Talk:SpaceX

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:

• Starship SN8.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Worth adding?

Hi. I've wondering if this news about Indonesia ask SpaceX is worth adding to this article? Since it's coming from the Indonesian Government itself. Thanks! FarhanSyafiqF (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

FarhanSyafiqF, Yep, Bloomberg is considered a generally reliable source, (WP:GREL)! Neuralnewt (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

First private company to launch an object into orbit around the Sun

My edit to remove this "first" was reverted by User:Fcrary, so I'd like to discuss what the resolution to this dispute should be. SpaceX are clearly not the first private company to launch an object to heliocentric orbit (and Fcrary agrees -- "The statement clearly means SpaceX was the first company to launch something into solar orbit on their own. Plenty of companies have been paid by their governments to do so."). I disagree that the meaning of the current statement in the article is clear, and I can't think of a way to reword it. MatthewWilcox (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I replaced that with "first to launch a private spacecraft into heliocentric orbit." Hopefully this clears up the confusion. N828335 (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Works for me! Thanks! MatthewWilcox (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, how about this one: "3 December 2013 | First private company to send a satellite into geosynchronous orbit (GEO). | SES-8 on Falcon 9 flight 7". Atlas V put Hot Bird 6 into GTO in August 2002. I can't see a way to change that to be a first -- it's just catching up to ULA. MatthewWilcox (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe this is true, I will remove it. Thanks for the catch. It is also incorrect because the Falcon 9 only takes payloads to GTO, not GEO. Also worth noting that ULA did not form until 2006, but has had many GTO launches before 2013. N828335 (talk) 06:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

List of SpaceX launches

There's a Draft:List of SpaceX launches being submitted to AFC that reuses a lot of the verbiage from other SpaceX articles. Do you want such an article for mainspace? Should there be one for List of SpaceX missions as with List of NASA missions? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that we need that article, it just becomes another one that we would have to maintain. I'd recommend just adding a redirect to SpaceX#Launch contracts, were I added links to List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches, List of Falcon 1 launches, and List of Starship flights, which basically contain all the information from that page. List of SpaceX missions probably isn't needed at the moment, because that would basically be Starlink, which already has its own list. N828335 (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

[The CEO of] SpaceX is pushing back publicly on the slow regulatory processes of the FAA

The CEO of SpaceX is definitely doing public pushback on the slow regulatory processes of the FAA, as this WaPo article covers: What’s holding up the next test of SpaceX’s Starship? Elon Musk blames the FAA., Washington Post, 28 January 2021. This is not unheard of, but is not the usual process of companies and executives with respect to nation state regulatory agencies. N2e (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a tweet by Mr. Musk counts as SpaceX "pushing back publicly on the slow regulatory processes of the FAA." Mr. Musk tweets a whole lot, and what it tweets isn't necessarily the official policy of one of his companies. (If this was about more than Mr. Musk's tweets, I apologize, but the Washington Post is behind a paywall, so I can't read the referenced article.) Fcrary (talk) 06:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I've updated my post to refer to the "The CEO of..." rather than just saying SpaceX. When the CEO of a company does public pushback on a US regulatory agency, it is, as I said the in my post, "not the usual process of companies and executives with respect to nation state regulatory agencies." Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

FAA & DOJ

Apparently SpaceX violated their launch license with SN8. https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/29/22256657/spacex-launch-violation-explosive-starship-faa-investigation-elon-musk. And DOJ are investigating them for discrimination. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/28/doj-investigating-spacex-after-hiring-discrimination-complaint-.html. Don't know whats going on. Perhaps its early to note. idk. But seems serious. OkayKenji ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's be clear about this. The Verge article about SN8 violating launch licenses (reprinted by other sources) is based entirely on statements from "two people familiar with the incident" (anonymous). The DoJ investigation is about not hiring someone because (as advertised) the job was only open to US citizens or green card holders. That's legal if the job would give someone access to export-controlled (i.e. ITAR sensitive) material, and SpaceX could probably justify the hiring decision that way. That investigation has been going on since last June, so it's not really news. The recent story is over the DoJ asking a judge to order SpaceX to turn over related information. SpaceX claims that the DoJ's request for "exceeded the scope of IER’s [Immigrant and Employee Rights Section] authority" and that collecting it would be burdensome. As far as this relates to the Wikipedia article on SpaceX, I don't think we should add anything (yet). The former isn't based on solid enough evidence, and the later is the sort of back-and-forth squabbling that goes on all the time between regulators and companies' legal departments. Fcrary (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Incorporated in Delaware

Regarding the claim that there is undue weight, I don't see how it is undue weight to briefly mention the state of incorporation right next to the state where it is headquartered. From WP:WEIGHT , Undue weight is mostly about preventing minority opinions from being overemphasized in an article not specifically about those minority opinions, while still maintaining a neutral POV. This is seen when on the page of undue weight it is summarized by as: "●If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; ●If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; ●If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Where a company is incorporated is not only a verifiable fact, but is imho very relevant to an article specifically about that corporation. In the US, corporations are formed pursuant to state law of the state in which they are incorporated. The state where SpaceX was incorporated is imho at least as relevant as the state where its physical headquarters is.JMM12345 (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

CC: @N828335:, who posted the tag. OkayKenji ^(talk) 21:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)