Talk:SpaceX/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on SpaceX. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100713163321/http://www.californiaspaceauthority.org/html/government_pages/pr080714-1.html to http://www.californiaspaceauthority.org/html/government_pages/pr080714-1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Public / Private funding for Falcon 9 v1.0 and Dragon Spacecraft

It is clear that private investors bore most of the risk for delays and failures in the Falcon 9 and Dragon development programs. It is also clear that the reusable Falcon 9 v1.2 development was completely funded by SpaceX. It is factually incorrect to ignore the critical (to the financial viability of SpaceX) funding of NASA's COTS and CRS program, especially because as 2017, NASA is the only verified paying customer for such services. When it comes to these NASA programs, we should focus on the competitive execution of these programs that allowed for failed competitors to be replaced with new competitors (such as Orbital ATK. Some more neutrally worded achievements might be

"The first competitive company to successfully launch, orbit, and recover a spacecraft (Falcon 9 Flight 2 — December 9, 2010)" and "The first privately designed spacecraft to reach the International Space Station (Falcon 9 Flight 3 — May 25, 2012)"

I do not understand how to refine the claim that SpaceX is "The first private company to send a satellite into geosynchronous orbit (Falcon 9 Flight 7 — December 3, 2013)," so that it does not apply to the first Atlas V launch by Lockheed Martin, or the Ariane rocket program. The introduction should probably solely make claims about the private funding of the Falcon 9 reusability program and possibly the carbon fiber fuel tanks for the ITS program. If claims of privately funded achievements is necessary, context of the Space_launch_market_competition should be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.155.3 (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Doing business as versus trading as

@Neuralnewt: Ten edits following AndyPandyNUFC's changing "doing business as" to "trading as"? Did you even read the article it linked to? The phrase is not generally associated with the stock market. You could have simply referred to the {{American English}} template since dba is generally used in the US (while the rest of the English-speaking world uses t/a). nagualdesign 18:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I did read the article, but I kept second guessing myself about what wording would be best since I was initially confused by and unfamiliar with "trading name". I even went as far as to look at other corporate wikipedia pages to see what their wording was, but I didn't find anything... Neuralnewt (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Sorry if I came across as a little bitey, I didn't realize you were new around here. Keep up the good work. nagualdesign 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Nah, it's fine. I didn't take it negatively. I knew that my edits weren't the best thought out, which I hope to get better at. Thanks for being open and upfront! Neuralnewt (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

If you ever need any pointers feel free to drop a message on my talk page. nagualdesign 01:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on SpaceX. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170323235120/http://milesobrien.com/elon-musk-unedited/ to http://milesobrien.com/elon-musk-unedited/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170331005543/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/spacex-launches-first-recycled-rocket-in-test-of-cost-cutting-model/article34513166/ to https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/spacex-launches-first-recycled-rocket-in-test-of-cost-cutting-model/article34513166/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Was a fully-operational Falcon Heavy flown?

It is unclear if a fully-operational Falcon Heavy with an actual payload capacity of 140,000 lb was flown. The actual payload was only several thousand pounds. A core first and second stage capable of lifting 140,000 lb would likely be a significant upgrade from the Falcon 9. I cannot find any mention that such an upgraded core was used. Jamesmsnead (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The falcon heavy that we saw launch on 2/6 was a fully operational version. No major upgrades to the hardware were needed other than some structural modifications. The first stage of the falcon heavy basically consists of three falcon 9 rockets, each capable on their own of bringing 50k lbs to low earth orbit. Murdalok (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Revenue

How much revenue does SpaceX generate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.233.57 (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's an absolute answer for that question, at least not one that I can find. Presumably SpaceX's accountants would know: is that sort of thing public knowledge in the USA? There are some back of envelope calculations you can make, though. The number of flights each year are increasing quickly and are listed in the article, and the prices SpaceX charges for launches are published on the company's website for all to see. Chris Jefferies (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Falcon 9 is not the only launch vehicle that is active that uses subcooled propellent

The article states that Falcon 9 is the only vehicle that uses subcooled propellent, however this is not true. The NK33 engine currently used by the Soyuz 2-1v uses subcooled liquid oxygen as well as the now retired Antares 100 series. In addition, the article cites a stackexchange page as its sole citation even though it is incorrect, this should be corrected ASAP as stackexchange should not be used as a reliable source, and in this case is in fact also incorrect. How this highly unreliable citation managed to slip by for so long is beyond me. I should also add that this really should not be under the achievements section, this is merely a design choice and is not an achievement in itself. Sasamj (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. Feel free to boldly edit the article accordingly. — JFG ^talk 01:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Starlink is a Spacecraft Right?

Does the Starlink satellites count as a spacecraft as in the Spacecraft and Flight Hardware section? It seems odd that the product SpaceX believe will be the single most profitable part of its business would be in the "Other" category when it clearly is a spacecraft. UnknownM1 (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The Starlink satellites are indeed spacecraft, but the program is currently at R&D stage, which is why it is listed in that section, along with BFR. When more information is available, it might deserve its own main-level section. — JFG ^talk 17:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I would agree if it was conceptual but they currently have launched 2 protoype satellites and have 6 more planned. They have operation satellites, even if it is still in R&D. UnknownM1 (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

By definition, if it's R&D, it's not operational. The test birds can only provide coverage a few minutes a day over a single tracking station in California (from what I recall reading in the FCC license application), and they will cease transmitting and probably decay after a few months. — JFG ^talk 23:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok agreed. When would be the appropriate time to expand those sections then? UnknownM1 (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Probably as soon as SpaceX publishes some operational plan for Starlink, or a space industry journalist compares the new contenders in low-latency LEO "Internet blanket" constellations. — JFG ^talk 15:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Section? Elon Musk Deletes FB Pages for SpaceX and Tesla

I'd like to add a myriad of links in regards to the recent actions of Musk; removing SpaceX and Tesla off Facebook. Any ideas of a particular section prior to my additions? It's my belief that these additions would be excellent material for readers and ultimately understanding Musk's reasons to join the movement. Thanks Mygraymatter (talk) 05:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

”Understanding Musk’s reasons to join the movement” is irrelevant to an encyclopeadia article on SpaceX or Tesla. If at all the most appropriate place for it is on the Elon Musk page. ChiZeroOne (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Russia surrenders

I think this report by ARS Technica is quite relevant for the Competition section: [1]. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Etymology of engine names

In the "Rocket Engines" section of the article, the current edit implies that the name of the Merlin engine refers to the character in Welsh mythology, which is incorrect. The original engines developed by SpaceX for launch vehicle propulsion were Merlin and Kestrel, both named after North American species of falcons. ----Benjamin Henry (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Reference for that? Nergaal (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

https://www.inverse.com/article/35774-elon-musk-names-spacex Sufficient? ----Benjamin Henry (talk) 02:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I added it in the text. Nergaal (talk) 07:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Article

Good morning to all.

