# Talk:SpaceX reusable launch system development program


### SpaceX reusable launch system development program
Article (edit | visual edit | history) ·  Article talk (edit | history) ·  Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 Result: Kept There are no requirements for citations every section and bullet points are allowed. No major neutrality concerns so closing this as keeping its good article status. AIRcorn (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
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)

Thanks for the notice. We can work to add citations, there are plenty of good sources available. Regarding "routine procedure", we are talking about the first-stage landings, which have indeed become standard and routine. You are correct to note that relaunching boosters is not routine yet, but the article does not say that. — JFG talk 19:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good, let's at least get some citations in that section and maybe clarify it a little. Both SpaceX and other citations would be good, in an effort to level out the POV. I can go through the whole article and pick out specific things, but I think you generally know what needs improved, so if you want you can just ping me when the major issues are addressed and I can go through it in detail after that. Whatever works for me. Kees08 (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@JFG: Wanted to check in on this, would you like me to start tagging the article or bring up the issues here? Probably should get this going soon. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 18:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I had forgotten about this process. Do let me know what you think should be improved, and I'll take a look asap. — JFG talk 23:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Biggest one is to increase the number of statements with citations. I can tag a bunch with citation needed tags if you need. I can give a full, proper review as well, though it would help me out a lot if the statements in the article were supported with citations. Kees08 (Talk) 00:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Ok, don't bother tagging, I'll take a pass over the weekend. — JFG talk 00:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 Hi Kees08, 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)

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)

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)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

SpaceX Starship SN8 launch as viewed from South Padre Island.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I think an extensive cleanup of thes page is overdue. Too much now outdated or extensively detailed clutter as piled up, including statements like "SpaceX is expected to significantly reduce the cost of access to space" which sound humourous nowadays. Some stremlining and reduction to the core information is necessary, to make it understandable for the common layperson to visit it. 47.69.68.181 (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed.
The current state of the article does not match its "Good Article" Status. Redacted II (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Long-time space journalist Eric Berger/Ars Technica published a good secondary source summary of the results of the SpaceX reusable technology, in the 10th year after SpaceX first brought a booster back to the launch area in December 2015.  With recent Falcon 9 milestones, SpaceX vindicates its “dumb” approach to reuse, Eric Berger, Ars Technica, 28 August 2025. Would be useful to improve the article.  —  N2e (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)