Talk:SpaceX reusable launch system development program
 | Spaceflight C‑class Mid‑importance  | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Info
"F9R (pronounced F-niner)" --Craigboy (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
"I think we're a year away from being able to recover stages, then we'll take a look at them and extrapolate how many missions each stage can undergo. I hope to be reflying them a year after that. Rapid reusability, maybe another year. So in total, two to three years from now." - Gwynne Shotwell (June 2013)--Craigboy (talk) 04:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
"Essentially the v.1.1 and F 9-R are the same vehicle, although the upgraded F9 will not fly with the key reusable hardware – such as landing legs – until a later date."--Craigboy (talk) 05:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Article improvement, with a purpose
With the recent progress in the development and test of this RLV technology, and the publically-announced plan that SpaceX is going to try for a test-flight return-and-vertical-landing of a Falcon 9 v1.1 booster stage, on Terra firma—while the second stage and payload continue on an operational orbital trajectory—as soon as February 2014, it is probably time to ramp up the effort on improving this article.
To that end, I intend to invite some serious copy-editing from a non-technical copy-editor from the Guild of Copy Editors, and perhaps from a technical (but non-space biased) copy-editor as well. Then I propose to ask a non-involved editor from WikiProject Spaceflight to evaluate the article against that project's B-class article quality criteria. Assuming it makes it through those reviews and interest remains, I believe it might be useful to strive to get the article to Good article status by the time of that first booster return test flight in early 2014. Rationale: if successful, that test flight will be an achievement in the History of technology, and will likely be of interest to a larger group of Wikipedia readers around the time of that flight.
I would very much welcome any other editors who might choose to pitch in and help. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
B-class article review
- A request for for a B-class article review was made on 24 November 2013 by N2e.
- User:WDGraham did the review on 25 November 2013; see below.
Photo/image improvement
The article currently has only a single lonely photo, one of Steve Jurvetson's Flickr-stream photos of the early-Grasshopper v1.0 tank sitting on the test pad in a field in Texas: the photo is a very early shot, and was taken while the Grasshopper was not even yet completed. Moreover, the Grasshopper v1.0 is now retired, and the really important part of the eight GHv1.0 flights to date is the landing, not the mere sitting on a pad, nor the ascent or even rocket hover. It is that descent and landing aspect that has made each of the GH videos go viral on YouTube, and get wide coverage by the Space industry media, and what is the critical technology being developed by SpaceX to pull off the "rapid and full reusability" objective.
More importantly, the SpaceX reusable rocket launching system technology is so very much more than just Grasshopper, and really needs a few photos to illustrate different aspects of the technology development effort.
In order to get to good article status, any candidate article needs the images/photos to be brought up to a certain standard. I am not a photo/image savvy Wikipedia editor, and I am assuming that we will need to find one to help bring this article up to GA status by the end of January 2014.
SpaceX and media sites have released a LOT of photos of this technology, both Grasshopper and new F9-R landing legs, a couple of shots of the first booster return test flight in late-Sep 2013, etc. Anyone want to help, and figure out what we can do under what licensing authority to radically improve the photo game of this article N2e (talk) 05:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- I asked User:Huntster, whose wiki-image fu is strong, to take a look at the photo-related questions here. This is his response (originally published on his Talk page):
- N2e, I'm always willing to help with images, where possible. The issue is that SpaceX is a private company and their Grasshopper testing has been done in-house, without NASA photogs present :D I've scoured available resources for free images of Grasshopper, and what's on Commons is what's available. F9-R is even more problematic since it is such a new program. To be honest, it is highly unlikely that any free images of the new landing system will be available until it actually comes into use, and it is entirely possible images won't be available even then. This is just a note about the realities of the situation, and I'll continue checking to see if resources come available. I'll also try reaching out to SpaceX public affairs to see if they would be willing to release something under a free license (they've done so in the past, but only for early F1 material, iirc). — Huntster (t @ c) 06:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Just a suggestion for images, there might be some scope to put a Falcon 9 image in either the background and/or testing sections. --W. D. Graham 12:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
B class review
I have reviewed the article against the B-class criteria, and have found that it is very close to meeting the requirements, however there are a few minor issues which I think should be resolved before B-class status is conferred.
Referencing: Two very minor issues; reference #5 is currently a raw URL and needs to be formatted, and whether #39 is a reliable source is questionable - indeed another user has tagged it as such.