I wish to get feedback and advice regarding the following article that hopefully I can publish. I am writing this as a freelance effort. Thank you!LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

SpaceX Initiatives

As of May 2018, media companies in the United States reported Billionaire businessman Elon Musk’s SpaceX Company has a valuation of $24 billion. Some projected it at $28 billion. https://nypost.com/2018/04/13/spacex-is-now-worth-24-billion/ https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/22/spacex-leading-the-space-race-to-launch-humans-to-mars.html In February 6 of the same year, SpaceX launched its Falcon Heavy Booster from Florida USA, acknowledged as the most powerful rocket in the world since the Saturn V moon rocket of the National Aeronautics and Safety Administration (NASA). https://www.space.com/39632-spacex-falcon-heavy-launch-whats-next.html https://www.nasa.gov/feature/50-years-ago-the-first-flight-of-the-saturn-v Stakeholders in the space industry described Elon Musk as today’s most disruptive space innovator and prophetic entrepreneur determined to build massive economical reusable spacecraft and rockets for colonization of human beings in the planet Mars. Musk said he wants to help develop the space exploration sector in the USA like the Blue Origin of Jeff Bezos. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/09/new-space-race-billionaires-elon-musk-jeff-bezos Aside from SpaceX, NASA contracted Boeing for the development of commercial crew flights to the International Space Station (ISS) that travels over the planet Earth from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/boeing-nasa-spacecraft-international-space-station-setback-propellant-leak-a8458586.html However, Boeing confirmed a glitch during the test launch of its CST-100 Starliner crew vehicle in July 21, 2018 that can set back its mission for transporting astronauts to the ISS. https://spacenews.com/boeings-starliner-launch-abort-engine-suffers-problem-during-testing/ SpaceX and Boeing have made substantial progress in improving their respective crew transportation systems despites some delays. However, these contractors expressed confidence to achieve certification milestones by 2019. https://bgr.com/2018/07/12/spacex-boeing-nasa-new-space-race/ SpaceX intends to launch Demo-2 (Dragon spacecraft) on top of the Falcon 9 Rocket in April 2019 from the Kennedy Space Center Launch Pad 39-A in Florida State. https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2018/08/03/meet-the-astronauts-flying-spacexs-demo-2/ According to the Wall Street Journal, NASA gave subsidies worth $6.8 billion to both SpaceX and Boeing in September 2014 to develop, build, and test space transport (Space Taxi contracts) for flying US astronauts into trajectory. https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-and-spacex-share-6-8-billion-in-nasa-space-taxi-contracts-1410904245 Elon Musk’s first company that he founded with his brother in 1995 at Palo Alto, California was Zip2, a web pioneer working with newspapers at that time to bring advertisements and local information on the Internet. They sold the company in 1999 to Compaq for $20 million. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/19/how-elon-musk-founded-zip2-with-his-brother-kimbal.html Musk became chief executive officer of PayPal briefly in 2000 before eBay purchased the global online payments system in 2002. Elon Musk put his earnings of around $180 million to SpaceX and Tesla Motors. http://time.com/money/4883868/8-innovative-ways-elon-musk-made-money-before-he-was-a-billionaire/ An article published in Quartz.com cited Musk as borrowing $20 million against his SpaceX assets to finance Tesla one year after NASA funded the $1.6 billion contract with Musk’s SpaceX and receiving a $20 million funding investment from the Founder’s Fund. https://qz.com/1361847/elon-musk-considers-financing-tesla-bid-with-spacex/ SpaceX will have its next rocket launching by September 9, 2018. The Falcon 9 Block 5 craft will carry the 18V geostationary communications satellite of Telstar Telestat. https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-falcon-9-block-5-launch-landing-september-slip/ The Los Angeles Times published an article on August 20, 2018 mentioning the NASA as cautiously agreeing to allow SpaceX to operate its rocket while astronauts have boarded the capsule for the flight to the International Space Station. The NASA wants more demonstrations prior to giving ultimate approval. In 2016, SpaceX employed a similar process with a rocket which burst and destroyed the satellite it carried. NASA personnel performed a thorough assessment of the company’s ground operations, escape platform, and operational history for safety purposes. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-spacex-load-and-go-20180820-story.html LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Excellent historical overview source

Reusability - The Key to Reliability and Affordability is an excellent overview of the history, current capabilities, and current mission manifest of SpaceX ("We have about a hundred missions on the manifest, and that represents a value of about twelve billion dollars"). Was a talk given by Hans Koenigsmann, VP of Mission Assurance, at IAC 2018 in Bremen, Germany, in September 2018. Focus is on the 15 years of SpaceX since 2003 when Koenigsmann, Gwynne Shotwell, and [[ElonMusk first came to IAC 2003 in Bremen... when, well, people paid just a little bit less attention to SpaceX then.

Covers those fifteen years of history, but the talk was given almost exactly 10 years from the first successful launch of Falcon 1, the first successful SpaceX rocket launch and the first successful launch of a payload on an orbital trajectory by any private company. Prior to that time, only about a half-dozen nation states had flown orbital rocket technology, during the first five decades of humans even possessing spaceflight technology. 15 yrs of innovative technology advancement, putting cost-effective reusable launch technology on the market for the first time. Here is part 2 including the Q&A Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Ownership

According to recent FCC filings filed on 2018-11-08 Elon must now owns 50.5% of Space Exploration Holdings, LLC https://fcc.report/IBFS/SAT-MOD-20181108-00083/1569858.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgats (talk • contribs) 23:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Capital acquisition and operating funds

SpaceX has accepted equity investment on a number of occasions, including from VC funds, HNW individuals, Google and Fidelity. As companies mature, and have more regular revenue-derived cash flow from contracted operations, they often also raise funds to fund operations, from the debt markets, as loans.

SpaceX seem to have recently decided to borrow US$250 million, after having been approved for 3x that amount by debt investors, in a deal arranged with Bank of America. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Notes section

Just removed a recently-added "Notes" section of the article, per WP:BRD. Time to discuss each of the various aspects of those claims here on the Talk page.

This extensive note was added to the article on 25 Feb 2019:

{{refn|group=note|name=Conestoga|[[Conestoga_(rocket)#Conestoga_I|Conestoga I]], a [[solid-fuel rocket]] launched 26 years & 19 days earlier on Sep 9, 1982, was the first the first privately funded rocket of any kind to reach space, achieving a sub-orbital trajectory with an apogee of 195 miles. This design adapted major government surplus components of the [[LGM-30 Minuteman|Minuteman ICBM]].<ref>[https://www.wired.com/2009/09/dayintech0909privaterocket/ 3-2-1 ... LIFTOFF! THE FIRST PRIVATE ROCKET LAUNCH] by John C. Abell (Wired Magazine, 09/09/09)</ref><br>The first rocket to reach orbit that was fully privately developed was [[Pegasus_(rocket)#Launch_history|Pegasus]], which was air-launched from a NASA [[B-52]] on Apr 5, 1990 (also becoming the first air-launched rocket of any kind to reach orbit).<br>While the SpaceX achievements have been referred to as "privately funded", it should be noted that SpaceX has received billions of dollars through [[SpaceX#Launch_contracts|various government contracts]] dating back to 2005 with the [[Department of Defense]], and 2006 with [[NASA]]. So the Conestoga and Pegasus, as well as SpaceX accomplishments have had strong connections to the US government.}}

Part of that statement is sourced, and several parts are not. The unsourced part should not be in the article until and unless it can be sourced, and then would require discussion simply because numerous other sources, and previous discussion on Wikipedia Talk pages, have achieved consensus that is not aligned with the statements as made in the "Note".

