Talk:SpaceX

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SpaceX article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	SpaceX has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 20, 2021 Good article nominee Not listed May 16, 2022 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

Falcon X was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 September 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into SpaceX. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Falcon XX was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 11 September 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into SpaceX. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Section sizes Section size for SpaceX (43 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 9,720 9,720 History 98 85,622 2001–2004: Founding 5,871 5,871 2005–2009: Falcon 1 and first orbital launches 8,567 8,567 2010–2012: Falcon 9, Dragon, and NASA contracts 9,385 9,385 2013–2015: Commercial launches and rapid growth 6,146 6,146 2015–2017: Reusability milestones 5,522 5,522 2017–2018: Leading global commercial launch provider 5,470 5,470 Since 2019: Starship, first crewed launches, Starlink and general 13,738 31,474 2024 headquarters move from California to Texas 2,527 2,527 Starship 10,249 10,249 Crewed launches 2,261 2,261 Starlink 2,699 2,699 Summary of achievements 13,089 13,089 Hardware 15 30,492 Launch vehicles 7,952 7,952 Rocket engines 5,463 5,463 Dragon spacecraft 3,792 3,792 Autonomous spaceport drone ships 2,252 2,252 Starlink 11,018 11,018 Other projects 57 7,653 Hyperloop 1,700 1,700 COVID-19 antibody-testing program 2,591 2,591 Other 3,305 3,305 Facilities 1,577 25,900 Hawthorne, CA: Falcon and Dragon manufacturing, mission control 3,184 3,184 Boca Chica, TX: Starship manufacturing, launch 4,944 4,944 McGregor, TX: Rocket Development and Test Facility 6,236 6,236 Starlink manufacturing facilities 2,359 2,359 Launch facilities 7,600 7,600 Contracts 562 30,558 Cargo to ISS 7,799 7,799 Crewed 9,763 9,763 National defense 12,434 12,434 Launch market competition and pricing pressure 6,716 6,716 Corporate affairs 25 25,460 Business trends 8,412 8,412 Board of directors 5,959 5,959 Leadership changes 1,996 1,996 Workplace culture 9,068 9,068 References 44 44 Further reading 616 616 External links 1,266 1,266 Total 224,047 224,047

This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

California: Los Angeles Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance). Companies Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments Rocketry High‑importance This article 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Spaceflight: SpaceX working group High‑importance This article 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by SpaceX working group. Military history: Aviation / Technology / African / North America / United States / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Military science, technology, and theory task force African military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Post-Cold War task force

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: May 24 to 30, 2020

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

the article should AT LEAST mention their small-sat rideshare program aimed at the smallsat market. they also are spinning the starlink framework to build separate satellites for military monitoring. 81.181.130.106 (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this article needs an overhaul on "Launch market competition and pricing pressure" section. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is ambiguous. "Orbital rocket", what does that mean? The rocket engines that are reused are not orbital. The re-entry vehicle that is used is not a first, and the Space Shuttle used reusable Solid Rocket Boosters. I am going to add <reference needed> GeorgeV73GT (talk) 02:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GeorgeV73GT agreed. Clarified to "first vertical take-off and vertical propulsive landing for an orbital rocket booster, first reuse of such booster". CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CactiStaccingCrane, YOU are very responsive... We need more like YOU here on the American English Wikipedia! I find the culture varies greatly on the various language wiki's. I say that having edits on the German and Cebuano wikipedias.

Thanks again!

GeorgeV73GT

PS. Hmmmm Cacti Staccing Crane ... I grow Cactus for fun and food, enjoy them greatly ! GeorgeV73GT (talk) 09:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GeorgeV73GT, thanks for the compliments! And sorry to disappoint you, but I don't grow cacti at home :( Maybe I would someday. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using a memo written by a rival company of Space X as a source to describe the workplace culture at Space X seems pretty ridiculous. Especially since one of the articles used to source the information actually cites current and former Blue Origin employees alleging a sexist and unsafe work culture at Blue Origin. Citing current or former employees to describe the workplace culture at Space X would seem more reasonable. WhowinsIwins (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree! JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at this article before. Has there been any discussion about SpaceX safety record? From Reuters:

Through interviews and government records, the news organization documented at least 600 injuries of SpaceX workers since 2014.

