Jump to content

Talk:SpaceX reusable launch system development program

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tesla Tree (talk | contribs) at 18:13, 1 August 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconSpaceflight GA‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Good Article?

As an editor who has contributed to the development of this article over the past year+, and with a launch scheduled for next month that, if successful, will be a test flight that will be a notable achievement in the History of human technological advances, I have wanted to see if the article might be improved up to the quality level expected of Wikipedia Good article.

In fact, if this very first attempt to bring an orbital launch vehicle booster back to the launch site for future reuse is successful—rather than using the technique of the the first sixty years of the space age where orbital booster rockets, including the Shuttle external tank, have just been dumped in the ocean—the article will likely be of interest to a much larger group of Wikipedia readers around the time of that flight.

It therefore seems prudent to take a look at the criteria, as an "insider" who helped edit the article, prior to nominating the article for GA status. I intend to do that today. N2e (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Internal look against the criteria

edit 

Good Article criteria

To that end, these are the current criteria: A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and
    3. it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
more...

And here is my (inside) take on the article measuring up.

(I'm not saying this makes it GA; only that I wouldn't want to waste the time of outside reviewers if those editors interested in the article have not at least considered the criteria prior to nomination.)
  • Verifiable with no original research:
    • The article appears to be well-sourced to reliable sources and inline citations to footnotes.
  • Broad in its coverage:
    • The article seems to cover all aspects of the technology development program, including the various technologies involved, and the multiple phases of the test program happening at multiple locations around the US.
  • Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
    • I'm not aware of significant criticism or controversy that is not covered in the article.
  • Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    • The article has been quite stable for the past couple of months, with the exception of the GOCE copy edit mentioned above, and has no ongoing content disputes of any kind.
  • Illustrated, if possible, by images
    • The images used in the article are not as good as some editors would like, including me (N2e). They are not as good as some of the images released to news media on this technology and test program, but those do not have the sort of copyright that we can use in Wikipedia. (see above discussion on the Talk page in December 2013 and Janurary 2014.)
However, from GA criteria no. 6: "The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided."
So I believe it measures up to the minimal GA criteria for images, although we continue to search for better license-appropriate images of this technology development and testing.

Therefore, on net, I do not believe it would be a waste of time to request a formal GA review of the article, and ask some outside editors to come in and review it. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 In progress—I have since nominated the article for a formal GA review. N2e (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:SpaceX reusable launch system development program/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jamesx12345 (talk · contribs) 22:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this on in the next few days. Jamesx12345 22:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review punch list

