Template:Did you know nominations/SpaceX reusable launch system development program

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BlueMoonset (talk) 07:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

SpaceX reusable launch system development program

(

)

... that SpaceX is working on bringing orbital rockets back to the launchpad and landing them on landing legs?

ALT1:... that SpaceX is working on bringing orbital rocket stages back to the launchpad and landing them on landing legs – just like Buck Rogers thought they should back in the 1950s?
ALT2:(if soon after a recent test flight [see below for dates, etc.] ): ... that SpaceX just completed a ~~(hopefully)~~ successful test flight bringing a 43-meter (141 ft) tall orbital rocket stage moving at Mach 10 down through the atmosphere for a simulated landing over the ocean?
Comment: This DYK would be best if it ran a few days after a SpaceX flight test where a first stage decelleration from Mach 10 and controlled-descent test through the atmosphere over the ocean is done. The first such test occurred in Sept. 2013; the next one is scheduled for 30 March 2014 or 2 April 2014 (launches can be delayed due to weather and various other reasons; the flight test of the new booster return technology can only be tested after the main launch—paid for by a customer with big bucks, $60 to $120 million for the primary payload to orbit—gets off the ground). There will be others throughout this year. I (User:N2e) would be happy to answer any questions. Just ping me on my Talk page.

Improved to Good Article status by N2e (talk). Self nominated at 03:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC).

Comment: added comment on 28 March 2014: there was a fire in one of the radar facilities of the USAF Eastern Range on about 26 March, so all orbital launches from Cape Canaveral and/or Kennedy Space Center are on hold for now: the SpaceX CRS-3 flight, on which the next controlled-descent flight test was to occur following the first-stage ascent, is now postponed and won't happen on 30 March; new date has not been rescheduled. I will try to get back here and update when the launch is rescheduled. N2e (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The radar is fixed; launch is rescheduled for "no earlier than" 14 April, and that depends on weather, plus some other US national security launches going off successfully before the range is even available to SpaceX. N2e (talk) 04:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I switched the main and the ALT1 hooks. This is my first nomination for DYK and I didn't know what I was doing. So I wrote an interesting hook, and it is one that is associated with vertical landing rockets (and is sourced): Buck Rogers vertical landing rocket, but the article doesn't currently have a source to the Buck Rogers locution in the GA version of the article. It would be possible to source this in the article, since one of the two sources at the Buck Rogers vertical landing rocket page is to use of the term about SpaceX' reusable rocket development program, but I am quite uncertain if it is okay to go in and change the GA article with this info now, after it has been nominated for DYK. In short, I'm a bit confused on the process, and so want to be careful not to break a bunch of rules. N2e (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Full review needed. (All comments above are by nominator.) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Technically nom'ed about a half-day more than 5 days after it passed GA, but close enough...
Article is long enough.
The hook is decent, but it's not clear that the "and landing them on landing legs" is actually part of the mission. There are several sources showing that landing legs are in fact part of the technical accomplishment of the main mission of "bringing back orbital rockets to the launchpad", but I don't know if that's how SpaceX would characterize what they are working on. It's not unsourced, though, and could do as-is in a pinch.
As an alternative we might consider using some of the facts from the "Technical feasibility" section. For instance: "DYK ... that despite the fact that physical laws nearly preclude the possibility of returning and reusing orbital rockets, SpaceX is attempting to do just that?"
Article is within policy: meets WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc.
@N2e: Do you know if there are any upcoming launch dates? -Thibbs (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Thibbs, the third of these over-ocean test flights is scheduled for this weekend, scheduled for Saturday at about 1300 UTC. See item no. 10 in the table at List_of_Falcon_9_launches#Launch_history_and_manifest. There should be at least a couple more throughout the year.

UPDATE: the launch has been delayed due to some sort of technical problem. It will not go on Saturday. There are apparently a couple of other launches from Cape Canaveral scheduled for other launchers in the middle of May, so the launch on which this test will be run will probably be rescheduled for late in the month, tentatively folks are saying 25 or 26 May. I'll come back here later and update this comment when the date is set in place by the three or four parties that have to agree on the dates (including all the radar tracking asset folks on the ground). N2e (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The second test flight, which occurred less than a month ago but after the DYK nomination, was successful in accomplishing the first-ever soft touchdown of an orbital rocket accomplishing a vertical "landing". Of course, since it was a test flight, they were doing it over the ocean, as is the third one this weekend. And although they "landed" the vehicle on the ocean, and got the test data that showed success, the sea state was 3 to 4 metre waves at the time, so that booster broke up and sunk. (Note, only the tests are over the ocean. Long term, they'll be landing them on the ground, just like the low-altitude tests described in this article: Grasshopper (rocket). If interested, look at the videos of any of the 7th, 8th or 10th test flights, in the Ext links at the bottom.)

To your question about landing on land. That is the point of the DYK. SpaceX is only "working on" doing this. The DYK text I proposed mentions the long-term goal -- rapid and complete reuse of orbital rockets, just like airplanes. But they are starting with just the booster stages, and have to do an extensive test program (over the ocean) first before the US regulators will let them attempt a land landing.

