as a model (per the sourced statement in the article).

:::Net: editors should add counter arguments and counter-history when there are sources to back it up. Cheers. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 15:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)