  • Intro seems a bit verbose. Perhaps another picture of the Grasshopper - to illustrate the concept of a rocket landing - would help?
    • Re: Grasshopper photo: I very much agree. Have been endeavoring to find a Wiki-licensable photo of Grasshopper flying for 18 months now. See extensive discussion on Talk page. User:Huntster, who is both very wiki-photo knowledgeable and an Admin on the English Wikipedia tells us that there simply are not any wiki-allowable images that anyone has yet found of Grasshopper in flight. (although there are lots of good Youtube videos released by the company). I've wondered whether perhaps a fair use criteria might work, but editors strong in wiki-photo fu have told me no dice. N2e (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • checkY—Hey James. See what I said before (above) about the challenges of obtaining a WP-license-able photo, and let me know if you are okay with this for a GA review. The editor who provided me the rather strict interpretation of fair use and the WP license practices did allow that some other editors might not take as hard a line on it as he does. However, I've not gone and tried to pursue a consensus from a larger group on this. N2e (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm afraid I don't know much about image licensing. It doesn't actually need any images at all for the purpose of a GAR, but they do make it easier to understand. Ideally, somebody would pay for me to attend a launch and I'd take a few snaps :-) Jamesx12345 21:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          •  Question: —Oh, that might work. We have a LOT of photos of the launches. Anytime a rocket launches from a US government leased facility (such as the pads that SpaceX leases from the US Air Force), the USG takes lots of photos, and they are released under quite acceptable licenses. So we could definitely get more of those; there is one in the article already.
The problem is our EXTREMELY limited photoset from anything at all related to the reusable technology (e.g., Grasshopper v1.0 flying, or of the landing-over-water tests). These are private, SpaceX takes lots of photos; releases a very few to the press, but none with Creative Commons-acceptable licenses.
So do you think we should just insert another photo of the rocket launching? (beyond the one we have in the article now?) None of that is reusable tech tests etc. N2e (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    • Re: tightening up the prose: The article just went through a WP:GOCE. But one idea I had is that we could delete the following sentence from the second paragraph, as it is only summarizing details presented in the article: "Eight low-altitude flight tests were made in 2012 and 2013. The first booster return controlled-descent test from high-altitude was made in September 2013, and a second test is planned for March 2014.[2][3]" Would you think that would help? N2e (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "occur at a velocity of approximately" - km/s would be adequate here, I think.
    • I would tend to agree, but what is there is a result of somewhat involved Talk page consensus; moreover, the original source only gives the velocities in Mach numbers, which are approximate, and so we felt we ought to leave those Mach nos. in the encyclopedia prose. And generally, in spaceflight related articles, we give velocities in both SI units and in English measurment units for a global audience. Do you think the GA criteria would trump the Talk page consensus? I would be happy to revisit the topic with the previous discussants. N2e (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It said this was an approximation." - this single sentence looks a bit odd. It also makes the use of refs 6 and 7 a bit unclear.
  • I've tagged 4 dead links using Checklinks. There's also a [citation needed] needing fixed, but that might be covered by ref 46.
    •  In progress
      • The WPO article is based on this video by AP [1] - I think that might be a better ref. Template:Cite AV media could be used for this purpose. Jamesx12345 17:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. Unfortunately that link at the AP only has a couple minutes of the news conference on it. But I was able to locate another link, on the National Press Club archive. I've added that video link (as you suggested) to the NPC line to supplement the (very good, but now dead) WaPo article. N2e (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've just removed the link altogether. I think it's probably less confusing that way, and just as good as an unlinked ref to a paper source. Jamesx12345 20:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's a good solution. I wasn't sure what the standard is for that sort of thing (leave the link? take it out? what sort of note to leave? etc.) I'm very glad that you, as an experienced GA reviewer, knew what to do with that.
In the meantime, I think I still have a couple more of the deadlinks to crawl through, and a few more "in process" items to work. N2e (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • checkY—James, I've looked and believe there are no more dead links. But I don't know how to use checklinks, so if you would please take a look at this and then let us know if you are good to go. N2e (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "first stage is now being flight tested" - very liable to dating. Given that you and some other editors have focused on this article for a fair length of time, it should be OK, but an {{As of}} or {{Update after}} could be used.
  • "News of the new test rocket" - "News of the test rocket"
  • "re-entry database" - not sure what this is. From the context, it seems to be data that will allow a computer to work out where it will land, but I could be quite far off the mark.
    •  Fixed It is really just a bunch of wind tunnel test data that shows how a very large rocket body (about 3.3 metres in diameter and over 50 metres long behaves at a bunch of different velocities and altitudes in the atmosphere, with the rocket body moving through the atmosphere in various orientations. It's all quite essential for coding up the control algorithms to tell the engines and thrusters what to do based on where the returning rocket finds itself. But I can really see how that esoteric info was quite unclear with the term "re-entry database". Good catch! — N2e (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • NASA can be linked in the first instance.
  • "reusable rocket system that will be powered by LOX/methane, "an evolution of SpaceX's Falcon 9 booster", and reiterated SpaceX's commitment to develop a vertical landing breakthrough technology." - "reusable rocket system to be powered by LOX/methane, "an evolution of SpaceX's Falcon 9 booster", and reiterated SpaceX's commitment to develop a vertical landing technology." - update tense, rm "breakthrough" - don't think it's needed.
  • "24-story" - this needs a source, preferably for the height in metres. In terms of buildings, the spelling should be storey.