The part that is sourced ["Conestoga I, a solid-fuel rocket launched 26 years & 19 days earlier on Sep 9, 1982, was the first the first privately funded rocket of any kind to reach space, achieving a sub-orbital trajectory with an apogee of 195 miles. This design adapted major government surplus components of the Minuteman ICBM."], is interesting but it is unclear that it fits in this article, since this article on SpaceX only made the statement that SpaceX had achieved the first liquid-fueled orbital payload that was done on a privately-developed launch vehicle. Certainly open to consensus we might form here that that bit should remain, but I could see multiple arguments on both sides, so it would require building a consensus. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Disruptor

SpaceX was first on the 2018 CNBC Disruptor 50 list. I didn't see an obvious place to put it in the article. TGCP (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Gravitational research

Hi, its been suggested that SpaceX has a "Skunkworks" facility investigating the possibility of non-conventional propulsion systems possibly with experimental data from NASA, Boeing (Project Greenglow) and elsewhere I've not heard anything else about this but it appears they had some limited success though it was not feasible to retrofit this to conventional launch systems due to incompatibilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.3.100.28 (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hearsay at best, unless you can provide a source.War (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

A spaceX ships page

Maybe we should have a article on all the ships spaceX uses HurricaneMichael2018 (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

There is Ms. Tree (ship) and the multiple drone ships are already on Autonomous spaceport drone ship. There are other ships like the Searcher and the new Ms. Chief (this is very similar to Ms. Tree so might not need another page). --Frmorrison (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Image in infobox

I am reverting User:Anonymous427's recent edit to move the image File:Iridium-4 Mission (25557986177).jpg out of the infobox. Their reasoning was "Not necessary to include image in infobox". It's true that it is not necessary, but there is also no reason not to have one in the infobox. The {{Infobox company}} template includes fields for both the logo and an image specifically for this. SpaceX creates so much great imagery that it seems a shame not to include some image in the infobox. It doesn't have to be that image, but I think that is a great one as the lead image because it shows both launch operations and the SpaceX headquarters with the recovered Falcon 9 booster. This captures the main business that SpaceX conducts, the main location where their products are built, and a historical artifact related to the company's history (the first ever recovered orbital booster) all in one image. This seems like a great illustrative image to include in the lead of the article because it captures multiple aspects of the company, and I see no reason why the infobox shouldn't include an image. --Yarnalgo _talk to me 21:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

SpaceX in 2020 Going to Mars before 2030 ?

https://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy

https://www.spacex.com/starship — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceScience2020 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Not unless we find some way to keep a crew alive in space for over six months. Pie in the sky at this oint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.5.65 (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Page Protection Request

I have submitted a request for temporary semi-protection due to the addition of unsourced and poorly sourced content as well as the risk for vandalism due to the recent Crew Demo 2 mission. Grahamevan05178 (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

what is a "meter"?

A "meter" is a measuring device. How come wiki uses the incorrect spelling for "metre" from the only country on the planet whom refuse to use SI units?

200.68.142.18 (talk) 01:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC) Baden K.

SpaceX is an American company so that is probably why the traditional American spelling of the word meter is used. Grahamevan05178 (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

SpaceX and Tesla ....the amazing technology that Elon now owns (51% Ownership of Tesla Corp)

Bold textNikola_Tesla_MuseumThe amazing TESLA technology and inventions unkown Wireless Comms and Power over WiFi invented in 1907

Perhaps the greatest ambition of Tesla was his dream to wirelessly transmit energy across long distances, using only air as a medium. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rFcr3OGHOk&t=162s — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceScience2020 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Ronald S. Baron seems to own 11%. TGCP (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

NASA section

Why is there a NASA section in the article with nothing in it? Jackhammer111 (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jackhammer111: (please start new section at the bottom of the talk page) Not sure what you mean by blank, we have the sections "SpaceX#COTS", "SpaceX#Commercial cargo", "SpaceX#Commercial crew", and "SpaceX#Progress" under NASA? Maybe we could had a summery section of those 4 sections right under NASA heading like we have for SpaceX#Research and development. Its hard to spot but the COTS header is slightly smaller then NASA heading showing COTS (and the rest mentioned above) is a subheading of NASA - hence hot blank. OkayKenji ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

• Starship SN8.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Worth adding?

Hi. I've wondering if this news about Indonesia ask SpaceX is worth adding to this article? Since it's coming from the Indonesian Government itself. Thanks! FarhanSyafiqF (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

FarhanSyafiqF, Yep, Bloomberg is considered a generally reliable source, (WP:GREL)! Neuralnewt (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

First private company to launch an object into orbit around the Sun

My edit to remove this "first" was reverted by User:Fcrary, so I'd like to discuss what the resolution to this dispute should be. SpaceX are clearly not the first private company to launch an object to heliocentric orbit (and Fcrary agrees -- "The statement clearly means SpaceX was the first company to launch something into solar orbit on their own. Plenty of companies have been paid by their governments to do so."). I disagree that the meaning of the current statement in the article is clear, and I can't think of a way to reword it. MatthewWilcox (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I replaced that with "first to launch a private spacecraft into heliocentric orbit." Hopefully this clears up the confusion. N828335 (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Works for me! Thanks! MatthewWilcox (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, how about this one: "3 December 2013 | First private company to send a satellite into geosynchronous orbit (GEO). | SES-8 on Falcon 9 flight 7". Atlas V put Hot Bird 6 into GTO in August 2002. I can't see a way to change that to be a first -- it's just catching up to ULA. MatthewWilcox (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe this is true, I will remove it. Thanks for the catch. It is also incorrect because the Falcon 9 only takes payloads to GTO, not GEO. Also worth noting that ULA did not form until 2006, but has had many GTO launches before 2013. N828335 (talk) 06:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

List of SpaceX launches

There's a Draft:List of SpaceX launches being submitted to AFC that reuses a lot of the verbiage from other SpaceX articles. Do you want such an article for mainspace? Should there be one for List of SpaceX missions as with List of NASA missions? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that we need that article, it just becomes another one that we would have to maintain. I'd recommend just adding a redirect to SpaceX#Launch contracts, were I added links to List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches, List of Falcon 1 launches, and List of Starship flights, which basically contain all the information from that page. List of SpaceX missions probably isn't needed at the moment, because that would basically be Starlink, which already has its own list. N828335 (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

[The CEO of] SpaceX is pushing back publicly on the slow regulatory processes of the FAA

The CEO of SpaceX is definitely doing public pushback on the slow regulatory processes of the FAA, as this WaPo article covers: What’s holding up the next test of SpaceX’s Starship? Elon Musk blames the FAA., Washington Post, 28 January 2021. This is not unheard of, but is not the usual process of companies and executives with respect to nation state regulatory agencies. N2e (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a tweet by Mr. Musk counts as SpaceX "pushing back publicly on the slow regulatory processes of the FAA." Mr. Musk tweets a whole lot, and what it tweets isn't necessarily the official policy of one of his companies. (If this was about more than Mr. Musk's tweets, I apologize, but the Washington Post is behind a paywall, so I can't read the referenced article.) Fcrary (talk) 06:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I've updated my post to refer to the "The CEO of..." rather than just saying SpaceX. When the CEO of a company does public pushback on a US regulatory agency, it is, as I said the in my post, "not the usual process of companies and executives with respect to nation state regulatory agencies." Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

FAA & DOJ

Apparently SpaceX violated their launch license with SN8. https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/29/22256657/spacex-launch-violation-explosive-starship-faa-investigation-elon-musk. And DOJ are investigating them for discrimination. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/28/doj-investigating-spacex-after-hiring-discrimination-complaint-.html. Don't know whats going on. Perhaps its early to note. idk. But seems serious. OkayKenji ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's be clear about this. The Verge article about SN8 violating launch licenses (reprinted by other sources) is based entirely on statements from "two people familiar with the incident" (anonymous). The DoJ investigation is about not hiring someone because (as advertised) the job was only open to US citizens or green card holders. That's legal if the job would give someone access to export-controlled (i.e. ITAR sensitive) material, and SpaceX could probably justify the hiring decision that way. That investigation has been going on since last June, so it's not really news. The recent story is over the DoJ asking a judge to order SpaceX to turn over related information. SpaceX claims that the DoJ's request for "exceeded the scope of IER’s [Immigrant and Employee Rights Section] authority" and that collecting it would be burdensome. As far as this relates to the Wikipedia article on SpaceX, I don't think we should add anything (yet). The former isn't based on solid enough evidence, and the later is the sort of back-and-forth squabbling that goes on all the time between regulators and companies' legal departments. Fcrary (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Incorporated in Delaware