And finally, I changed the suggested DYK text once before, and moved my original proposal to the ALT1 position. However, now, the ALT1 might be better, as the article does discuss the Buck Rogers connection, and is sourced. But I don't know much about DYK process, so don't know how many changes a DYK proposal can take before it just confuses the reviewers; so I am hesitant to switch them back again.

Let me know if you need anything else. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

BTW, that launch that occurred last month on 18 April, and the reusable booster flight test that followed, is reflected in the hits this good article got in this data here [1] (but click on the 90 day view). I expect the test this weekend to do the same. N2e (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@N2e: My point was more that the hook seems to emphasize the landing legs when that seems from the sources to be incidental to the purpose of the mission. Like I said, it's clearly true that they're in fact using landing legs. That's well-sourced. I'm just unsure if it could be claimed that they are working toward that specific part of it. It seem to me that they might not actually care how it lands so long as it lands in reusable condition. This is a ridiculous comparison to draw, but there have been crafts such as the Mars Pathfinder that landed without using legs. Anyway it's a minor point since landing legs are in fact currently the intended means of handling the challenge. If you think that should stay then I don't have any objections. The fact that landing legs are used is properly sourced. -Thibbs (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Thibbs: I see what you're saying. I have two substantive responses to that. See what you think.

the landing legs on this flight are actually an important part of the flight test. The idea is to test all the flight systems over water, when the landing is not critical, before the critical step of relanding the rocket back at the launch site. The USAF wants to be sure that the vehicle can be reliably controlled, landing gear works reliably, etc. before allowing it to come back to Cape Canaveral. The landing legs have one additional technical use: they help stabilize the vehicle and increase rotational inertia—SpaceX said after the failed flight in September that the absence of landing legs on that test vehicle (they never expected the first test would even get successfully to the lower atmosphere) adversely affected the control and contributed to the excessive spin speed—so the legs are necessary, even for the over-ocean tests.
I think the inherent idea of the notion of vertical landing rockets, as opposed to the kind that have been flying the past 50+ years, is that they land on their tail and use some sort of legs/appendages that then support the rocket on the ground. That was inherent in the Buck Rogers popular idea earlier in the 20th Century. The idea is that that "... SpaceX is working on bringing orbital rocket stages back to the launchpad and landing them on landing legs – just like Buck Rogers thought they should back in the 1950s?" I suspect the vast majority of our readers have no idea of this fact, and that is why this is worthy of a DYK. But I think the whole vertical landing thing is a bit esoteric without the picture that is provided by making it clear that the whole thing they are working toward is a leg-landing rocket. That will be quite clear in a way that "vertical landing" won't be.

Having said all that, if you'd like, I would be happy to propose some different ALT text ideas, and you and others could look them over. There's time now since the launch planned for 10 May 2014 has been delayed to later in May, probably not until the 25th or 26th. (that was new news only on 9 May/yesterday). N2e (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

ALT1 is fine too, though it's longer (172 character gets us pretty close to the 200 character limit). -Thibbs (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I think ALT1 is better, more catchy, and all true and correct. But I will totally support the decision of the non-nom folks on this page. N2e (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if we could get this in by Sunday, but if possible does that sound like a good idea? Do you want to try for ALT2? -Thibbs (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@N2e: The landing legs issue is my attempt to ensure that the "hook fact is accurate and cited with an inline citation in the article ". There is direct support for 1) "SpaceX is working on bringing orbital rocket stages back to the launchpad" and 2) "SpaceX is attempting to land them on landing legs" but the best would be if we could find a source that spells out both claims in a single place instead of requiring us to synthesize the claim from 2 sources. Is there such a source? I may have missed it. Even if there's not, it's not much of a synthesis so I think it would probably be fine as is. So do you want to put this DYK into a special holding zone to await the next landing attempt or just go for it as soon as possible? -Thibbs (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Thibbs: Oh, I see. I think I found a source that does both in a single new article. This source does what you want. Take a look and see if you agree. In the meantime, I will ensure that that source is used in the article to support some claims. N2e (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@N2e:

Looks good to me. ALT1 is 169 characters in total so I guess it's short enough. Hook is fully verified. Ready to go on the queue right now or into the holding area to await the upcoming launch. Either way. -Thibbs (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Thibbs: Cool. Thanks for your efforts to validate this nomination. I think ALT1 is the best hook too! N2e (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the holding area would be the best place for it to go, so it can be posted a day or so after the test launch now expected late this month.

As I said, this is my first-ever DYK nomination, so I'm quite fuzzy on how the process works. I would be happy to track the launch, and ensure that the proper DYK folks are notified etc. if you can point me to how to do that. (I'll also make sure that I use a couple of the good reliable sources that will be published in the space press to document whatever it is that happens on the third test flight, and do so quickly, so the Wikipedia DYK readers can get an accurate picture of the state of this technology development program as of the day they are looking at it.) Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Same for me actually. I've only done this once or twice and that was years ago... From what I gather at Wikipedia:DYK#How a DYK nomination makes its way to the main page, we're now at step #2. The line reads: "If the suggested hook and the article(s) meet the requirements, any other editor may add the hook to one of the DYK template preparation areas, or 'preps'" (emphasis added). So I understand that to mean that neither of us can move it to "preps" yet. We have to wait for a third person to do the honors. -Thibbs (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)