    •  Fixed. Added a source, and eliminated the "24-story" reference completely. BTW, in American English, the height of buildings is spelled "story", whereas it is "storey" in British and Canadian English. There is one other reference to "12-story" in the article (about an earlier Grasshopper test flight). Let me know if you think it might be better to eliminate that arcane sort of linear measurement as well now that I took out the "24-story" term. N2e (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I stand corrected.
  • "SpaceX made history in September 2013 when it relit" - "In September 2013, SpaceX successfully for the first time relit" - seems a bit promotional. My wording isn't great, it's just the "made history" that doesn't feel quite right.
    •  Fixed — I've copyedited this, and eliminated the "made history." Yes, sounds a bit promotional in that form. It was an historic event, and something that had not been successfully accomplished with a booster rocket strictly under rocket-control (no aeronautical flight surfaces like wings or a lifting body, etc.) previously. See what you think. N2e (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for March 2014 at the earliest." - another ref needed. I'll stop referring to refs by number since they might change unpredictably as you add or move them.
  • Transonic can be linked.
  • There is inconsistent use of full stops in Technology. I think it's just 3 that are needed.
  • "and upon introducing space launch customers to the idea of putting a payload in space with a used stage" - quite colloquial "and upon space launch customers being willing to put a payload in space with a used stage" is a bit clearer, maybe.
    •  In progress—not quite sure how to reword this... The idea in the source is that this is very new thinking to the sorts of large customers who might buy launch services, and that customers may very well not warm to the idea of utilizing a "used" booster to carry their precious cargo to orbit ('they've never done it that way before' ... it has never been an option since government-designed space programs, in all nation-states that have gotten to space, have only built expendable systems, and even with that, they can only get a very small percentage of the liftoff weight (something like 3%) to orbit. This really is a huge paradigm shift for the industry, if SpaceX are even successful in getting this expensive project to work at all. At any rate, that is the idea behind "introducing space launch customers to the idea of putting a payload in space with a used stage" -- but I'm thinking on some ways to rephrase that.
      • checkY—James—please note my comment above and see what you think now. N2e (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • It looks OK now on second reading. If anything, I think more could be made of concerns about reliability (have any agencies said anything for example? I don't think the JWST would go up on a used booster, for example.)
  • "If all aspects of the test program go very well, and if a customer is interested, SpaceX said in September 2013 that the first reflight of a Falcon 9 booster stage could be done in late 2014." - "in September 2013, SpaceX said that if all aspects of the test program are successful and a customer is interested, the first reflight of a Falcon 9 booster stage could be done in late 2014."
  • "have a major impact on the cost of access to space" - not sure about the use of the quote here. I think there is probably some scope for expansion with regard to what it would mean for putting things in orbit.
  • The Technical Feasibility section is a bit odd. I think it would be better if it were integrated into Technologies, with the problems and solutions in one place.
    •  In progress Two comments for now: 1) I believe the difficulty of this undertaking is of such a magnitude, and so many have thought quite impossible, that it probably does warrant a section on Technical feasibility to address this. Moreover, while this sort of return/landing and reuse have been hypothesized for decades in Science Fiction and a few academic papers, none of the current space programs have even attempted full and rapid reuse. 2) Having said that, I do not believe the prose that was in the section adequately covered the problem nor the topic. I have made several edits to broaden the explication of the problem, and how SpaceX has (to date) only a theoretical understanding that it can be done, and may be economic to do so. I will look to make a few more changes here in the coming days. N2e (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • The bullet points in Test program are also inconsistent re. full stops.
  • "tests of post-mission (spent) Falcon 9 booster stages" - that link is a bit confusing. I think that whole bullet could be made somewhat clearer, perhaps by starting with "September 2013..."
  • "Grasshopper is a set of experimental technology-demonstrator..." - the two refs in that paragraph not at the end of the sentences - currently 33 and 34 - could be moved to the end.
  • "...flight tests of the vehicle are to occur in Texas." - ref needed.
  • "...and did so." - this is quite abrupt, and also needs a ref. I can't help but feel that there is a nicer way to say it.
  • "Four additional test flights were made in August 2013." - another ref, or instance of ref.
  • "Grasshopper version 1.0... and is 106 feet (32 m) tall." - is quite clumsy. Perhaps "Grasshopper version 1.0, the company's first test vehicle, consisted of a Falcon 9 [v1.0] first stage tank and pressuriser with a single Merlin-1D engine. It had four steel landing legs and a support structure, and stood 106 feet (32 m) tall." or something like that.
  • "In an arrangement unusual for launch vehicles,[18] some first stages of the SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 versions of the rocket are testing propulsive-return, over-water aspects of the reusable rocket technology." - this is quite confusing, and it is unclear what the ref supports - I would move it to the end of the sentence. Another ref might be needed in that paragraph.
  • "Falcon 9 test plan calls for the" - does this need to be updated?
I did some further copyediting on this. Since it is an introductory paragraph to the section, I think it best for it to describe the general test plan for these post-mission booster descent tests, not just any one particular test. The test history is better covered in the paragraphs below the introduction. See what you think. N2e (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I'll wait for you to make any changes you feel are necessary and look at it again in a few days. Sorry for the delay in completing this review - I've been quite heavily occupied for the past few weeks. Jamesx12345 18:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much James! Glad you made it through the entire article. I'll get back to addressing your review comments starting today.
In the meantime, I see that another editor has helpfully joined in to help get the article improved to GA quality. Thanks Gopher65! N2e (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James — I believe that that we have addressed 100% of the items you identified above. I've left 4 or 5 questions for you as marked by the YELLOW CHECKMARKS: checkY, like this. See what you think.