Regarding the claim that there is undue weight, I don't see how it is undue weight to briefly mention the state of incorporation right next to the state where it is headquartered. From WP:WEIGHT , Undue weight is mostly about preventing minority opinions from being overemphasized in an article not specifically about those minority opinions, while still maintaining a neutral POV. This is seen when on the page of undue weight it is summarized by as: "●If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; ●If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; ●If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Where a company is incorporated is not only a verifiable fact, but is imho very relevant to an article specifically about that corporation. In the US, corporations are formed pursuant to state law of the state in which they are incorporated. The state where SpaceX was incorporated is imho at least as relevant as the state where its physical headquarters is.JMM12345 (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

CC: @N828335:, who posted the tag. OkayKenji ^(talk) 21:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:Weight is not only about minority opinions, but also minor details. I agree it is verifiable and relevant to the article, but I don't think it is important enough to place in the first sentence. I'm no expert on the specifics of the deal, but headquartering seems significantly more important, because for SpaceX that is where a large portion of the workers are and where parts are made. State of incorporation is very minor - it doesn't have to be where the business is located, and is only chosen for various benefits for the company. It has little effect on the outward appearance of the company, so it should not be included in the first sentence, but elsewhere. N828335 (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. When it comes to the text in the lead and especially in the first sentence, we need to consider the interests of the general readers. The fact that SpaceX is based on California, with many of their facilities in Hawthorne, is something I suspect many readers would be interested to learn. The fact that SpaceX is incorporated in Delaware, for obscure tax, regulatory or corporate reasons, is something I suspect the general reader would not care about. The fact that SpaceX is incorporated in Delaware should be discussed in the article. But not in the lead and definitely not in the first sentence. Fcrary (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

No one cares where it's incorporated. Leijurv (talk) 05:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@JMM12345: Seems like we are mostly in agreement that this is not notable to be included in the first sentence. Unless clear evidence explaining the contrary is shown, I will move the detail to under the "Facilities" section shortly. N828335 (talk) 06:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't have much objection to move it elsewhere in the article as long as it remains a part of the article if pretty much everyone else thinks that it should move. I still maintain that it is not even remotely "obscure" what jurisdiction a company is incorporated, as that company is basically formed by state law and becomes basically a like a 'citizen' of that state under the law for the purposes of taxation, lawsuits, laws, regulations, etc., which in comparison to the physical location of the headquarters which can be moved on a whim seems at least as important. What I would certainly object to would be removing it entirely.JMM12345 (talk) 06:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

The point is, the average reader doesn't care about taxation, lawsuits, laws, and regulations. Headquarters location, for SpaceX, is a manufacturing plant, where many of the employees work, and where their mission control is. It probably won't change "on a whim," it would be a major endeavor to move it. In all my time of following SpaceX, I did not even know they were incorporated in Delaware, but I had heard of their headquarter location countless times. The only other place it is even mentioned that I can find are government documents, not in any news articles. N828335 (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:SpaceX/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 12:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Utmost apologies, but I'm going to have to quickfail this. There's substantial work required here to get up to the GA level, it hasn't been performed in the month+ that this article has been at GAN, and the history makes it clear the stability to perform that work doesn't exist -- and very likely won't exist for quite some time. (It's very, very difficult to write a top-quality article about something currently happening rather than things that have happened, and I've plenty of respect for the fact you've done as well as you have.)

A few notes:

• Several citations are bare URLs. I note #137 and #144. Several more are to social media SPSes, some primary and some secondary, including #95, #138, #158, #191, and #201.
• Primary sourcing is quite extensive. This isn't inherently problematic, and in many cases I can buy it's more reliable than news media trying to regurgitate the matter, but it's something to keep an eye on. Similarly, Business Insider ('marginal' per WP:RS/PS and IME pretty useless clickbait more often than not) is, so far as I can tell, one of the single most common news names popping up -- I'd be hesitant to pass a GA using it so much even if it weren't for the other issues here.
• Is there exactly one short paragraph of criticism of SpaceX, ever? Separated-out criticism-and-controversy sections are a subject of some debate; in this case I suspect you'd need either a much larger one or none at all (with the Armenia/Turkey thing discussed elsewhere in the article, as some other criticisms are).
• Stability. This is a high-traffic, high-intensity, high-interest topic. When you've got an edit summary saying "rewrote a quarter of the page" during the GAN waiting period, you don't have the stability for a realistic assessment. It's not so bad I'd quickfail on it alone, but all these factors combine into a situation where I just can't in good conscience put the article on hold -- I think it'd only serve to give false hope and force you into picking at more issues than someone can realistically handle in the source of a single GAN.

I haven't dived deep into the prose, which I would have if I weren't quickfailing. As it stands, the sourcing, balance, and stability issues led me to the conclusion a prose review would be rearranging deck chairs. I regardless noted a number of grammatical errors that were also called out in edit summaries, in particular mixing up 'a' and 'an'. I recommend requesting a copyedit at WP:GOCE to see what I haven't. Vaticidalprophet 13:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet: Thank you for your comments! This is very helpful. The sourcing in the article is a problem, given how SpaceX often share information in informal channels. I absolutely agree about the criticism section. In my opinion it should be avoided. However, I was waiting for a GA review and subsequent second opinion to potentially remove it. As for the stability, to be fair the edit did not change a quarter of the article, it seems more like many minor changes merged into one edit (except for the controversies section). Apart from that, I think the article is fairly stable considering the huge amount of traffic and attention it receives. I know it's difficult to promote high traffic articles, but this is the kind of work that also brings the most benefit to the most readers, so I think an attempt is justified. In any case, I completely understand the quick fail. I hope I will be able to address these problems and renominate a much better version of the article. Thank you again. --Ita140188 (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SpaceX $20 million lawsuit Draft article

This is a notice to editors that I started Draft:Venegas v Space Exploration Technologies Corp, which is a $20 million lawsuit filed against SpaceX. Feel free to help improve it so it can come out of draft space and into mainspace. Elijahandskip (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Not sure there is enough info on this yet for mainspace, but I'm not familiar with court case articles. N828335 (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Same. I don't know exactly when a law stub is ok for mainspace. It has 6 refs though. I will give it a day and if no one opposes the move, I will move it to main space. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

It has enough refs, but I say it would around 10,000 bytes in length (under Page info, 5x longer than it is now) and significant revisions to make it grammatically correct and compliant with WP:MOS, before moving it into the article namespace. N828335 (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Falcon 1 and the first orbital liquid fueled rocket

I added the qualifier "fully" to the "first privately funded liquid fueled orbital rocket" (first privately funded fully liquid fueled orbital rocket) because the first privately developed orbital rocket: Pegasus, utilized the liquid fueled HAPS 4th stage on a number of flights before the first Falcon 1 flight (and before SpaceX was founded). The Falcon 1 cannot be the first "first privately funded liquid fueled orbital rocket" when the first privately developed orbital rocket also utilized a liquid stage. This is the reason this qualification was added. @N2e: --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for adding your helpful explanation, Jrcraft Yt. But you should not have added it back to the article yet. You made a WP:BOLD edit. It was Reverted. The place to Discuss it is here on the Talk page, using WP:BRD; not in edit warring on the article page.

