Talk:SpaceX reusable launch system development program

Recent edits
I reverted the recent Bold and 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 discuss it on first and see if ther is a consensus for this change.

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. N2e (talk) 12:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You also reverted several other good changes. You also added back information that is obviously outdated. Could you please only revert the part you object to and not just blindly revert everything because you object to half a sentence? There was no "detailed numeric list", there was a first and last flight. We also list the first and last flight for a couple of other vehicles in the article, I don't see what would be different for Starhopper. --mfb (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in SpaceX reusable launch system development program
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 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.

Reference named "trati20181224": From BFR (rocket):  From SpaceX Starship:  From SpaceX:  

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. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Another list of the many rocket technologies needed for reuse
From CNBC space reporter Michael Sheetz: 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.

The list is from another US rocket company, 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.) Source, Michael Sheetz, CNBC space journalist, 17 April 2020. —— N2e (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2020 (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)


 * 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.


 * 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.


 * 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.  N2e (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * SpaceX Starship SN8 launch as viewed from South Padre Island.jpg