Jump to content

Talk:Autonomous spaceport drone ship/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

DYK

Was nominated for DYK on 04:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC). Approved on 4 Dec 2014. (and promoted to queue on 7 Dec 2014). Archived nomination and record here: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Autonomous_spaceport_drone_ship.

This article appeared on the Wikipedia Main page on 10 Dec 2014. N2e (talk) 04:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Satellite communication

It appears from photos that Spaceflight Now published yesterday (and cited in the article) that there are two communication domes on the ASDS, one on each end of the ship. (plus another on the GoQuest tender ship, that it appears will be carrying ASDS deck crew and rocket wranglers out to the landing pad location off shore). Folks are speculating that the equipment is this, Sailor maritime VSAT antenna set ups. No source for putting this in the article, but will be watching for a reliable source to mention the satellite comms capability so that the article can be improved. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Name

Musk has tweeted that the ship is being named "Just Read the Instructions", with a sister ship named "Of Course I Still Love You"[1]. Assuming this isn't just a joke, should this article change to reflect that? Maybe have ASDS refer to the class of ship, and list them both in the article, or should each barge get an article, as other ships and launchpads do?173.168.10.220 (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Until there is evidence that the name has actually been changed from Marmac 300 to Just Read the Instructions, I see no reason to change it. Same for the sister ship...no reason to create a new article until we actually know something. It's simply too early. Ultimately, each should have their own articles, though. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
A picture of the ship with the name painted on confirms the new designation[2]. Should the article be moved to "Just Read the Instructions", or should it remain here until the sister ship is built?Astrofreak92 (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I should have been more specific. I meant until the name change was confirmed by the Coast Guard or other governmental regulatory agency. My concern is that the name legally will remain Marmac 300, and that Just Read the Instructions is a fanciful nickname given to it by SpaceX. In my opinion, the article title should not yet be changed, and I'm not sure that the phrasing in the article itself should yet be changed, but I'll leave that to discussion. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
If you look carefully, the image is photoshoped. Wikipedia should include name from the ships registry (which is probably still Marmac 300. Jan.Smolik (talk) 09:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree with the emerging consensus here: the name we want here in the encyclopedia is the official name in the ships registry. Until that step is completed, the infobox name should remain Marmac 300, while the post-refit role of the ship is clearly "Autonomous spaceport drone ship".
Having said that, I do think that certain website (such as Twitter, in Musk's case) have emerged to become "official" channels for dissemination of corporate information; i.e., at least as valid as a company PR release when the post is from the CEO. So I think we will see more of this sort of information dissemination in the future. And it would be okay to have prose in the article that references the CEO posts on the new name/nickname; but the offician name in the infobox ought to probably tie to the ships registry public information. N2e (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
So is there agreement to revert to the previous version, but leave the new paragraph intact? — Huntster (t @ c) 18:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm a bit uncertain, and think the answer to your question depends on the answer to the meta-question: what is the scope of this article now that SpaceX has announced that a second ASDS is being built. I've started a discussion of the meta-question below, in the next Talk page section. N2e (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like we are beyond tweets from the CEO now. The space media are beginning to pick up and report on the names of these two ships. Here's the link. N2e (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The names are references to spaceships in Iain M. Bank's series of "Culture" Sci-fi novels, specificly ships in The Player of Games: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spacecraft_in_the_Culture_series#The_Player_of_Games JasperWallace (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/558665265785733120
  2. ^ https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/560909571691380736

Conflict with Blue Origin patent?

There should be a section on this system's potential conflict with Blue Origin's Sea Landing 2010 patent. Some refs:

--IanOsgood (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, feel free to address that if you find it discussed in reliable sources (which I suspect it is, somewhere). But we have to endeavor to avoid any original research where wiki-editors write that patent up as an issue without a secondary source. N2e (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
If anyone is still interested in the matter, I rather inadvertantly ran into a source for that today: SpaceX Bringing the Right Stuff to Patent Slog with Blue Origin, Expert Says, on SpaceNews last September. N2e (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The USPTO has filed their initial opinion. Looks like they see SpaceX as "likely to prevail" on the majority of the claims. Here's the article on the USPTO prelim decision(s). N2e (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Article would be improved with a photograph

This article would be improved with a photograph. I suspect a good fair use rationale could be put forward for using the photograph Musk tweeted, as that is what the media sources have all picked up.

My wiki-image fu is not strong. But I may try to make such a case in a few days if we cannot find another (even better CC licensed) photograph. N2e (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The easy to remember thing about whether fair use is possible on Wikipedia (ours is a far higher standard than the law demands) is this: can a person go out with a camera, obtain a photograph, and freely license it? If yes, fair use generally cannot be justified. Someone somewhere can get a picture of it at dock or at sea. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that is a helpful standard to be aware of.
I had looked at the ten criteria for fair use a few days ago and had pretty much thought this tweeted photo by Musk met all ten; but I didn't spend much time on it at the time. As for getting a photo, you are correct, it would seem someone somehow can probably take a photo of it (only right now, no one seems to know where this ship is). N2e (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Musk keeps it in his personal pocket of space-time, where he stores his other nifty things away from prying eyes. ;) — Huntster (t @ c) 02:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
SpaceX released a bunch of photos on Flickr under a CC BY 2.0 license, here's a good one that could be used for this article: https://www.flickr.com/photos/spacexphotos/16450469297 --AgentRevo (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Added to the article. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that has been needed in this article for a long time. N2e (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Is Marmac 300 a ship name, or a ship type?