I was not aware that Pegasus was a privately developed rocket; that is, that it was built and development-paid-for by the commercial company that built it. I had understood Pegasys to be a pretty standard US Government procurement rocket, and that it was developed by the ordinary method that the USG has used for rockets for six decades until recently, with SpaceX orbital rockets. Happy to get new reliably-sourced info to educate me that something else is the case. OVer the years, I have seen a number of reliable sources that support the statement that has been in the article for a long time, and that the SpaceX Falcon 1 flight in 2008 was the "first privately funded liquid fueled orbital rocket". So we are going to have to work to find reliable sources for your claim about the Pegasys.

So should we continue the discussion here? Or over on the Falcon 1 page where I see that an editor has added the same "fully" qualification as well. (but only supported by a primary source from the Pegasys rocket's manufacturer). Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Pegasus was developed using only funding provided by Orbital Sciences Corporation and Hercules Aerospace Company (they made the solid stages, Orbital made the liquid stage)) and received no government funding. It was originally designed to launch their in-house satellite constellation. There isn't a debate on whether Pegasus was private or not. The HAPS stage (Pegasus's 4th stage) was fueled by hydrazine (liquid fuel). That means the statement "first privately funded liquid fueled orbital rocket" is incorrect, as Pegasus had a liquid stage. @N2e: --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Most of those sources are WP:PRIMARY sources by principals from the companies involved, or company websites and documents. In order to avoid synthesis on the statement Pegasys was a privately-developed orbital launch vehicle, I believe that other editors (and me too) would want to see the claim directly in several WP:SECONDARY sources.

I could see why those sources might be harder to find, given that the first three stages of Pegasys (all are solid rocket stages) were derived from obtained from decommissioned Minuteman ICBM missiles US ICBM missile solid rocket motor formulations, all fully developed including R&D plus flight testingdeveloped by the US government. As I searched the internet, it looks like Orbital Sciences merely found a good use for old US government Minuteman missiles that the USG was going to destroy under international treaty obligations, bought some government-developed SRB technology packed into a smaller-diameter cases by the original gvmt supplier of the Minuteman missiles, designed a liquid monopropellant 4th stage, and did the integration testing to turn it into an orbital rocket. That is not exactly "privately developed" except is some universe far, far away. N2e (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

You are thinking of the Minotaur rockets which are different. Those used decommissioned missile parts. Pegasus does not. You are confusing the Pegasus with the Minotaur series, which is an entirely diferent rocket that we aren't discussing. Pegasus uses privately developed solid rocket motors. Pegasus does not use minuteman or any ICBM motors. The Minuteman ICBM which you stated uses a Thiokol built, 1.68 m diameter stages while Pegasus uses privately developed 1.27 m diameter solid motors. Again, your confusing the Pegasus launch vehicle with the Minotaur launch vehicle series. Do you have any sources to back up your claim? This was also already discussed on the Falcon 1 talk page. Pegasus was a privately developed orbital rocket, and nobody disputes that. Minuteman missiles use solid rocket motors developed by Thiokol, not Hercules. Pegasus uses Orion solid motors, which were originally developed for Pegasus and the aforementioned HAPS liquid stage. So I'm confused as to where your getting your information of "obtained from decommissioned Minuteman ICBM missiles" because that claim is not supported in any documentation. Please cite your sources for these claims. N2e --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that additional info. I've updated my previous comment and struck out the bits about it being actual Minuteman missile parts. So it seems like whether or not the air-launched Pegasus rocket was privately-developed or not should really happen over in the Pegasus article, 'cause right now, that article is not clear and unambiguous about the matter. N2e (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

What is relevant for this article about the company SpaceX is the proposal by Jrcraft Yt to:

add "the qualifier "fully" to the sentence in the lead "first privately funded liquid fueled orbital rocket"
so that it would read
"first privately funded fully liquid fueled orbital rocket"

• OPPOSE — that is not a qualification we've seen in the sources that have addressed the SpaceX first orbital flight in 2008 with the Falcon 1 rocket. Those many sources simply say that Falcon 1 was the first privately funded liquid fueled orbital rocket. It requires quite a bit of WP:SYN synthesis to put together all the bits to try to qualify the sentence with the word "fully" as proposed. Moreover, that is not what the sources say, for this article about SpaceX. N2e (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• I SUPPORT — adding the qualifier because Pegasus's 4th stage (like Electron's third stage) is a liquid propellent stage. Pegasus was a privately developed orbital rocket that utilized a fully liquid propellent stage. That makes the statement (the Falcon 1 was the) "first privately funded liquid fueled orbital rocket" unequivocally false. Pegasus is a private orbital rocket with a liquid stage. Claiming the Falcon 1 as the first private orbital rocket that used liquid propellent is verifiable untrue, and reflects bias towards the subject. Adding the term "fully" both gives the reader a better understanding of the makeup of the vehicle's stages; But it also makes the statement factually correct. Keep in mind that the statement in question is not quoted from any source, rather is one written by a Wikipedia editor. The qualifier accurately reflects of the topic at hand using easily verifiable, and reliable sources. --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

SUPPORT Adding the qualification further clarifies the fact that though revolutionary, the SpaceX Falcon 1 was not strictly the first privately orbital class developed rocket to use a liquid fuel stage. --RunsWthScissors (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

References

• Oppose. I don't think an 'optional' fourth stage counts as an "orbital rocket". As far as I can tell, when Pegasus uses the fourth stage is used, it isn't fired until the fourth stage and the payload are already in orbit (to get the payload to a higher orbit.) That makes it sound like the "orbital rocket" is the first three, solid stages and the liquid fourth stage is for in-space propulsion. Fcrary (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

edit request moved from article onto talk page

Elon Musk has been seeking collaboration with Turkish defense contractors. On January 2021 this was proven more by the launch of the Turksat 5A communication satellite built by Airbus Aerospace and Defense(Turkish Aerospace Company) on a Space X Falcon-9 v1.2 Rocket. Erdogan went on to tell reporters on January 29th of 2021 in Istanbul when questioned about further cooperation with Musk that he assigned an aide of his to keep in contact with Musk. <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1Q5JtNgvmU<ref>

I have moved you request here rather than as an insert into the article itself. However can you please specify exactly what edit you wish to be made (either "Change X to Y", or "Plkease add this text...) IdreamofJeanie (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

• Starlink Mission (47926144123).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2021 (2)

I suggest adding a "Criticism" part to this article. Every other big company has it - SpaceX shouldn't be any different just because. 109.80.126.39 (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2021

So far, SpaceX Starship is just a concept. Therefore, I suggest we change all "will be" about it to "is planned to be" or some variation thereof. Other concept launchers have this kind of treatment (capacities are written as planned only or theoretical until demonstrated, look at Blue Origin's wiki page and the part about New Glenn for example) so I don't see why Starship would be extempt from this. 109.80.126.39 (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

No section on controversies about the Boca Chica site

It appears that there is no section on issues related to the Boca Chica site (environmental protection, pressure on residents, etc.) Could someone make one ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8071:9280:8F00:E9FF:4541:2ADE:7AAA (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure, wait a sec CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done, a sentence. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Tom Mueller as a cofounder

The lead paragraph describe Musk as the founder, but there are reliable relevant third party sources that describe Tom Mueller as a cofounder. Some of the sources:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/25/tom-mueller-spacex-cto-who-makes-elon-musks-rockets-fly.html https://www.uidaho.edu/engr/news/features/tom-mueller-hwhi https://graduate.lmu.edu/spotlight/tommuellerms92/

Therefore, should not the lead paragraph be changed to say that Mueller and Musk are cofounders of SpaceX? Seems like it to me. QRep2020 (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I think if you should change it and keep an eye at your edits for a while, after all, it is how progress is made :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

This was thrashed out a l o o o n g time ago. Mueller was one of the earliest employees but not a founder in the usual sense of the word. Andyjsmith (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection ended!

