Talk:Reusable spacecraft
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
(original discussion moved from Pancho507's talk page)
Hi there - I'm conducting a New pages patrol on the page Reusable spacecraft and I noticed your recent edits. I just wanted to see what your thoughts are on the need for a separate article from Reusable launch system. They seem to be part of the same general concept and so I'd think we'd want to keep all of that information together but I'd like to know your feedback before I start any proposals. Paradoxsociety 04:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Paradoxsociety Hi, i split the article in response to a request made by Soumya-8974 on Talk:Reusable launch system, to which i agreed, since reusable spacecraft are different from reusable launch systems (reusable spacecraft like the space shuttle orbiters are meant to orbit and reenter many times, and include heat tiles to protect against heat during reentry, reusable rockets/launch systems are not meant to orbit, and as far as i know they do not have heat tiles) so they are the same in the sense that they are reusable but i believe they are not entirely the same since reusable spacecraft can orbit whereas reusable launch systems can not, and reusable spacecraft include special systems to deorbit and to protect against heat during reentry, things launch systems do not have. I believe the article is necessary because the space shuttle orbiters aren't alone anymore. Also, reusable spacecraft can be launched aboard expendable and reusable launch systems, so i believe the two shouldn't be treated as a system but as two different components, the reusable spacecraft being the payload of a reusable or expendable rocket. Pancho507 (talk) 05:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- I see that request for split now. I do see what you're saying about the differences between the two concepts. Let me rephrase the question this way though - could all of the content be covered under a single topic like "Reusable spaceflight systems"? Or perhaps "Reusability in spaceflight systems"? I would think that anyone wanting to learn about the topic of reusability would want to know about the entire history and evolution of all of the different components that have been part of this trend historically. Paradoxsociety 03:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- ParadoxsocietyI believe it could because it is technically correct but i also believe it's not the best idea because a search on google for "reusable spaceflight systems" mostly throws results about either suborbital spaceplanes (like SpaceShipTwo) or spacex's boosters, So, if we move this back to reusable launch systems, i believe that article should be renamed reusable spaceflight systems but only if the scope of that article is also expanded to include suborbital spaceplanes, (include a summary of what a spaceplane is). I believe the lead could be phrased something like this: Reusable spaceflight systems include reusable spacecraft and reusable launch systems. Spacecraft may either be suborbital or orbital spaceplanes or crewed or uncrewed (cargo) capsules. Pancho507 (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- I see that request for split now. I do see what you're saying about the differences between the two concepts. Let me rephrase the question this way though - could all of the content be covered under a single topic like "Reusable spaceflight systems"? Or perhaps "Reusability in spaceflight systems"? I would think that anyone wanting to learn about the topic of reusability would want to know about the entire history and evolution of all of the different components that have been part of this trend historically. Paradoxsociety 03:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)