Many were serious or disabling. The records included reports of more than 100 workers suffering cuts or lacerations, 29 with broken bones or dislocations, 17 whose hands or fingers were “crushed,” and nine with head injuries, including one skull fracture, four concussions and one traumatic brain injury. The cases also included five burns, five electrocutions, eight accidents that led to amputations, 12 injuries involving multiple unspecified body parts, and seven workers with eye injuries. Others were relatively minor, including more than 170 reports of strains or sprains. Current and former employees said such injuries reflect a chaotic workplace where often under-trained and overtired staff routinely skipped basic safety procedures as they raced to meet Musk’s aggressive deadlines for space missions. SpaceX, founded by Musk more than two decades ago, takes the stance that workers are responsible for protecting themselves, according to more than a dozen current and former employees, including a former senior executive.

Musk himself at times appeared cavalier about safety on visits to SpaceX sites: Four employees said he sometimes played with a novelty flamethrower and discouraged workers from wearing safety yellow because he dislikes bright colors.[1]

Other citations would be needed to balance such and I have no idea what the overall safety record is in the space industry. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's pretty concerning. It should be noted though that Reuter's comparison with the space industry in general is a tad misleading because Starbase is under heavy construction. When compared to other heavy construction industries, the injury rate is slightly above average. To quote https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/17s4926/at_spacex_worker_injuries_soar_in_elon_musks_rush/:

----

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) injury statistics for 2022: https://www.bls.gov/iif/nonfatal-injuries-and-illnesses-tables/table-1-injury-and-illness-rates-by-industry-2022-national.htm

The 0.8 injuries per 100 workers for "Guided missile and space vehicle manufacturing" category is very low when comparing to other manufacturing industries that is comparable to what SpaceX is doing:

1. Average of all private industries: 2.7
2. Fabricated metal product manufacturing: 3.7
3. Machinery manufacturing: 2.8
4. Motor vehicle manufacturing: 5.9
5. Motor vehicle body and trailer manufacturing: 5.8
6. Motor vehicle parts manufacturing: 3.1
7. Aircraft manufacturing: 2.5
8. Ship and boat building: 5.6

----

- CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters also has a very spotty record on reporting on Elon Musks companies. Even a number of false claims regarding Tesla recently. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters is widely considered one of the most trustworthy and objective news sources. Criticism from Musk and his supporters should be taken with a grain of salt (WP:MANDY). Stonkaments (talk) 04:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RickyCourtney I reverted your changes changing the headquarters to Boca Chica. An Elon Musk tweet is not an official move of the headquarters. The evidence for that needs to come in the form of corporate documentation or reporting on such corporate documentation. It's fine to add that Elon Musk announced a plan to move the headquarters however, but wikipedia should only reflect that. Ergzay (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There’s not much that needs to change other than the company letterhead. This is very much like the Tesla move a few years back. The new “headquarters” building is already operational, the old “headquarters” building will remain in operation. The main executives already shuttle between those locations. So I mean, we can wait for SpaceX to publish some sort of “corporate documentation” (which leaves plenty of room for ambiguity) but it’s just delaying the inevitable. RickyCourtney (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so calling it "inevitable" isn't our choice to make. I'd also throw the general discussion on related topics at WP:TOOSOON. Give it some time to settle and things may become clearer. And as you say, there's nothing new about executives flying back and forth so that's not a point for or against the change. Ergzay (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an established editor, I'm well aware of the policies of CRYSTAL and TOOSOON. I still think we have all the confirmation we need. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that it is _likely_ that SpaceX will _soon_ make Boca Chica it's head quarters, to be clear. It just, right now, at this moment, is not yet. Ergzay (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Wait until it is official. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's no secret (and easy to cite) that SpaceX was bailed out by Peter Thiel after its first three failures, and it seems relevant. I was wondering before I add it if there is some reason it's not in the article already. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you find that written about? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.businessinsider.com/peter-thiel-elon-musk-relationship-contrarian-book-max-chafkin-2021-9?op=1

https://en.as.com/latest_news/who-are-the-biggest-investors-in-spacex-how-much-is-the-company-worth-today-n/

https://web.archive.org/web/20111104140811/http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=47 Pinkbeast (talk) 04:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An equity investment from a VC firm is not a bailout and it's not personal either. You're welcome to add to the history section that SpaceX received a $20M investment from founders fund however. Ergzay (talk) 08:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]