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

Spaceflight 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. 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.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 August 2020 and 24 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SuperCisco.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this title should redirect to Space Shuttle.

As mention on Wikipedia:Cleanup by myself and two other people (which seems good, as it is not a subject which engenders much interest in the general public), the Shuttle is merely one example of a reusable launch system.

My initial reason for creating the article was to provide the match for the Expendable Launch System article. I then planned to link to pages on other proposed reusable launch systems. It seems improper to do so from within the Space Shuttle article.

There is already a considerable portion of the population who think that the Space Shuttle is the embodyment of a reusable launch system. This is a result of nasa's heavy work to promote it during the 70s and 80s. I really hate to reenforce this flawed viewpoint.

The Space Shuttle is one example of a PARTIALLY reusable launch system. A seriously flawed partially reusable launch system. It is unfortunate that the general concept, which has yet to be treated to a proper test, is forced to be viewed through the narrow box of its one partial functioning example. Audin 05:34, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Should Buran not be a fully reusable launch system? It is the Energia rocket which is not reusable, but the rocket is a separate system, unlike the Shuttle system, which contains not reusable parts such as fuel tank and solid boosters. --Bricktop 21:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Shuttle solid rockets are reusable (although allegedly a refit costs 90% of making new ones) and reused.

All parts of Buran were designed to be reusable, except for the main tank. (IIRC the main engines were in an engine pod with a parachute, which was retrieved at least once to check for engine damage, the liquid strapon boosters also were reusable, as of course the orbiter). However, most of the Buran infrastructure has been lost due to the collapse of the Soviet Union. No flight worthy vehicles survive today either, to the best of my knowledge. Quasarstrider 18:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Buran itself has no fuel tank (except an iternal tanks for orbital purposes - docking, orbit change maneuvers - which are reusable) and no liquid boosters. These parts are the Energia rocket, which itself is only a carrier for Buran, but can also launch other payloads (see Polyus). From that point of view Buran is fully reusable. --Bricktop 19:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I should have said Energia. But your argument is pointless. The Shuttle Orbiter (the analog of Buran) is also fully reusable. Buran could not reach orbit without Energia to boost it. Energia+Buran is not more reusable than the Shuttle launch system. Quasarstrider 16:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is dense fuel? -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 10:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, almost any fuel except hydrogen. Some fuels like methane are borderline. The relative density of liquid hydrogen is 0.07 (water is 1, LOX is 1.4, kerosene IRC is about 1.1). For liquids with a relative density of about 1, a tank weighs about 1% of the contents. The same tank with hydrogen in is about 14% or so. Also, hydrogen needs lots of insulation... state of the art hydrogen tanks are under 10% of the weight. This extra tankage weight (as well as other knock-on effects in pipes and pumps) makes a huge reduction in performance; roughly cancelling for the extra Isp that hydrogen gives (for lower stages, upper stages do better with hydrogen).WolfKeeper 13:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Destination Moon DVD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reusable launch vehicles are a critical element of the future space program. However the initial paragraph is confusing. The article is on reusable launch vehicle, a common and important concept, yet the initial reference is to 'reusable lauch system" which is not a term in common use. Is anyone else re-editing this? If not, i'd like to revise as follows:

A reusable launch vehicle (RLV) can be fully or partially reused in repeated missions. This contrasts with an expendable launch vehicle, which is launched once and then discarded. The majority of the cost of space launch is in the construction of the ELV; the cost of the fuel is less than .5% of the mission cost. Consequently reuse of the launch vehicle can sprovide substantial reduction in launch costs. However reuse requires the development and testing of new technologies for propulsion, thermal protection, aerodynamics, guidance, and landing. The Space Shuttle is the only operational orbital RLV, and is only partially reusable as the external tank is expendable and the solid-fueled rocket boosters (SRBs) must be fully diassembled and rebuilt after each mission. However the X-15 and SpaceShip 1 were reusable suborbital space launch vehicles.

Also, the discussion of the X-33, X-34, DC-X, X-37, and even the decision to replace the Space Shtuttle is very limited and leaves out criical aspects like the TSTO plans worked out in some detail, mainly at Langley Research Center, for a flyback booster and upper stage, both fully reusable. There's also limited discussion fo the ecomnomics. I would be glad to add to it if no one else volunteers. Danwoodard (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Reusable launch vehicle" redirects to "reusable launch system." It should be the other way around. "Reusable launch vehicle" is such a commonly-used phrase that there's an acronym for it: RLV. The article itself uses this acronym five times. On the other hand, due to infrequent use of the phrase "reusable launch system," it's extremely rare to see the acronym "RLS" in use. GPS Pilot (talk) 05:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon 1 was supposed to be partially reusable, but they never got the parachute recovery working, it only flew as expendable rocket, and the rocket itself has been retired. So it should be dropped from the list of reusable lauch systems. --Hkultala (talk) 06:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't it qualify as an unsuccessful reusable launcher ? At least it was built & launched unlike all the paper-only designs. - Rod57 (talk) 12:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the article it is stated that: "SpaceX reusable rocket launching system—(currently in development and test)—is planned for use on both the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch vehicles."

