Talk:Falcon X

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 September 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to SpaceX.

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Spaceflight This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight Rocketry This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry

Based on a news source that has clarified SpaceX intentions, or rather, non-intentions, with the Falcon X today (10 Aug 2010), I believe we ought to initiate a discussion as to whether or not this topic is really sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article as things currently stand. I'll say why in the next paragraph. But do note, I am not yet making a proposal for deletion, nor nominating the article for AfD, I just think all editors need to step back and consider whether the sources really support all the current assertions in the article and whether or not such assertions about the plans of SpaceX, if verified/verifiable, are notable at this point in time.

I do think the information published today (2010-08-10) at this news source, and the accompanying Spacevidcast video of a recent interview with Elon Musk, may offer a compelling reason for not (yet) having a SpaceX Falcon X article in Wikipedia. According to that source, "Elon emphasizes that the SpaceX heavy lift slides shown at the recent propulsion conference are just rough concepts and not part of any grand long term plan." IF that is true, appropriately verified to WP:V standards, etc., THEN I would think it calls into question the entire basis for this article, at least at this point in time. I am most interested in what others think on this matter. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any opinions from the editors following this page? Otherwise I may propose the article for AfD to get input from the broader wiki-community. With the stories now published in major media (including Aviation Week) showing that Musk and SpaceX currently have no formal plans for either a Falcon X or Falcon XX, and that both rockets are mere concepts, I don't believe a consensus will be able to successfully argue that we need the two recently-created new Wikipedia articles on the (now) purely speculative future heavy-lift rockets. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm torn multiple ways on this. On one hand, the description of Falcon X and Falcon XX is entirely sourced off of one presentation which is more of a concept than any actual plan for vehicles. On the other hand, there is enough detail to create several paragraphs of description in the two articles. On the gripping hand, what information we have available on the Falcon X and XX concepts could be covered in a section of the parent SpaceX article, perhaps a "Future Concepts" section which could say where the X and XX came from and what the basic descriptions entail. I'd support taking this to AfD but my vote will be to merge some of the content into a section of the SpaceX article. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another alternative would be to merge the smaller XX article into this one, leaving the original as a redirect to it. -Arb. (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, it's not even a real project within the SpaceX organization. Just an idea of one of the engineers. Not notable, would recommend deletion. --71.214.237.152 (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://images.spaceref.com/news/2010/SpaceX_Overview_TEM.pdf Falcon X is "all RP heavy lift", it's not an LH2 second stage. The XX given on page 13 has lower lift-off thrust but higher payload. This implies the second stage on the XX has a much higher ISP than the second stage on the X, and hence it would appear to be the candidate for LH2. ArbitraryConstant (talk) 03:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may be, but the point is that, subsequent to the "SpaceX+Overview_TEM.pdf", the company has explicitly backed away from any claim that this is "proposed"—they have stated explicitly that all the Falcon X/Falcon XX stuff was merely ideas for discussion. Therefore, I think we have to resolve the meta-issue of the appropriateness of Falcon X even having a Wikipedia article at this time, before we worry too much about the details of the second-stage fuel. Would appreciate your input on the discussion in the previous section. N2e (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims that Falcon X Heavy can put both 125,000 lb and 125,000 kg to LEO. Which one is correct? Remember that 125,000 lb = 56,700 kg = 56,7 metric tons. Urvabara (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated this article for deletion, per the process at WP:AfD. Discussion of the deletion, pros, cons, and other preferences should occur on the articles' AfD page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon X.

I will note here that to date, most editors who commented above seem to support merging the content into the SpaceX article, or full deletion. However, since a robust consensus was not reached here on this Talk page, my nomination is constructively intended to get a wider set of eyes on the question. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]