Let's hope that vandals don't target this page anymore... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE with the sexual harassment claims

There seems to be undue focus about these claims in the article. I think the section should be trimmed down to a smaller summary. I see the article was recently locked but I could go ahead and edit it (I'm extended autoconfirmed), but wondering if anyone feels strongly against trimming it down further. Ergzay (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

There are three lines about it at the bottom of the article. Hardly undue. Also, "account" is perfectly fine to use because accounts can be true or false, not sure what connotation your edit referred to. QRep2020 (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I concur these few sentences are not undue focus. Whitewashing articles or companies is not Wikipedia policy. The accusations have been published by multiple reliable sources and serves the article as a balance to the mostly positive coverage. LovelyLillith (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

SpaceX founding date

According to SpaceX's website, they were founded March 14 2002. (Pi Day) Reference: http://web.archive.org/web/20120318023826/http://www.spacex.com/spacexat10.php

March 14, 2012: Ten years ago today, SpaceX was founded with the goal of helping make the human race a multi-planetary species. We remain firmly committed to this goal and will do everything within our power to help make this happen.

Currently we list incorporation records date of May 6, however this is the cross-filing date in California. SpaceX is actually incorporated in Deleware.

I confirmed 03/14/2002 is incorporation date in Deleware: https://icis.corp.delaware.gov/eCorp/EntitySearch/NameSearch.aspx File Number: 3500808 Incorporation Date / Formation Date: 3/14/2002 (mm/dd/yyyy) Entity Name: SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES CORP. Entity Kind: Corporation Entity Type: General Residency: Domestic State: DELAWARE

Note the Deleware gov website is clunky and doesn't always work in Chrome. Safari does work. Given the 20th anniversary is coming next month, it seems we should get this correct.Sanserio (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Who is author of this page

Plzz answer my question 2409:4063:4E80:955:0:0:220B:B501 (talk) 07:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Have a look at https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/wiki.riteme.site/SpaceX . --Fama Clamosa (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The flacon 9 rocket crashing into the moon

On approximately march 4th 2022, the falcon 9 rocket will crash into the dark/far side of the moon. It will be going at approximately 5700mph/2.548128kms/9173.26007661392kmh. A new section will need to be added for this.

Sources: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2022/01/27/when-and-where-to-see-elon-musks-out-of-control-spacex-rocket-that-will-crash-into-the-moon-at-5700-mph/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megabits13 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Megabits13 (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Megabits13

Apparently it isn’t the falcon 9, it is a Chinese booster. https://gizmodo.com/plot-twist-a-different-rogue-rocket-is-going-to-hit-th-1848533067?utm_source=email-alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2022-02-15 Megabits13 (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Megabits13

Morgan Stanley analysis on the investment side of the company

Morgan Stanley has put out a new investor analysis about the company SpaceX. " 'This technological development has the potential to transform investor expectations around the space industry,' the firm said. In Morgan Stanley’s view, Musk’s company has created a 'double flywheel' of technology with its reusable rockets and Starlink internet satellites." and "talking about space before Starship is like talking about the internet before Google." Coverage in news from CNBC: Morgan Stanley says SpaceX’s Starship may ‘transform investor expectations’ about space, CNBC News, 19 October 2021. Might be useful to improve some small parts of the article where investment & valuation is discussed. N2e (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Kinda interesting to be honest, many of Elon-related article lack the "meta" aspect, i.e. how would this thing become in the future, and its ultimate goal. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, elements about ROI or profits are conspicuously absent for an article for such a large and visible for-profit operation.

--Noliscient (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:SpaceX/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Voided quickfail. Review by CactiStaccingCrane (talk) below

Reviewer: Jazzstinger (talk · contribs) 21:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC) Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SpaceX you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Jazzstinger (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC) The article SpaceX you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:SpaceX for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Jazzstinger (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC) GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Overall: Pass/Fail: · · · Hi, sorry for taking so long. Please consider editing SpaceX § History to fall in line with WP:PL and MOS:LIST. Jazzstinger (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC) It is an invalid fail. This is not at all a quick-fail and it does not obviously show WP:PL in my eyes. My alternative solution is to improve it from here. Notifying @Ita140188. Also, is the review a bit sus? The criteria passes should be accompanied with a statement of some sorts. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC) I am not sure how this article qualifies as a quick fail. Especially given that the reviewer Jazzstinger did not give any specific comments. Was this article actually reviewed (or even read)? There are much more constructive and specific comments from CactiStaccingCrane who was not actually the reviewer. --Ita140188 (talk) 10:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC) @Ita140188: Fine, let me do it. Alright, I am a reviewer now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC) Comments from CactiStaccingCrane (talk) Well, I see a ton of glaring issues. I gonna list them below: WP:PROSELINE is rampant in the article, and more so with recent-y stuff The Starship section needs updates, fortunately, I'm happen to be the guy who works on it a lot so that should be easy Paragraphs needs a bit of a touch up to look good Launch facilities don't have enough information, so that bit needs some sprucing. Found unreliable sources: Teslarati, <and more?> Some sections need distillation for brewity @Ita140188: for notifing that the review is in progress CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC) @CactiStaccingCrane: Thank you for your comments. Almost half a year has passed since I nominated this article for review. In the meanwhile there have been some changes. In the coming days I will again revise the article based on these comments and on the review from Jazzstinger. Thank you again! --Ita140188 (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, and as a person who speedrunned GA at SpaceX Starship, I think I am qualified for the job! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: Thank you for rescuing this review! Sorry for the late reply, I will try to address your points in the following days. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Overview

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Text

Lede is really good for GA! However, for me, brackets should be eliminated in favor for integrating the vehicles directly to the accomplishments. The third paragraph might be able to be integrated to the first two, since these are just some future stuff.

Copyright violations found:

• In August 2012, NASA awarded SpaceX a firm, fixed-price Space Act Agreement (SAA) with the objective of producing a detailed design of the entire crew transportation system. This contract includes numerous key technical and certification milestones, an uncrewed flight test, a crewed flight test, and six operational missions following system certification. [2]

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• On 27 March 2020 SpaceX revealed the Dragon XL resupply spacecraft to carry pressurized and unpressurized cargo, experiments and other supplies to NASA's planned Lunar Gateway space station under a Gateway Logistics Services (GLS) contract. NASA plans to use Dragon XL to transport sample collection materials, spacesuits and other supplies to be used on the Gateway and on the surface of the Moon. Dragon XL will launch on the Falcon Heavy and will transport more than to the Gateway. Dragon XL will stay at the Gateway for six to twelve months at a time, when research payloads inside and outside the cargo vessel could be operated remotely, even when crews are not present. [3]

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• On 7 December 2020 SpaceX flew the cargo variant of Dragon 2 to the Space Station for the 100th successful Falcon 9 flight. This is the first launch for this redesigned cargo Dragon, and also the first mission for SpaceX's new series of CRS missions under a renewed contract with NASA. [4]

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• In February 2019 SpaceX formed a sibling company, SpaceX Services, Inc., to license the manufacture and deployment of up to 1,000,000 fixed satellite Earth stations that will communicate with its Starlink system. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) awarded SpaceX with nearly US$900 million worth of federal subsidies to support rural broadband customers through the company's Starlink satellite internet network. SpaceX won subsidies to bring service to customers in 35 U.S. states. On May 15, 2021, SpaceX and Google collaborated to provide data and cloud services for Starlink Enterprise customers. [5]