To date, we've been treating the term "Marmac 300" as a specific name of a specific barge. Just found information that would seem to indicate that there are, in actuality, three different barges with identical specifications called "Marmac 300", all owned by McDonough Marine Service as of Spetember 2012.

Although McDonough appears to have moved their "CAD Drafting Drawings" behind a password-protected location, here's the waybackmachine link to a page archive at McDonough Marine, which indicated (in early 2013) that there might be three barges:

  • Marmac 300 (s-1-1)
  • Marmac 300 (s-1-2)
  • Marmac 300 (s-1-3)

If this is confirmed, then the prose in the article is misinterpreting the reality by representing the Marmac 300 descriptor as specifying a single large ocean-going barge. N2e (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the other barges, you can see the unique names, such as the 140'ers U1401 to U1406, or the 250'ers Marmac 9 through Marmac 20. The "S-1-1" figures are almost certainly specific drawing planes (top, side, fore) or levels. Considering news articles and even internal material refer to "Marmac 300" singularly, I think it is safe to assume it is a specific barge unless much stronger evidence is found. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Huntster. That makes sense. We certainly do not have any good reliable source that shows multiple barges named the same thing. And it wouldn't make much sense, since there are inspection regimes that these barges go through for seaworthiness etc. and it would seem best if each ship were known by only one name. N2e (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"Freight Barge Marmac 300" vs. "Research Vessel Marmac 300"

Some interesting ship registration records have been located, and are being discussed on the web, here.

I don't know how to link the results directly, but USCG Documentation information for Marmac 300, USCG Doc. No. 1063184, can be found via the NOAA Fisheries pages Vessel Documentation Search By Name and Vessel Documentation Search By ID. (ID = Documentation Number)

Annual Documentation renewal, via form CG-1280 costs US $26.00 and is independent of the Certification of Inspection.

The USGC CGMIX PSIX Search Page can be used to find more information, and it indicates that Marmac 300 does have a Certificate of Inspection, valid December 12, 2014 - December 12, 2015. Note that searching by Vessel Number 1063184 brings up only the current information for the Research Vessel Marmac 300, but searching by Vessel Name Marmac 300 brings up an archived record for the Freight Barge Marmac 300, Vessel Number D1063184. The vessel pages allow for a further search for a Summary of Coast Guard Contacts, the most recent being the October 30, 2014 Vessel Inspection, for which additional documentation was required (and subsequently provided) "attesting the approval by ABS of the following items: (a) Apron Extension, (b) Barge wing extension, (c) wing end cap assembly".

I really have no idea what we should do with this information. However, did think it best to bring it up on this Talk page and let others be aware of it. The shipping registry names for this vessel seem to be different than the ones we are using in this article, including the two different names that SpaceX has been referring to the vessel by (first ASDS, later JRtI). Cheers. N2e (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

There's no real reason to refer to it in any way other than simply Marmac 300. The other stuff is esoteric technical classifications. You might be able to work something in regarding the October 2014 Coast Guard approval for modifications. As far as I knew, there was never any question that the terms "autonomous spaceport drone ship" and "Just Read the Instructions" were nicknames applied by SpaceX, not names formally applied to the vessel. I really think the article should be called "Marmac 300", with the lead reading as follows (at least until something official is available regarding a formal name change):
Marmac 300, nicknamed autonomous spaceport drone ship and Just Read the Instructions, ...
Thoughts? — Huntster (t @ c) 17:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Technical data on Marmac 303 and Marmac 304, compared to Marmac 300

Technical data on Marmac 303 and Marmac 304, compared to Marmac 300, is posted on this forum site. Not a reliable source, but interesting. Both are much newer hulls. N2e (talk) 02:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Article scope?

With Musk having confirmed the construction of a second instance of the class of Autonomous spaceport drone ship, one for use on "west coast" (of the United States) launches, I think it is probably time to discuss what this article is, or should be, about going forward.

  • Is it an article for that new class of ships, owned by SpaceX, called Autonomous spaceport drone ship, and consisting of (at least two for now, perhaps more to come) ships? One is called "Just Read the Instructions", is currently ported in Jacksonville, Florida, and was the one used on the first attempted landing on a floating ocean platform in early January 2015, and another called "Of Course I Still Love You", currently under construction for use on SpaceX' west coast launches.
  • Is the scope of this article limited only to a particular single ship, the first ship built of the class, originally known as the Autonomous spaceport drone ship, later learned it was apparently still titled Marmac 300 on official ship registration records, even after the substantial refit for its new post-2014 mission as a floating landing platform.
  • Or something else?

I'm agnostic at present, and don't know which way would best comport with Wikipedia policy for now. Long term, I could see that once notability established for each ship, then Wiki policy would likely support separate articles for each ship, and maybe one for the class as well, depending on other factors. But I'm not asking about long term.

What should the scope of this article be right now, in late-January/early-February 2015? Both SpaceX ASDS's, one already in use and one under construction? Or should it be just about the first one, the one currently in operational use, and therefore possibly in need of being renamed once the SpaceX-given new name is backed up in more secondary sources. Cheer. N2e (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

For now, this article should be about the existing vessel. A subsection can be used to note that a second similar vessel is under construction, but since we know absolutely nothing about it, it would be premature for it to have its own article. Once we know what base it is being built off of, one can be started (long-standing wiki consensus has been that individual ships are intrinsically notable). At that point, I think a third article could be started about the "class", or rather type, and shift most of the generic information over there, leaving the two other articles about the individual ships and their histories. I'd personally love to have more information about the Marmac 300 be included here, at least pertaining to its history, operations, and whatnot.
Something which I've not seen anything about, is if this ship is actually owned by SpaceX or simply being rented from Marmac and operated by McDonough, as barges typically are. To know that would actually lend a lot of weight as to the proper name of the vessel...if actually owned by SpaceX, a stronger argument might be made for referring to it as Just Read the Instructions (though I'd prefer to see some official documentation). — Huntster (t @ c) 01:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, having given it about a week for comment, I'll take a position on the question. I concur with User:Huntster. THIS article, currently, is about the one single ship, the first instance of SpaceX' Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ships. Since only two weighed in, and it has been a week, that seems to be the consensus on this. N2e (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Having given it a month, and with unanimous consensus by the two editors who offered an opinion, it would appear this issue can be closed with the consensus that this particular article is about the single ship, originally known as the Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship, and later, creatively named by E. Musk as "Just Read the Instructions", ported in Florida on the East Coast of the United States. Therefore, a second article may be in order whenever notable sources as to name and details are made public about the second ASDS instance, to be ported on the West Coast of the US. N2e (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

June 2015: is the ground changing under our feet?

There's been some unconfirmed rumors that the Marmac 300 will be retired in favor of the Marmac 304. Nothing can be added to the article yet (unreliable) but it presents an interesting addition to the scope of the article. Do we include JRtI and the JRtI replacement stationed in Florida, or do we only include JRtI? Would that depend on what the successor is named? Appable (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but more and more I'm beginning to think that this article should be about the whole ASDS concept, and that we don't even need separate articles for these vessels. From what I'm observing, it seems the whole drone ship concept is not going as planned, and may not last for much longer. But I could be completely wrong. For now, let's just keep the status quo and see how things develop. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the overall sentiment of the previous two posts. Something is changing on this, and in (apparently) a fairly big way. However, to date, we've been short of reliable sources covering the changes to the "ASDS fleet" in general and the Marmac 300 in particular.
I'm open to someone proposing (probably in a new section) that the article scope (in June 2015) be changed from what the consensus was above, back in February 2015. In the meantime, as Huntster indicated, this article scope is about the Marmac 300 hull ASDS/JRtI. (although I could see a new section being added in the coming days on "Related ASDS ships" or something like that. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the ground has shifted!

We finally have a source that confirms much of what has been rumored for a couple of months. I've updated the article, but have left the article scope itself as the ASDS that had been Marmac 300, per the Talk page consensus from February 2015. That ASDS is no more! SpaceX has retired it.

So I'm guessing someone may soon propose a revised scope for this article. If not, I'm guessing we will see new articles soon on the sister ASDS ships of the original ASDS (Marmac 300). I'm personally not very clear on how it might be best to go in the Wikipedia article space on these ships. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Per previous discussion, I recommend article scope remains Marmac 300, page is renamed Marmac 300, and a new page is created for Autonomous spaceport drone ship (ship family) or something to that effect that has a scope covering all SpaceX vessels built for Falcon 9 first stage recovery tests. Marmac 300 is clearly notable in itself and there's plenty of good content on it. Once there's more sources for '304 and '303, I'd recommend new articles on Marmac 303 and Marmac 304. Appable (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Marmac 304

The ASDS in Jacksonville now, confirmed by photographic evidence (yesterday) but not (yet) by a reliable (media) source, is Marmac 304. It has several substantial design improvements over the original ASDS which was built on Marmac 300. 304 is the hull that will be used for the CRS-7 launch in a few weeks, IF SpaceX is not allowed to land on land, at Landing Complex 1 by the USAF or other US Federal authorities in time for the launch.

Word is that SpaceX have terminated their lease on Marmac 300, cut the "wing" extensions off of it, and released it back to it's owner.

It is not clear if the new east coast barge (hull 304) will continue to be called JRtI, or not. Apparently, it was common in the science fiction series Musk named these after to get new hulls, move the brains, and retain the old names. So be ready for anything.

We are awaiting a reliable source on all of this. But in the meantime I thought those with interest in this article might like to begin to get their heads around some major design/build changes to SpaceX' ASDS fleet. N2e (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Marmac 304 is in fact "Of Course I Still Love You"! https://instagram.com/p/4U7-5Xl8cZ/ Appable (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for article now that 3 barge/ASDS's exist

I recommend article scope remains Marmac 300, page is renamed Marmac 300, and a new page is created for Autonomous spaceport drone ship (ship family) Autonomous spaceport drone ship or something to that effect that has a scope covering all SpaceX vessels built for Falcon 9 first stage recovery tests. Marmac 300 is clearly notable in itself and there's plenty of good content on it. Once there's more sources for '304 and '303, I'd recommend new articles on Marmac 303 and Marmac 304. Appable (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

  • No. I've no idea why this article has been swamped with Marmac 300 references, but that's a problem that must be faced by those who are obsessed with Marmac 300. The topic of this article is autonomous spaceport drone ships. Do write an article or articles about Marmac series of barges if you want. That isn't what this article is about, except in the most tangential sense. --TS 23:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I think this article, going forward, ought to remain about ASDS, rather than renamed to Marmac 300. That way, the edit history, Talk page history, etc. would all be intact back to the beginning when it was created as ASDS. If Marmac 300 warrants it's own article or not, that is a matter I'm presently agnostic on, and will state no opinion for now.
So it seems to me that one big issue for this discussion is to decide if this article, this particular Wikipedia article, should properly have a scope larger than the consensus in Feb 2015, and include all ASDS's. I'm okay with that, but no one has made that proposal. As of the last Talk page consensus, it was to be only about the first ASDS, and not the others (at least not in any detail beyond brief mentions). N2e (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
As there are now 3 ships, [1] the "class" article should be called "autonomous spacesport drone ship" (ASDS). This article would be renamed to SpaceX's name for the ship (ie. the COMMONNAME of this configuration) Just Read the Instructions; two additional articles for Marmac 304 and Marmac 303 would be created. Additionally, a Marmac barge article should be created to cover what these things used to be but no longer are (and all other Marmac barges that are not ASDS) . We also need articles for the two support ships, the tug Elsbeth III and the rangeship GO Quest -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Good points. I question whether Elsbeth III and GO Quest are notable, though. Most discussion seems to be on the Autonomous spaceport drone ship, with just trivial mentions of the support vessels. Perhaps information could be included on those within the Marmac 304 article. Of course, if there are some good, non-trivial sources on the Elsbeth III and GO Quest, an article on those would be great. Thanks for your input and your contributions! Appable (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm think [2] GO Quest meets the NSHIPS WP:SHIPS rule of thumb if it is IMO number: 8987876; and perhaps Elsbeth III as well [3] -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Just a thought. The discussion seems to be widening so much, covering changes and or creation of up to a half dozen articles. Seems to me that we will be more likely to gain consensus on a clearly stated single proposal. Then, of course, other articles may, or may not, be created as folks find, or don't, that they have sufficient sources and that an article would meet WP:GNG.

Does anyone want to make such a proposal relative to the scope of this article? N2e (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Article Scope Proposal, ASDS as Family of Ships

Proposal: scope of article is the family of SpaceX-owned or leased ships intended as ocean-based platforms for landing Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy first stages. This does not include ships intended for reusing other SpaceX rockets, unless those ships are also used for recovering Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy first stages. Appable (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT—seems the sensible way to do this now that Space have two of these ASDS barges currently, and have already retired a third ASDS. This is different than the Feb 2015 consensus, but I think the situation has changed, and this is warranted. N2e (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • COMMENT: FWIW, I'm still editing the article as if the February consensus is in place. If no objections arise to Appable's proposal in another day or two, I'll try to update the article prior to the scheduled launch in four days where the ship will first be dispatched. N2e (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have invited all of the editors who have commented above, on the earlier scope discussions, to comment on this rather more concrete proposal. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support article being about the type of vessel (mind you, it isn't a class per se). Regarding individual ship articles, I tend to think they should be named Marmac 300, Marmac 303 and Marmac 304, since these are official, registered names with history behind them, whereas JRtI and OCISLY are nicknames applied by SpaceX. Of course, this can be dealt with later. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Thanks for weighing in, Huntster. Given that only two editors ever became involved in the Feb 2015 scope discussion (above), and that both of them now support this change of scope—and that there is unanimity among other editors to this point—I'd say the consensus that is emerging is to braoden scope of this article to include the family of ASDS type ships that SpaceX had or had. If no one objects today (26 Jun), I'll go ahead and begin to refactor this article that way, prior to the scheduled test flight landing on OCISLY/Marmac 304 on 28 June. N2e (talk) 11:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, per unanimous consensus to this point, I'm going to boldly go ahead and give it a go, and try to refactor the article, using existing sources, to represent all three ASDS ships, historical and current. If major objections, revert and we can discuss further here. N2e (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Marmac 303, the west-coast ASDS (OCISLY?), completed passage through the Panama canal, westbound

As mentioned above, in the "June 2015: is the ground changing under our feet?" section of the Talk page, SpaceX is making major changes to their ASDS fleet. We are still waiting on a reliable source on all of that.

In the meantime, for those of you watching at home, the west-coast ASDS, reported to be Marmac 303, just started passage through the Panama Canal, westbound, about one hour ago. (on 14 June; i.e., it through the Gatun Locks on the Atlantic side of the Panama canal)

Here is a video of captured images from the Gatun locks high-definition webcam: 14 June 2015 passage of Marmac 303, the west-coast ASDS (OCISLY), through the Gatun locks on the Atlantic side of the Panama canal, westbound. (Images captured and assembled by someone named ClayJar, and posted to YouTube a few minutes ago.)

Hint for watching: OCISLY is being towed or pushed by tug Rhea, and starts, out in the Atlantic Ocean but inside the Panama breakwater, in the very upper right of the video frame right after the beginning of the vid. Other tugs assist as necessary. It is the tug(s)/barge that then move from right to left, through the back of the two locks (the one nearer the top of the screen). You can only really see the barge and what's on it nearer the end of the vid, after Marmac303/Rhea is in the second of the two locks, and the water has risen in that lock. (5:14 to 5:33 in the vid, time= 12:50-12:56 pm on the Panama Canal clock in the upper right corner of the vid.)

Note that the wings (reportedly cut off of Marmac 300) are on the deck of the (new) barge; presumably to be welded on (complete ship refit) once it is on the west coast. Otherwise, would be too wide for the Panama Canal. You can only make them out very well toward the very end of the video. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Heh, I'll take your word for it, as I couldn't make out anything in that video. Interesting news. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah Huntster, I kind of knew what to look for based on other intelligence info. I've just added more guidance above, so folks can see it in the video. You can see the barge rise, the many boxed-in steel structures on top of the barge (those are the new wings; they are boxed in now (totally enclosed) in steel, even on what will be the lower side (water side) when installed. In other words, there are multiple design changes/improverments on the new set of ASDSs.). The wings are upside down on the deck of the barge, and are most visible as the barge leaves from lock 2 and enters (and goes out of sight behind the higher concrete wall of) lock no. 3. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

And now, the next day, on 15 June 2015, it finished passage through the locks on the Pacific ocean side, and is now in the Pacific en route to California.

Here is a much better view of the ASDS/OCSILY?/Marmac 303 as it is passing through the Miraflores Locks, a couple of hours ago. Rhea and MARMAC 303 at Miraflores (High-Res Cam) Very easy to see the disassembled wings on the deck of the barge, and being transported, for final assembly in some west coast shipyard.

Enjoy, N2e (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks N as always. I hope some of this information can be added eventually. Unfortunately, all I can find is NASASpaceFlight forum content. Apparently the mainstream media isn't obsessed with looking at webcams for hours to look for a barge. If there is a source, though (I heard Chris Bergin of NSF asking if anyone could do an news article on the Marmac 303/304 updates) seeing this information in an Wikipedia article would be great. Appable (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


Closing out this section with an update: Marmac 303 did successfully reach the port of Los Angeles a few days ago. It is still yet, at least in public, unnamed. However, it will not be named OSCILY as previously reported by Musk's earliest release of info. That name was given to the second ASDS, built on Marmac 304, doing service on the east coast of the US, and which had it's first marine sortie in June 2015 for Falcon 9 Flight 19, but was (in the event) not used as no controlled-descent test was ever initiated on that late-June flight. N2e (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Marmac 300's old History as a deck barge

I have removed Marmac 300's older history (from 2003 and 2011) as a deck barge; seems irrelevant now to the ASDS scope of this article now per the consensus above. If a Marmac 300 Wikipedia article is ever created, this material could be added from the page History. N2e (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Refactoring the article

I've made a first pass to refactor the article scope to include all three ASDS ships to date, per discussion above. More can be done. Here are some ideas:

  • I didn't mess with the ship infobox that was in the previous article. So that editing is yet still to be done. Others with infobox experience will be better than me.
    • Temporarily removed the now incorrectly-detailed infobox that covered only the first vessel (JRtI) in July to allow the infobox to be redone and perhaps reflect all three ships rather than just the one, now retired, ship. N2e (talk) 10:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The whole ASDS cum support ships (two of them per ASDS) cum support team operations schema needs to be fleshed out, as we find more and better sources for the operations
  • I've not yet refactored the Test landings section to mention which ship when. That will no doubt get work in the next few days as Falcon 9 Flight 19 is scheduled for launch, so that this extraneous rocket test can occur. This might be a great place for a table. Anyone up for creating one?
  • To this point, I only used sources that were already in the article. With a NASA/SpaceX news conference yesterday, and quite a few questions on the drone ship, I would expect a number of space media and local news media to have stories in the next day with info on the ASDS and operations.
  • Fix errors I haven't caught.

Others may wish to add to this list; or heck, just fix it and make it better. N2e (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Marmac 303 is now named "Just Read the Instructions"

The name has been transferred from the Marmac 300 to Marmac 303. Hektor (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. And I have updated and copyedited the article prose to reflect that now. N2e (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Is this true? I thought I heard the commentator say that (however unlikely) this ship was actually the same one that supported the East Coast launches. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Heat resistance

How is it treated to resist the heat from the landing rockets? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.146.23.184 (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry...

...the series of photos in the lede is not fangirlish at all.-217.248.26.7 (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

What's in a name?

I see references above to deleting "old history" from the article. I see lots of people throwing around 'marmac' above and in the article. I found one mention of "McDonough Marine" which spelled sideways could be 'marmac'. Why I betcha in early versions of the page there was some connection made of this mysterious term to the real world, since edited out to improve the article. Could somebody make this 'lochness' into something other than presumably Katniss' sister? Shenme (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your statement. The drone ships started out as the ocean barges Marmac 300 (the original Just Read the Instructions), Marmac 304 (Of Course I Still Love You), and Marmac 303 (new Just Read the Instructions). They are owned by McDonough Marine, and leased to SpaceX. See http://www.mcdonoughmarine.com/ocean-barges.html. You can even see Marmac 304 painted on the front-side of OCISLY in File:CRS-8 (26239020092).jpg. Note that the SpaceX names are just nicknames, not the registered names of the barges. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

And now what?

So you're a barge out at sea and you've just had a rocket stage land on you. How do you remove the rocket? I don't know but I'm sure that many would be fascinated by the process. Are their any RS that detail this? TMLutas (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The ship already returned to port last week with the rocket [4] --Ita140188 (talk) 02:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

They hoisted it of the ASDS back to land, then they removed the legs and lovered it down on a truck. Yesterday it started it's trip (1) from port to pad 39A where it will go through several (10 by Musk) static tests...--Михаило Јовановић (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

So about the vessel missions...

While I understand the importance of describing, to some extent, the vessel missions, it seems like we're just duplicating Falcon 9 first-stage landing attempts on this page by describing every single landing. Suggest that it's narrowed down to significant landings such as CRS-5 (first attempt), CRS-8 (first landing), etc and the rest is linked to the main article. Any thoughts? Appable (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, it's tremendous overkill. It is like documenting every transport action for Apollo, Shuttle, etc. launches on the crawler-transporter article. Even the whole significant events overview really only need one section with a couple of paragraphs that link to their main articles, not in-detail reports. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree too. Only few significant missions should be mentioned. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
While this article is listing every mission that a drone ship has been involved, it seems okay to me.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Autonomous spaceport drone ship. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 07:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

AIS ?

To my knowledge the drone ships are large enough that they are required to use AIS and since I don't find any information on AIS here, I was thinking that it should be added. I can however not find any AIS information on these ships on various vessel tracking sites either. Can any one help? Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Vessel Missions section

It may be cleaner to build a table for this section with mission dates, landing times, and ship names for each landing attempt on the ASDS barges. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 14:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, that would be more compact and more readable. — JFG talk 21:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Just Read the Instructions (Marmac 300)

No landings on this ship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.63.76.247 (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Correct, the Marmac 300 drone ship was never used for a landing but it still was modified for that purpose. --Frmorrison (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Any information about what was his fate after being decommissioned ? Hektor (talk) 09:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
From the article, it mentions that the ship was retired (so the lease ended and the vessel went back to its owner) and all modifications were removed like the wings that extended the barge surface and equipment used for landing. --Frmorrison (talk) 13:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

"... drone ship" or "... droneship"

SpaceX is now regularly using droneship rather than the two words currently used in this article title: drone ship. See, for example, here: "SES-9 Mission" (PDF). Press Kit. SpaceX. 2016-02-23. Retrieved 2016-02-24. This mission is going to a Geostationary Transfer Orbit. Following stage separation, the first stage of the Falcon 9 will attempt an experimental landing on the "Of Course I Still Love You" droneship. Given this mission's unique GTO profile, a successful landing is not expected.

A move may be indicated. Just noting this for now, and we will need to see how this plays out in multiple sources per WP:COMMONNAME, but let's use this section to make note of other media usage and spelling so as to better inform us all about what this article title ought to be. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

By 2018, the trend is really apparent. Nearly all the uses in media of "drone ship" in the sources in this article are in 2014–2016. By 2015, "droneship" was being used by SpaceX and in some articles, and much more so as it rolled into 2017. Few uses of the two words are being published now.
I'll start a proposal and discussion to fix it below. N2e (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Source on "the fleet" and refits, etc.

"Common name" proposal

As documented above on this talk page, SpaceX has been regularly using droneship rather than the two words currently used in this article title, drone ship, since late 2015.

Per WP:COMMONNAME, it's time to revisit the name of this article.

PROPOSAL : Rename the article to Autonomous spaceport droneship to align with the common name now used by the company and in most all of the media.

  • SUPPORT — Nearly all the uses in media of "drone ship" in the sources in this article are in 2014–2016. By 2015, "droneship" was being used by SpaceX, and in some media articles; this had become much more so as the time rolled into 2017, and is very prevalent today. Few uses of the two separate words are being published now, although one media source has continued to use the two word form "drone ship." Others have switched over. In the article prose itself, editors have mostly stayed with "drone ship" just to match the early convention in this article, even when, the source prose has used droneship rather than the two-word locution. It's time to change: Autonomous spaceport droneship. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
It's been a week, and no feedback. I suspect few may have seen it. User:Huntster User:Appable User:Chessrat User:Frmorrison User:JFG — you've all commented on discussions on this page before. Any opinions here about what to do on the drone ship vs. droneship question and the common name nowadays? N2e (talk) 03:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I can't find any indication that "drone ship" is not used often – both NASASpaceFlight and SpaceflightNow seem to use the separate-word form consistently. Are you referring to other sources? I'd rather see that before commenting. Incidentally, I'm leaning toward Chessrat's suggestion that "autonomous spaceport" should be dropped. Appable (talk | contributions) 05:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

(pinged) Indeed I had not seen this suggestion, thanks for the ping. No clear preference on my side, although if we do shorten the title, I would select "drone ship" over "droneship" just for grammar. I would suggest that N2e start a WP:move request, to gather more input. — JFG talk 09:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose dropping the "Autonomous spaceport", in that the sources I read (NASA Spaceflight in particular) use the abbreviation ASDS significantly more often than the spelled-out version. I'd second JFG in preferring drone ship as two words for grammar reasons, though given that SpaceX seems to have dropped the space I'd not dispute that one too hotly. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Also, "Drone ship" on its own (with or without a space) is too generic and more likely to refer to unmanned surface vehicles than rocket landing platforms. Not to mention SpaceX's potential future use of autonomous offshore launch platforms for BFR. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm fairly ambivalent regarding "droneship" vs. "drone ship", though I tend to prefer "drone ship". However, I strongly oppose dropping "autonomous spaceport" for the purposes of clarity. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I don't see much difference between droneship and drone ship, but I'm willing to go along with the move for the sake of more closely aligning the article with it's sources. I am very opposed to dropping autonomous spaceport however, as removing those words would render the title far too ambiguous. Sario528 (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose renaming as proposed including changing drone ship to "droneship". I see plenty of sources using both spellings. Drone ship is also used to refer to the US Navy's drones that work as submarine-hunters, so "drone ship" is too generic. I would support renaming this to "SpaceX drone ship" while I am fine with the current name. --Frmorrison (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • COMMENT: Thanks everyone for weighing in. Looks like there may be no consensus for any change on the current name, at this time. It'll all get sorted in the great emergent order-production machine called Wikipedia; maybe next year or the year after. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Just read the instructions ll

It is moving should we put that on that section HurricaneMichael2018 (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Can we say more about the tugs

Can we say more about the tugs ? eg. how heavy they are, what power, what speed they tow the ASDS ? crew numbers ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

A Shortfall of Gravitas

Looks like A Shortfall of Gravitas is still coming per [5]. Removed coming in "mid-2019" note though. OkayKenji (talk page) 23:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

It's (finally) here and has been out doing powered operations on the sea, as of 9 July 2021. See article history from that date, and shortly thereafter, for sources. N2e (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Name: Autonomous SpaceX droneship? or Autonomous spaceport drone ship? Time will tell

Well, we've had another change of name by SpaceX and SpaceX CEO Musk. While the existing drone ships have consistently been referred to as Autonomous spaceport droneships since c. 2015, by Musk... ... this time, he referred to the new (more self-propelled) ASDS, A Shortfall of Gravitas (Marmac 302) as an "Autonomous SpaceX droneship". What's new is "...SpaceX..." in the name in the place of "...spaceport...".

What does this mean? This is SpaceX, after all, where descriptors of vehicles (whether space, land, or marine) seem to be free to change frequently, much to the dismay of Wikipedia editors who try to explicate this stuff. And, clearly, "Autonomous SpaceX droneship" is not yet WP:COMMONNAME, so not suggesting we change the article at this time. But do think it something to watch, and begin to observe the secondary sources, and see if the new name is both a) repeated by SpaceX and b) begins to catch on in other media sources. The new ship is rather clearly a bit different class/variety of ASDS, due to propulsion, outer form line, and likely other characteristics that have not (yet) been publicly released. N2e (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Or, perhaps, Mr. Musk just mistyped in a tweet. Or simply got his own company's terminology wrong. Fcrary (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

A Shortfall of Gravitas -- July 2021 - video footage - licence ?

For the record, Port Canaveral posted video footage today of several good angles/vies of the new droneship, A Shortfall of Gravitas (ASOG), Marmac 302, coming into port on the Florida coast for the first time. From the shipyard in Louisiana, before the paint job has gotten messed up from Falcon 9s landing on it. video link Perhaps could be possible to get them to release their video, or some snippets from it, with a Creative Commons license, to improve the article for the long term. N2e (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2021 (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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2021 (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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2021 (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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Could we include the coordinates of the landings in the landing table? or at least downrange distance

I think it would a useful to capture where each landing attempt/succesfull landing occured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:E70:A9A0:5CD4:4B60:6821:C5E1 (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Should be easy enough to figure out by using the launch location, target inclination, and landing downrange distance, unless there is a verifiable source that says the coordinates. Kadermonkey (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Even just Distance downrange, or distance offshore would be interesting and may be regularly available. I came here looking for downrange distances, but found only a few. - Rod57 (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I made a new ASDS statistics chart for each ASDS on this page

hi @Ergzay, @C-randles, @Mfb, @Inertiabikes, @GigaShip and @AmigaClone, from the day of 100th successful Droneship landing of a Falcon booster i was thinking if we had a chart for each Droneship like all landing charts on pages of SpaceX landing zone. so i made 4 charts for the 4 ASDS under their name in characteristics section. if you saw a merged chart is also possible that will be placed in vessel missions (as all LZs (especially 1 and 2 on same site) have a separate chart of themselves, i made a separte one for each Droneship). please voice your opinion. Thank you for visiting this discussion if you visit. Chinakpradhan (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a benefit from that many graphs, but maybe a single one (only showing the ship used, not the outcome) could give an overview what was used when. --mfb (talk) 07:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
but outcome is neccessary @Mfb Chinakpradhan (talk) 07:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Why? We don't have that in e.g. our launch pad graph either. --mfb (talk) 08:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
i am comparing with Landing Zones 1 and 2 and SpaceX Landing Zone 4 graph i told at the start only i made the graph because we have a graph of lzs @mfbChinakpradhan (talk) 09:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
5
10
15
20
25
30
2015
'16
'17
'18
'19
'20
'21
'22
  •   Falcon 9 Failure (Marmac 300)
  •   Falcon 9 Success (Marmac 300)
  •   Falcon 9 Success (Marmac 304)
  •   Falcon Heavy Success (Marmac 304)
  •   Falcon 9 Failure (Marmac 304)
  •   Falcon Heavy Failure (Marmac 304)
  •   Falcon 9 Failure (Marmac 303)
  •   Falcon 9 Success (Marmac 303)
  •   Falcon 9 Success (Marmac 302)
  •   Falcon 9 Failure (Marmac 302)

@mfb i made one for rough how is it. Chinakpradhan (talk) 10:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that's far too crowded to be useful. --mfb (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
While I like the concept of the graph above, I agree that it appears too crowded. AmigaClone (talk) 11:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
i dont see crowding to be a issue otherwise why would this List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters#Booster turnaround time ever exist?? @mfb Chinakpradhan (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
All these are identical reuses of essentially identical boosters, excluding some historic categories. We use different colors just so you can see where one bar ends and the next bar starts, not to distinguish one or even two types of information (ship and landing outcome) at the same time. --mfb (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
@Chinakpradhan Your graph above is too crowded. If you want to make a drone ship landing graph. I'd include only successes and then split them up by drone ship. Including successes and failures simply duplicates a graph we already have. Ergzay (talk) 04:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ergzay so I think I should make the graph as @mfb said . BTW Ergzay, @Mfb and @AmigaClone there are 3 no attempts (1 JRTI (I) and 2 OCISLY) do i need to count them if as mfb noted "only showing the ship used". i consider touchdown under this graph only. here's it

5
10
15
20
25
30
2015
'16
'17
'18
'19
'20
'21
'22
  •   Just Read The Instructions (Marmac 300)
  •   Of Course I Still Love You (Marmac 304)
  •   Just Read The Instructions (Marmac 303)
  •   A Shortfall of Gravitas (Marmac 302)

i would also like to link List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches#Booster landings on this page Chinakpradhan (talk) 09:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

btw @mfb please tell if my above idea was right to be published in place of 4 existing bar charts Chinakpradhan (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

A simple error solving

hi @Ergzay, @C-randles, @Mfb, @Inertiabikes, @GigaShip and @AmigaClone, I know you make be busy but please tell which droneship mission till starlink 3-1 is missing on this page. This https://spacexfleet.com/droneship-data tells us till 94 attemplts, remove 2 cancelled attempts form 92 but my count says 91 for starlink 4-11. Please help out guys in this topic Chinakpradhan (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I count 110 in our statistics. 10 failures, 100 successes. Something larger is missing here. --mfb (talk) 02:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
hi @Ergzay, @C-randles, @Mfb, @Inertiabikes, @GigaShip and @AmigaClone, what a flaw in this page i discovered. i salute the spirit of wikipedians that edited this page before i joined wikipedia. comparing with our statistics table, i found they forgot to add the Telstar 18V to the vessels section. And we followed and built onto this mistake for 3 years, 10 months and 3 days. thanks i rectified it it by edits.Chinakpradhan (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Autonomous_spaceport_drone_ship/Archive_1&oldid=1242977506"