Talk:Reusable spacecraft

Reusable launch system vs. Reusable spacecraft

(original discussion moved from Pancho507's talk page)

Hi there - I'm conducting a New pages patrol on the page Reusable spacecraft and I noticed your recent edits. I just wanted to see what your thoughts are on the need for a separate article from Reusable launch system. They seem to be part of the same general concept and so I'd think we'd want to keep all of that information together but I'd like to know your feedback before I start any proposals. Paradoxsociety 04:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Paradoxsociety Hi, i split the article in response to a request made by Soumya-8974 on Talk:Reusable launch system, to which i agreed, since reusable spacecraft are different from reusable launch systems (reusable spacecraft like the space shuttle orbiters are meant to orbit and reenter many times, and include heat tiles to protect against heat during reentry, reusable rockets/launch systems are not meant to orbit, and as far as i know they do not have heat tiles) so they are the same in the sense that they are reusable but i believe they are not entirely the same since reusable spacecraft can orbit whereas reusable launch systems can not, and reusable spacecraft include special systems to deorbit and to protect against heat during reentry, things launch systems do not have. I believe the article is necessary because the space shuttle orbiters aren't alone anymore. Also, reusable spacecraft can be launched aboard expendable and reusable launch systems, so i believe the two shouldn't be treated as a system but as two different components, the reusable spacecraft being the payload of a reusable or expendable rocket. Pancho507 (talk) 05:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I see that request for split now. I do see what you're saying about the differences between the two concepts. Let me rephrase the question this way though - could all of the content be covered under a single topic like "Reusable spaceflight systems"? Or perhaps "Reusability in spaceflight systems"? I would think that anyone wanting to learn about the topic of reusability would want to know about the entire history and evolution of all of the different components that have been part of this trend historically. Paradoxsociety 03:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

ParadoxsocietyI believe it could because it is technically correct but i also believe it's not the best idea because a search on google for "reusable spaceflight systems" mostly throws results about either suborbital spaceplanes (like SpaceShipTwo) or spacex's boosters, So, if we move this back to reusable launch systems, i believe that article should be renamed reusable spaceflight systems but only if the scope of that article is also expanded to include suborbital spaceplanes, (include a summary of what a spaceplane is). I believe the lead could be phrased something like this: Reusable spaceflight systems include reusable spacecraft and reusable launch systems. Spacecraft may either be suborbital or orbital spaceplanes or crewed or uncrewed (cargo) capsules. Pancho507 (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Starship to Active Vehicles?

Okay, I know this is a hot topic, but I'm curious to hear what y'all think. Starship is technically an active vehicle, as it has flown to space multiple times now; however, despite that it is still a development vehicle technically. I know that it doesn't really technically fit the criteria of "active vehicles" as is, as it still hasn't taken any kind of orbital flight or any kind of payload, however on the opposite side, it has actually flown unlike the rest of the vehicles in that list. Any takes on that? I know it's obviously still very early in that vehicle's life cycle, so I suppose it'll prove itself at some point and make its way into operational, but I guess what I'm raising the question about is when do we make that move. (There we go, just had to talk my way to it first!) XFalcon2004x (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

It has reached space, but their flights are still considered "development" / test flights. I think it'd be fair to move it once they make an "operational" flight, specifically deploying a paylod to orbit or proving that capability. Their current spacecraft seem to be prototypes that haven't proven landing capability (on land / the tower), nor carried a useful payload beyond the stuffed banana.

Since they are still making major changes to the vehicle and aiming for suborbital/transatmospheric flights, I'm holding off on moving it for now. Alpacaaviator (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Replying to myself, but when they recover a Starship spacecraft intact with a land landing (and prove reusability), that would make it a "reusable spacecraft." Right now it fits the criteria of spacecraft, but not reusable. Alpacaaviator (talk) 02:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, that seems like a good criterion, I'll agree to that! Thanks for talking through that with me. I think that's a good assessment - ship recovery/reusability seems like a good point to move it into operational, at least as it pertains to this topic. XFalcon2004x (talk) 14:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)