![]() | SpaceX reusable launch system development program has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassessit. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | Afact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 11, 2014.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that SpaceX is working on bringing orbital rockets back to the launchpad and landing them on landing legs?
| ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives: 1 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present. |
Greetings! I came across this page recently, and it looks like the article could use some work to get back to meeting the GA criteria. Specifically, there are sections that are completely uncited, a section that using bulleted entries when it could be prose (not following MoS), and it does not seem very neutral (calling a section routine procedure after one reflown booster?).
I would correct all these myself, but it looks like a very large project and I am honestly not interested in putting that level of effort in. I can contribute in reviewing and doing some of the changes required however. Kees08 (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
HiKees08, thanks for your community review, and thanks JFG for being active and offering to help bring the article back to GA criteria. I just saw this Talk Page section today and seem to have not been aware of this. I did a lot of work to get this article to GA status back in the day, and the SpaceX dev program on this has been rather dynamic so lots of stuff is changing in the real world all the time the past 3+ years so it can be challenging to keep the article in sycn.
How can I help. It looks like JFG was going to work the set of items identified on 15 Dec. Did that happen? Does Kees08 think its fixed now? Might you be willing to tag the specific areas you see remaining so that we can keep the re-GA cleanup process moving forward? N2e (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC) Sorry about this, I will try to get to it again soon. Kees08 (Talk) 00:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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":
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)
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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply