Jump to content

Talk:SpaceX

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 50.111.5.65 (talk) at 02:21, 30 May 2020 (→‎SpaceX in 2020 Going to Mars before 2030 ?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

A spaceX ships page

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

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)[reply]

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 (talkcontribs) 19:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless we find some way to keep a crew alive in space for over six months. Pie in the sky at this oint.

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 (talkcontribs) 20:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]