Done fixed by Huntster and N2e—02:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- Grammar/Style: Again, very minor. I noticed at least one point in the article where figures are given in non-SI values before SI values (speeds in the lead given in Mach) Kilometres per second would probably be the best SI unit to use here. I would also recommend changing all British spellings in the article to American ones.
- (partially done) the non-US_English spellings were the result of the default output of the {{convert}} template; fixed by Chris the speller who was invited to come over here and have a look. The Mach/miles per hour/km per hour issue seems to be the result of the default output of the {convert|Mach} template; I have endeavored to fix it with the usual "<code>|disp=flip</code>" parm; but it seems to be broken and does not work as it normally does with the standard convert template. The velocities in the source document were given in terms of Mach number, and not either km/h or mph. N2e (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- A couple of editors have come along and made some changes to the Mach numbers and conversion template. The first (User:Glmory)cleaned up some odd errors from the convert/Mach use (errors I had not previously seen in the article), and another editor (IP 130.216.218.47 ) came along and used a somewhat different template, {{convert/q}}, to get the (previously broken) mph and km/h conversions added back to the article. This seemed to fix the errors, and keep conversions of the Mach numbers—which were the way the velocities are given in the source—to both km/h and mph.
- However, the Mach numbers are still listed first, which is contrary to what the B-class reviewer (User:WDGraham) suggested: that the SI units (km/h) go first, ahead of the Mach no. and mph numbers. I have asked for some help on changing the order. N2e (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- If we drop the mph unit entirely, then the desired result is possible from the conversion templates: 1.8 kilometers per second (Mach 6). Keeping the mph output does not seem to work with this approach, unless the template itself is edited to put the metric unit before the customary unit in the default output. (At least, I can't figure out how to get the template to spit out two non-default conversions from one input!) The conversion template is in the middle of a massive re-write, and {{convert/q}} is one of the gateways to the new version. (However, on further research {{convert/sandboxlua}} might be more appropriate.) 130.216.218.47 (talk) 05:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'd suggest retaining mph since it is probably of use to American readers - my suggestion would be x.x km/s (Mach y, zzzzzz mph). If the template doesn't currently support it, using static text could be an option. --W. D. Graham 12:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- If we drop the mph unit entirely, then the desired result is possible from the conversion templates: 1.8 kilometers per second (Mach 6). Keeping the mph output does not seem to work with this approach, unless the template itself is edited to put the metric unit before the customary unit in the default output. (At least, I can't figure out how to get the template to spit out two non-default conversions from one input!) The conversion template is in the middle of a massive re-write, and {{convert/q}} is one of the gateways to the new version. (However, on further research {{convert/sandboxlua}} might be more appropriate.) 130.216.218.47 (talk) 05:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- The article could benefit from one or two more images, and ideally one in the top right corner of the page.
- (under discussion) may not be possible to be easily fixed per Huntster comments in the above section (Talk:SpaceX_reusable_rocket_launching_system#Photo.2Fimage_improvement) .—02:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- One other thing, the page title is a little bit odd - "rocket" and "launching system" are redundant to each other and it makes it sound as if it is a reusable system for launching rockets, rather than a reusable rocket development programme. Do you think a page move would be appropriate?
- (under discussion)—see Talk page section below working on a new article name.—02:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
--W. D. Graham 12:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- 1) Ref #5 is handled...it no longer exists on the SpaceX site as far as I can tell, so I pulled from Archive.org. Performed lots of other citation fixes, including fixing a couple of URLs that were incorrect. I also agree that the forum cite should be removed...if a replacement cannot be located, the material needs to be excised. In my opinion, all the newspacewatch.com articles should be replaced since they've gone completely paywall (I'll be surprised if they survive), even though I've added archive links to all four of those cites.
- 2) I'll come back and clean up various conversion issues (definitely SI before non-SI in space-related articles), but I didn't immediately see much in the way of spelling issues. There's some formatting work to be done, but doesn't seem too bad.
- 3) As for images...they simply don't exist at this point in time (SpaceX is, after all, a private company, and conducts their testing in-house). I'm always keeping an eye out for them, but I don't expect anything until this version of the rocket is used for a NASA mission. However, lack of media should not disqualify the article from any status, even as Featured Article (I recall one last year that was passed without free media). Editors cannot be held responsible in situations like this.
- 4) I agree that "rocket" could be dropped from the title as redundant. Or, use something like "SpaceX reusable rocket program". Eh? — Huntster (t @ c) 14:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- 5) Ref #39 is handled. I removed it for now, pending a reliable source, and opened a Talk page section on it below to let the editor who added that know why it was removed, and how it can get back in.