Please address the old items in the list above, but add any new items you see below, as the long list is getting rather hard to navigate. N2e (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation, after the initial "punch list" was worked through

Since this list is kind of long and hard to navigate, I'm starting a new section for new items that you or Gopher65 see that need attention. N2e (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James, I have tidied up the list above, trying to ensure I've not missed anything. I believe there are just two questions for you now, both marked with the  Question: symbol. N2e (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I've watched the videos, and admit that it is pretty cool. Launch 8 especially is pretty spectacular from above. I'm afraid I can't finish tonight, and probably not tomorrow, but will definitely get all your comments replied by Saturday. Sorry. Jamesx12345 23:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. That will be fine. (and BTW, just late yesterday US time, SpaceX and NASA announced that the CRS-3 flight would be delayed at least a couple of weeks, so the second high-altitude, booster controlled-descent flight test won't occur any earlier than March 30th.) N2e (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Part II

I'll just look through it again since it has changed quite a bit. This review shouldn't take long. Jamesx12345 12:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy now that I've read through all of it, and that it meets the GA criteria. Thanks for being much quicker at responding to my comments than I was to yours. Jamesx12345 16:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More sources for future consideration

  • Triumph of His Will, Esquire Magazine, 15 Nov 2012. A long form magazine piece that includes support material for the necessity of the reusable technology to SpaceX' Mars plans, plus support material for the vertical integration of the rocket manufacturing facility (e.g., aluminum rocket tank domes being brought in-house due to excessively high price offered by Alcoa Aluminum, etc.) plus more: Musk's journey from South Africa through Canada to the US, citizenship, Musk's family, others involved in the formation of the (very short-lived) "Life to Mars" company, and then the formation of SpaceX, early Falcon 1 launch failures, etc. Probably a useful source for several related articles.) N2e (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration

The Falcon family illustration is helpful but can it be put more into chrono order? The versions with legs should be to the right of those without. ++Lar: t/c 12:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added your comment to the Talk page for the SVG graphic file on Wikimedia: [2] Maybe someone with the right skillset and editing tools can update the file. N2e (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Test Flight 1/ Test Flight 2

These subject headings maybe should be the actual mission designators? CASSIOPE or SES-8 or Thaicom-6 or what have you.... ++Lar: t/c 12:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source

This recent interview has Musk quoted and making it explicit and clear that SpaceX has not yet succeeded with reusability, despite a number of attempts. Elon Musk Interview, at AskMen, published in April 2014.

Also has this Musk quote describing the process of getting reusability to work:

"Expendable rockets, which many smart people have worked on in the past, get maybe 2% of liftoff mass to orbit -- really not a lot. Then, when they’ve tried reusability, it’s resulted in negative payload, a 0 to 2% minus payload [laughs]. The trick is to figure out how to create a rocket that, if it were expendable, is so efficient in all of its systems that it would put 3% to 4% of its mass into orbit. On the other side, you have to be equally clever with the reusability elements such that the reusability penalty is no more than 2%, which would leave you with a net ideally of still 2% of usable load to orbit in a reusable scenario, if that makes sense. You have to pry those two things apart: Push up payload to orbit, push down the mass penalty for reusability -- and have enough left over to still do useful work."

Cheers, N2e (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Early history

Here is some even earlier history, from before the November 2011 public rollout of the new propulsive-return approach to reusability.

  • January 2009: Musk ambition: SpaceX aim for fully reusable Falcon 9 (Note: this was a full year and a half prior to the first launch attempt of a Falcon 9 rocket, and only a few months after SpaceX first ever successful orbital flight, after three failures.} So SpaceX were batting only 0.250 on launches, and Musk is publicly talking about the essential need of reusability for space launch in general, and for SpaceX Falcon 9 in particular—at a time when none of the serious space launch companies were doing so, nor spending private money to do so (although many are/were willing to take government contracts to work on anything their state patron will pay them for and on which they can earn a profit..

This earlier-date material might be worth extending the history back a bit earlier than it now is. If others have an opinion, leave it here. Or you are welcome to use this source to add earlier history yourself. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

The article says that The challenge of creating a reusable rocket is almost impossible due to the small percentage of a rocket's mass that can make it to orbit. and Typically, a rocket's payload is only about 3% of the mass of the rocket which is also roughly the amount of mass in fuel that is required for the vehicle's re-entry. I couldn't find this clearly stated in the sources mentioned, and while it is true for single stage to orbit reusable vehicles, it is not true for multi-stage vehicles like Falcon 9 / Falcon Heavy. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The language "almost impossible" is not directly quoted from the source, nor does the source contain any information to support the assertion that the feasibility is low. I personally think that sentence is misleading. Tesla Tree (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SpaceX_reusable_launch_system_development_program&oldid=619452517"