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

Revision as of 05:08, 7 March 2017

Revision as of 04:53, 2 April 2017

Line 465:

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)

== 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)

== Maintenance + unmanned ==

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)

: 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)

::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)

:::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)

::::::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)

::::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)?

:::::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)