- 6) I believe that all of the non-US English issues are resolved. I asked editor Chris the speller to stop by and he helpfully found a way to make the {{convert}} template uses put the units in with US English spellings. N2e (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Article name
The article name was, when the article was created in early-2013, SpaceX reusable rocket launching system, and has been to date (November 2013). The recent B class review (see above) suggested a name change may be in order as "rocket" and "launching system" are redundant, rather than a "reusable rocket development programme"
I concur with the reviewer, User:WDGraham. This article is about a fairly complex development program for multiple rockets and parts of rockets (first stages, second stages) using multiple engines (e.g., LOX/RP1, LOX/Methane) and other technologies (various control systems designs, multiple kinds/designs of landing gear), eventually full TPS for second stages, etc). Moreover, the program, as stated by the company and supported by sources, is occurring, and will continue to occur, over multiple years. (and when first named, I added this hidden text to the first sentence of the lede: "The '''SpaceX reusable rocket launching system'''<!-- there may be a better name in the future, but this is the name used in the Feb 2012 source --> is ...", knowing a name change would need to be accomplished later.)
Here are some ideas. I'm not sure of my own view yet on any one of them as being the most correct, so have not written this as a proposal for any one particular name. But I am personally partial to it being a "development program" rather than a "launching system" as I had originally named the article, as it is not some sort of single or comprehensive system at all.
- SpaceX reusable rocket development program – mentioned by WDGraham in the B class review comment
- SpaceX reusable launch system development program – seems rather descriptive; is it too long or cumbersome?
- SpaceX reusable launch system technology development program – more cumbersome?
- SpaceX reusable rocket program – mentioned by Hunster earlier today
If you have other ideas to kick around, please add them with bullets. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- The first seems just fine, the second and third feel too wordy to me. No comment on the fourth :P — Huntster (t @ c) 15:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Somehow "rocket" seems a bit on the narrow side to me. Since we call the rockets that do regular launches launch vehicles, and it seems that this is really more of a system, including ground systems, than merely a rocket. Clearly, SpaceX is developing a set of technologies to accomplish a large/complex goal: fully/rapidly reusable launch vehicles: a system. N2e (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- But the end result is still a rocket that is reusable. If you include ground systems in this mix, even current tech is (mostly) reusable. The rocket is what matters here, in my mind. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Of the four options suggested above my preferences would be #1 or #2. The third option is too wordy and in any case the end result of the programme will hopefully be a reusable rocket rather than just technology which might lead to one. I'm not sure about the scope on #4 either; this article will cover the development of the rocket but I would expect a separate article will be created when it actually starts flying. --W. D. Graham 18:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thinking about it a bit more, I much prefer #2, principally because it avoids the impression of the development of a single rocket. This development program is building a set of technologies that will be used as new piece parts of the booster of two existing rockets (Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy), and will be worked in in later years into one or more rocket second stages. N2e (talk) 04:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- How does #1 imply a single rocket? I certainly don't read it that way. Besides, it's rocket technology being developed, seems like it would be appropriate to use that word in the title. I'm not going to get worked up over the issue, though, so I'll step away for now. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well you might have partially answered the question: if we were to say, "rocket technology development program", that would not be so unclear. But to date, no one has suggested that particular name. While there seems to be no consensus on any name as of yet, my sense is the "rocket development program" implies the development of a single rocket, which seems an incorrect impression to leave our readers. On the other hand, "launch system development program" seems to better summarize/imply in a title that a set of technologies are involved in the "launch system", whereas "rocket" does not provide that impression. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
9 engines or 3 engines in the Grasshopper v1.1 flight test vehicle?
A statement was recently added to the article that questioned whether Grasshopper v1.1 will have all 9 engines, as the current source in the article asserts, or perhaps only 3. The question is a good one, and the argument for only three is a strong one. However, we have no reliable source for the statement; so I have removed it for now. This is the statement removed:
There is some debate though on the question of whether on this first version of the upgraded Grasshopper if it will use all nine engines, since for testing only three engines will be used. This is supported by an image showing a Grasshopper in construction with slots for only three engines in an online image.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://thespaceport.us/forum/topic/38529-spacex-grasshopper-updates/?p=482632 |title=SpaceX Grasshopper (updates), post #204 |work=TheSpacePort.us forum |date=October 20, 2013}}{{full|date=November 2013}}</ref>{{verify credibility|date=November 2013}}
We can add it back when a reliable source is found, which will likely be in the next few months, to confirm either way. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)