In the interest of accuracy, it should be noted that one of the most expensive throwaway items is the turbo pumps around which the motors are built. SpaceX does not make turbo pumps and they have no plans that I am aware of to produce a reusable turbo pump, and therefore no plans to produce a reusable rocket motor. Since the turbo pumps are such a significant portion of costs, this must be germane to any claim of reusability. This is particularly true considering the fact that SpaceX makes use of a large number of rocket motors. What they are seeking to make reusable is the airframe (for lack of a better word); or the rest of the spacecraft. I recommend that you replace the former with the following:

"SpaceX partially reusable rocket launching system—(currently in development and test)—is planned for use on both the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch vehicles. While other components are to be reusable, SpaceX has made no announcements regarding the development and adoption of reusable rocket turbo pumps or rocket motor components".

174.131.5.205 (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceX does make its own turbopumps now (they used to be made by Barber-Nichols) and they have said the engines will be reusable. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the reference to Elon Musk's TEDtalk, as a citation for the cost of the Space Shuttle, to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. The consensus is that this is not a reliable source, since he has a vested interest in overstating the Shuttle cost, which widely varies depending on whether the initial development cost is included. This should be removed and replaced with a better-sourced estimate of the true operational costs, which don't include the development. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very interesting recounting of a meeting in the late 2000s with USAF General Kevin Chilton, then head of Air Force Space Command. This was in a source (full citation in a hidden comment here) I just used in the New Shepard article, which is why I happened to read it.

[former US astronaut Jeff] Ashby said the development of New Shepard, along with the reusable first stage of SpaceX’s Falcon 9, was part of a “revolution” in spaceflight. He recalled a meeting a decade ago convened by Air Force Gen. Kevin Chilton, head of Air Force Space Command, that included experts from NASA and the Air Force Research Laboratory to examine ways to reduce launch costs.

“The sense in that meeting was that flyback or rocketback boosters were not a viable way to proceed,” he recalled. Such boosters, the meeting concluded, cost too much payload to preserve payload for a landing and, “based on the space shuttle experience, couldn’t be made to be operational.”

What changed, he said, were improvements in computer systems that enabled pinpoint landings, as well as autonomous flight termination systems. He also credited the “deep-pocketed investors from the dot-com era that had a passion for space,” like Blue Origin founder Jeff Bezos.

“It is an amazing time,” Ashby said. “What was unfeasible — and, even if it could be done, they said uneconomical — is now becoming commonplace.”

This, and sources like it dating back decades, would be useful to explicate in the Wikipedia the historical arc of why politically-incentivized government-funded space programs never got around to developing cost-effective RLV technology, while private sector companies, facing economic incentives, are independently coming to rather diametrically different view on the need for RLV technology. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of mentions in the article of stillborn or vapourware projects. No doubt some of these are more significant than others, but I have not edited enough spaceflight articles to have a feel for which, if any, should be deleted as lacking any significant coverage in reliable sources. Any help or guidance would be appreciated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What does status mean? Buran was to some degree operational, what's the distinction between prototype and operational? What does the date supposed to represent? Date first flown? Date of project start? The notes are also inconsistent with partially reusable/n of x reusable etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxzhao1999 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone changed it to active systems - which seems a shame as we can't note STS/Buran or the New Glenn and Starship in development (both the ones in development are taking launch orders so seem notable) - Why not extend to past and in-development systems ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we considering New Shepard a launch system? What is it 'launching' that, for instance, a weather balloon cannot? Torriende (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History section could add many proposals - eg the fully reusable ideas for STS. and some of the Shuttle replacement proposals were fully reusable : Future Space Transportation System program and NASA Advanced Manned Launch System eg. [1] - Rod57 (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coming in late here, but one other, very early proposal, not well known and rather astonishing when you hear about it, might be mentioned for its historical significance: the Mercury-Redstone booster recovery development project documented in the last part of chapter 6 of the 1964 NASA report The Mercury-Redstone Project. This actually got to partial full-scale testing (though no flight or parachute-drop testing) before being canceled. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 05:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reusable launch system → Reusable launch system and Reusable spacecraft – Reusable spacecraft is not part of a reusable launch system. Therefore, a content split should be emerged. --Soumyabrata ^{stay at home} _{wash your hands} ^{to protect from coronavirus} 07:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Wow, i'm impressed reusable spacecraft don't have their own article.Pancho507 (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Pancho507 (talk) 04:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be a list of reusable systems in development. Like New Glenn or Sarge by Exos Aerospace.

Also a list of past reusable launchers like Space Shuttle, Buran, Clipper etc. Barecode (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One list might be simpler, with a sortable status column (study, abandoned, retired, active, in-development) ? (BTW Buran was a payload on the Energia launcher, not a launch system itself) - Rod57 (talk) 12:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know a way to save on manual updates to this list table by making it pull its numbers from the various vehicle's own launch pages? C-randles, perhaps? He keeps a very good page over at List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have done that for the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy for the orbital launch vehicles table. AmigaClone (talk) 08:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I personally believe that the space shuttle orbiter could be classed both as part of the launch vehicle and as a spacecraft on it's own. AmigaClone (talk) 08:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not part of the launch vehicle, it was a spacecraft (the only thing I can think of that falls into both categories is Starship, as it contains both the engines, fuel tanks, and avionics). Redacted II (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be added to the table 73.210.30.217 (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reusable_launch_vehicle&oldid=1244512345) says of IFT-4 that it "could be considered meeting all requirements to be fully reusable" and cites a source in which I can't find that claim being made. Plus, it's not true given the condition of the booster and ship after they splashed down. I thus marked the claim with {{Failed verification}}. Did I miss the statement in the cited source, or is there another source where this is claimed? (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 01:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]