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• The following June, the company asked the federal government for permission to begin testing for the project, aiming to build a constellation of 4,425 satellites. [6]

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

After reading the article, two complaints I have are too short paragraphs. Example of which is In March 2020 NASA contracted SpaceX to develop the Dragon XL spacecraft to send supplies to the Lunar Gateway space station. Dragon XL will be launched on a Falcon Heavy. -- which is a lone sentence. Another is that some sections do need update, particularly about Starlink and Starship. That's it for now, I will skim the article for various errors later, since it is not efficient to do so now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

•  Done, checking more MOS issues. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing

Unreliable sources at Special:Permalink/1060903969: 6, 121, 133, 138, 160, 184, 233

Done (for now): 6, 138, 160, 233. 133 if from the Guardian which is a reliable source per WP:RSP --Ita140188 (talk) 10:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done - also replaced 121 and 184. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• Sources from "Spaceflight Now" (blog), "TechCrunch" (context matters), "Futurism" (churnalism), "phys.org" (news aggregator, since this is tertiary source and in most case a secondary source would suffice), "National Space Society Blog", "Main Engine Cut Off" (blog) are NOT reliable.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• Some citations are missing URL link, especially at journals

Generally, journals should not have a URL link, just a DOI. Can you suggest a way to check which URLs are missing? --Ita140188 (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• Dead links should use an archive.org link instead
• Many sources are misformated and missing parameters, too much to list here

I think this would be too much to ask for a GA review. The article has over 200 citations, and all of them use the relevant citation template. For GA, this should be enough even if some have some missing parameters, as long as the source is clear. Also, I am not sure where do you see so many problems with the citations. From a fast check it seems all of them have the required parameters. Of course in some cases there is missing information, for example, in the case of [29] in [7] the BBC article does not provide the name of the author. --Ita140188 (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, alright. Feel free to work through them, but it is not really that required. The key thing here imo is to able to someway access the source directly through a link. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

On to the actual original research...

Plenty, such as:

• It functioned as an early test-bed for developing concepts and components for the larger Falcon 9. - (primary) source don't say it is a test-bed

 Done removed --Ita140188 (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• By applying vertical integration, ... - source don't mention vertical integration. Inference is original research.

The source does mention it: "But as for SpaceX’s organizational style, it’s Silicon Valley, not NASA, that had the most influence. In Hawthorne, where everyone including Musk works in cubicles instead of offices to encourage communication, the buzzwords of the business culture—lean manufacturing, vertical integration, flat management—are real and fundamental. Says former SpaceX business development director Max Vozoff, “This really is the greatest innovation of SpaceX: It’s bringing the standard practices of every other industry to space.”"

Somehow, I couldn't find that word while Ctrl+F :) Thanks for the head up! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• SpaceX operates its first Rocket Development and Test Facility in McGregor, Texas. All SpaceX rocket engines are tested on rocket test stands, and low-altitude VTVL flight testing of the Falcon 9 Grasshopper v1.0 and F9R Dev1 test vehicles in 2013–2014 were carried out at McGregor. Testing of the much larger Starship prototypes is conducted in the SpaceX South Texas launch site near Brownsville, Texas. - Last sentence is sourced, prior sentences haven't

 Done added specific refs. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• The company is developing Starship using iterative design principles, aiming to build and test several prototypes at a fast pace. - again, inference.

 Done added more specific reference --Ita140188 (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• Major achievements of SpaceX are in the reuse of orbital-class launch vehicles and cost reduction in the space launch industry. Most notable of these being the continued landings and relaunches of the first stage of Falcon 9 following a multi-year program to develop the reusable technology. The fleet leader, B1051, reached 10 flights in 2021, and Elon Musk announced that they will continue to push past the original goal of ten flights. SpaceX is a private space company with most of its achievements the result of self-funded development efforts, not developed by traditional cost-plus contracting of the US government. As a result, many of its achievements are also considered as firsts by a private company. - entire paragraph is not sourced, yes, there is a source on the paragraph, but that factoid is not relevant to the topic of the paragraph

 Done I removed the paragraph. The table and rest of the article is enough. --Ita140188 (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• ... and so on

@Ita140188:: This is a pretty serious issue and I suggest you to take a few weeks (next year!) to sort this out as it is quite massive. Sorry that I cannot help you, I'm too lazy busy at SpaceX Starship right now. Most of the <date> + <recent-ish event> stuff are accurate, but it's even better if you decide to recheck the whole thing. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Image

• Too much image? See MOS:IMAGELOCATION.

To me, images seem to me pertinent and related to the section, and do not disrupt the layout (at least in my screen). They are also all on the right side. --Ita140188 (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

---

@CactiStaccingCrane: thank you for your comments up to now, which I addressed. Let me know if you think more is needed. In particular (based on the summary table above), where do you think the article fails NPOV? And why do you think the images are not used appropriately? Thanks --Ita140188 (talk) 13:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ita140188 My impression with the article structure isn't great. About the images, there is just too much of them and they all kinda get sandwiched to each other, giving the reader a hard time to understand which is which. About NPOV, I want to see the article to talk about the "philosophy" of SpaceX. When I graded the article, there is no criticism which gives me as a red flag, but User:QRep2020 just solve it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: Can you be a bit more specific about the structure? Do you think the sections should change, or some parts should be summarized/expanded? For the images, in my screen I don't see any problem with sandwiching (also because all pictures are on the right).. it may be a problem with your screen being too large? The new Wikipedia skin should set a fixed width for pages, and using that width the images are all in the proper place. Personally I would struggle to choose which images to remove, since they are all quite pertinent and informative.

"About NPOV, I want to see the article to talk about the "philosophy" of SpaceX": what do you mean? I am not sure I understand this point. Also the recent criticism of SpaceX related to sexual harassment has its own subsection within corporate affairs. Criticism of Starlink is also reported. Wikipedia guidelines generally discourage having a section dedicated to criticism (see WP:CRITS) --Ita140188 (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

The image structure should be organized so that it is not full of images (or use multiple image template). The section do need work as well, like you said. About philosophy of SpaceX, I am quite surprised that there is no mentioning of iterative design, even though there is a section about how SpaceX disrupt the industry. Feel free to integrate the criticism section though, I haven't mentioned it because the issue does not need to be covered to get GA. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you give more details about what is wrong with the section structure? Also, again, I don't think there are many images. There were 24 in total (including infobox) for an article of 164 kb. I think this becomes a problem only for very large screens without maximum column width (for the new skin with limited width this wouldn't be a problem: [8]). In any case, I removed one in the history section. --Ita140188 (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done, I solve this by realign the images. 6b is ticked. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Also checked 6a since all images are tagged. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

CactiStaccingCrane, Ita140188 what's the current status of the review? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

A._C._Santacruz It is on hold for a second opinion. Maybe you want to give the opinion for the article! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure, CactiStaccingCrane. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz: are you still planning to give a second opinion? If so, can you change the status of the GA back from 2ndopinion to onreview? Femke (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by comment from Ovinus

There's a fair amount of uncited material in Starship, although it may have been added by someone else. More worryingly, the quote attributed to "Jim Bridenstine" is not found in the given source. Ovinus (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Review by Ixtal

General notes:

• Lead does not include relevant criticism of Starlink network.

 Done Added a sentence summarizing the main criticism --Ita140188 (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Does not make any sense to have criticisms of Starlink in lead, it belongs on the starlink page where criticisms is already included. Warbayx (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Warbayx, just because Starlink has its own article where the criticism is noted does not mean that the criticism should not also be on the SpaceX page, and specifically in the lede as well as the body. I'd like to suggest that if you feel it is undue, your concerns should be pursued on Talk:SpaceX. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Lead

• Second and third paragraphs should be switched.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

History

• the Falcon 1, with private funding. do you have a source indicating from where this private funding originates?

Clarified this refers to funding coming from the company itself rather than external grants or contracts. Company funds were mostly provided by Musk himself at that time. --Ita140188 (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• U.S. military payloads, which for nearly a decade was dominated by the large U.S. launch provider wouldn't "had been" make more sense here?

 Done Agree --Ita140188 (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• In July 2017, the company raised US$350 million for a valuation of US$21 billion. How? For what purpose? "For a valuation of" also feels like awkward wording

SpaceX being private, I don't think there is a way to know who invested in the company during a funding round. Also the company does not need to specify a purpose for raising funds, especially when the funding is not public. Agree with the wording comment, which was changed --Ita140188 (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

That's a fair argument. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 21:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Some of the achivements in the summary are not sourced. I imagine this may be because they are sourced elsewhere in the article, but I think the citations should be added to the table as well.

More comments in a minute.

Hardware

• I don't know why Falcon 1 is not its own paragraph in Launch Vehicles but the other two are. I suggest making Falcon 1 its own paragraph.

Falcon 1 is significant for the history of SpaceX, but as a launch vehicle had little impact by itself (it was also retired a long time ago). Falcon 9 and Heavy are instead major launch vehicles, and Falcon 9 is arguably the most important launch vehicle today (in terms of capabilities and launch frequency). I don't think the three rockets deserve the same amount of attention. Also breaking the first paragraph would create two mini-paragraphs which would disrupt the flow of text in my opinion. --Ita140188 (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

While I'm not as convinced by the breaking of paragraphs argument, judging by the Falcon 1's coverage in the History section your argument satisfies me :) Good editorial thinking, in that case! — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 12:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• – Merlin, Kestrel, and Raptor for change to – Merlin, Kestrel, and Raptor – for.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• I think the engine section could be much shorter. It currently is {{technical}} and hard to understand for average readers, so the specifics are probably best left to the child article. I think just leaving the first paragraph in would be enough.

I removed the excessive amount of details from the section, but left information about where the engines are used and the propellants used for the main engines. These are important facts that are frequently discussed in relation to these engines (especially the Raptor being powered by methane) --Ita140188 (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

While you are at it, why not merge the separate Starship section into launch vehicles section? It just makes sense that way (coming from someone who works at the rocket's article extensively). CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Detail removal noted, I'm happy with how it looks now as a summary of the child articles. CactiStaccingCrane I do not agree with that suggestion and ask you to remove yourself from commenting in this review in matters related to Starship as your editorial judgement with that article and related matters is faulty. I do appreciate the suggestion though. The reason why I do not think it makes sense to merge the sections is because the Starship (to my understanding) is not fully commercialized already the way the other engines are (i.e. is still somewhat in a development phase). — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 13:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, I shouldn't even open this review in the first place (the reason I did so is because the review has sit there for like 9 months). CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

CactiStaccingCrane it was a good thing you opened the review! I hope you don't feel my comment above was unfriendly towards your participation in this review to any capacity. I'm sure Ita will agree that you taking this off the shelf to review was a good thing. My point applies only and exclusively to matters related to Starship. I also hope my comment about editorial judgement did not hurt you or seem to put in question your abilities as an editor overall, it was meant as a very constrained and specific comment based on the GAR due to your self-disclosed positive bias towards that product (same as how I don't trust my own editorial judgement when it comes to Spanish radical politics due to my negative bias). Me and many other editors have enjoyed collaborating with you on the wiki and I look forward to interacting with you with full trust in your ability as an editor. TL;DR you should have opened the review and I'm glad you did — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 14:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• The starship section should not be an excerpt from another article. If there is a child article we must summarize it, not copy-paste in its entirety. The whole section needs to have in-line citations as well.

Agree, I restored the previous section that was actually replaced by an excerpt by the main reviewer [9] --Ita140188 (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

That's weird. CactiStaccingCrane it goes without saying you should probably never do that as part of a review unless you have a really, really, really, really good reason to do so. I would also avoid doing so in general as part of normal editing as new editors do not understand how excerpts work and it removes our ability to provide a summary of the child article that makes sense in the context of the parent. There are some notable exceptions but those are best discussed in the talk when multiple editors feel that is the best way to ensure accuracy in the parent article. In this case your use of an excerpt is additionally problematic based on your strong bias towards SpaceX and especially its Starship project. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 18:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree, though it would be a bit more work to update that section every time something big happens. I should have been more aware of the surrounding context of the article before using the excerpt template. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• There is no critical assessment of any of these hardware devices in the sections. Failure to include such assessments will result in failing the GA. We are not meant to just list the tools they make, but put them into the context of the company's history. ASDS for example is a really great tool and has gotten media attention, so the barebones description of them feels non-comprehensive.

I am not sure what is the suggestion here, what kind of information should be added? It would be really helpful to have more details, since it's difficult to imagine what's missing when you are working for a long time on a subject (you start taking a lot of things for granted). Thank you! --Ita140188 (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

For example comments by this rocket landing engineer from SpaceX provide a useful view of the challenges of developing and deploying ASDS. I am not an engineer by trade so I am unfamiliar with where such criticisms or industry reviews are published and how, but I think it safe enough to assume such critical analyses would exist. Feel free to start a thread in the Rocketry WikiProject, for example, to see if other editors can help finding them. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 14:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

This article explains some of the legal challenges posed by widespread deployment of similar autonomous ships. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 14:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Talking as an engineer, everything SpaceX does is extremely challenging, including building and flying rockets, and of course safely returning from orbit and landing them. They were the first to actually manage to land an orbital class rocket, of course this means a million difficult things that have to be solved. However I am not sure this article is the place to put so much details about the challenges of landing on ocean barges in particular. In my opinion, other things SpaceX does are more challenging than landing on a barge, such as flying a full-flow staged combustion cycle engine reliably. Also (in my opinion), the most challenging part of landing on a barge is not designing or controlling the barge itself, but rather the safe return and slow-down of the booster from orbital velocity. If we were to include details about the ASDS, I feel other places should also have a lot more details. As for the autonomous part, as far as I know the ships are autonomously keeping a specified position, but I am not sure whether they are going to that position autonomously or if they are remote-controlled. In either case, I think talking of the challenges of autonomous ships in general would be off-topic in this article. This info would definitely fit in the main article Autonomous spaceport drone ship though. --Ita140188 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Facilities

• No comments here

Contracts

• No comments here

Launch market competition and pricing pressure

• No comments here

Final comments

That's it for my review at this point, I doubt I'll have other comments so I'm putting the review on hold while you address the issues.— Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ixtal: Thank you for your review, and sorry for the delay in this reply. I will try to address all the comments within a couple of days. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Just ping me when you're done, Ita140188. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 14:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Some thoughts

This citation might be useful to add criticsm of their work rate and worker exploitation culture to the corporate affairs section. Further expansion on this section certainly seems warranted.— Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 19:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I added the cite and a comment about the work culture at the company. However in my experience it's difficult to have clear and NPOV references for this. (for example in this case the article is based on a memo by a competitor) --Ita140188 (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Elon Musk Trust

The infobox lists "Elon Musk Trust" as the owner of SpaceX. That implies he doesn't own that 47.4% of SpaceX personally, but that he's created some sort of trust fund. Do we have any more information about this? The cited reference doesn't provide additional details. Fcrary (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)