Talk:List of private spaceflight companies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Previous discussions without headers[edit]

I'm not sure I agree with the removal of SpaceDev from the list. It may be publicly traded, but it is an important non-governmental player. I guess non-governmental had more been my intended target when creating this article. In order to head off serious debate over this issue, perhaps this article should be moved to 'non-governmental spaceflight companies' instead of removing SpaceDev. I think any list of companies pertaining to the 'New Space movement' that doesn't include SpaceDev has some serious gaping holes and I'd hate for this page to be categorized as such over the such a hair-splitting issues as whether or not it is publicly traded. Thoughts? aremisasling 03:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. However, a bigger issue seems to be what this article is supposed to be about. Is it a list of space tourist companies? Or a list of companies who can put stuff in space? If the intro explicitly states "manned spaceflights", why is there a need for a 'Manned Vehicles' section? — Jack · talk · 21:22, Wednesday, 29 August 2007
The original idea of it was to group non-governmental space ventures in an all-inclusive list. It seemed to be a missing view on the subject. I think a full picture is more useful than making it specifically tourist or manned oriented. As always with a wiki page, it's open to interpretation, but the content of the article hasn't ever been specifically manned or tourist programs even if the intro said it was. I took a quick look back at the history and the 'manned' and 'tourist' comments in the intro were put in place for NPOV because of the term 'solutions.' I suspect the redefinition was more of a clerical error in scope than anything. As it was a policy edit and not a substance edit I reworked it, though I'm not 100% satisfied with the wording of the non-government portion of it. That's my opinion, for what it's worth. aremisasling 23:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take on adding references to these. It's always a fun task with a list, but it's definitely necessary. aremisasling 23:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transplanetary Vehicles Section[edit]

I removed the transplanetary vehicle section due to a completely ridiculous claim. The company that is supposedly going to design this vehicle 'Sabrina Aircraft Manufacturing' just finished making their first two-seater private airplane, hardly qualifications for building a single-person interplanetary spacecraft. Furthermore, other than some kind of entry in the meta tags, their website makes no mention of such a plan. Usually I comment first before deleting, but this claim seems so patently absurd that some kind of justification needs to be made to include it even tentatively. aremisasling (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An unregistered user just dropped a message on my talk saying I should check the referenced page's code for info. As I said, it's a tiny blurb in the script of the page mentioning the spacecraft. There are NO, and I repeat NO references anywhere that I can see other than a hidden note on the company website. Supposedly, according to the person who posted, the craft will be registered in February. If by March I still can't find any reference to it, it's gone. I know I don't own the page, but come on, this seems totally ridiculous. aremisasling (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did a search based on the one name I found on the page. Apparently this person is, by my calculations from an essay she wrote for O'Hare Airport, in late middle school to early high school. She is a gifted student by all appearances and is also apparently quite well off. She has two aircraft co-registered to her and another individual I couldn't find. One of those aircraft she apparently designed and built herself. The spacecraft mentioned in the article is not registered. While a gifted student with the aptitude to design and build her own aircraft at such a young age is remarkable, it is still far too early to say that she's got the slightest chance of building a spacecraft.
Even if she is planning to do so, there is still no record of this craft anywhere I can find. The transponder code search came up empty on three sites and no registration or application came up under her name. I can't find any notes by anyone or to anyone about it. The only reference I have is the O'Hare essay that says she has made it her life goal to go to Mars and the aforementioned blurb in the code on her website. I don't want to discourage her or discount her claims simply because she is apparently so young, but there is insufficient evidence that such a craft exists or has any serious chance of ever launching. The best of luck to her, and to the editor who made the entry, please do come back and enter the spacecraft once there's some kind of concrete evidence that it exists. aremisasling (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the 'powers that be,' am I? If so my statements aren't to be taken as orders for page content. I just want the editor who keeps entering the information to back his/her claims a little bit since there is far more information readily available on every other craft listed here than there is on SAM. aremisasling (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting of the transplanetary vehicles section[edit]

"Passenger" is confusing. ICAO uses souls on board. A craft such as spaceship 1 had one required crew member and could carry one passenger, but instead carried dead weight. Spaceship two will carry two crewmembers and ? passengers. Souls on board counts the crew with the passengers. If a web visitor see's NO passengers, they might assume it is unmanned, yet it may have 1, 2 or more required crew members, especially during the test flight phase. Good luck... You might want to add tail numbers for the craft too? -unsigned comment moved from User talk:Aremisasling

I don't have the tail numbers. That's part of the problem. The only thing we've got is the transponder code, and I've looked that up on a few sites and found nothing. If you've got better sources than I do, please provide them. Due to the lack of records that I could find, I don't know that it should have a place here yet. Additionally, this is simply a list of planned, developing, and current spacecraft. N numbers, transponder codes, registration, or serial numbers are not relevant to the article. It is supposed to document the model, not the specific craft. If you feel that information would be useful, and I actually do think it would be, my suggestion would be to put that in a page dedicated specifically to the spacecraft or at least to Sabrina Aircraft Manufacturing. I would do it myself, but I don't know much about the spacecraft or the company due to the paucity of actual information out there on either.
As for the 'souls on board' designation, generally on wikipedia the passenger capacity of spacecraft is considered to be the total number of people that it can carry. It certainly makes no difference whatsoever how many people are actually carried, only the number of people that could be carried. The Souls On Board designation, while it may be used in the tech specs of the aircraft, is likely a confusing term for most readers. Furthermore, it's not in keeping with the rest of the list. If a case can be made to change all of the passenger capacity column titles to souls on board, then that change should be made universally in this list and likely others throughout wikipedia. aremisasling (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References needed for the Lift Vehicles section[edit]

The tables in the Lift Vehicles section are interesting, but they have gone unsourced since August 2007. I have narrowed the focus of the former unreferencedArticle tag to just the offending unreferencedSection. I also looked through the article history to learn who/when the tables were added. User Jrockley initiated and did most of the work. I have invited Jrockley to take a look on his talk page today. Anyone else is, of course, welcome to provide sources for the information in the tables. Failing that, I suspect the table won't be able to stay by WP rules of no unverified information. N2e (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Improvements[edit]

There are a few things that need doing here. I'm writing this as if it were my project mostly because this article sees little attention at the moment an I assume, for the moment, I'll be the only one doing major edits. I'd be more than happy if someone proved me wrong.

  1. The first, biggest, and most obvious is the need for citation. I've gotten the ball rolling with it and plan to have something on every spacecraft I can get ahold of.
  2. I think the first list, which was my original half-baked plan back when I was a wiki-newbie, should probably be dropped. But in order to do that I'll need to check into everything on the list and make sure each one has a proper home in the bottom sections.
  3. Partly due to ellimination of the huge ugly list at the top, there will probably be one or more classifications for private space tech that need making. I'm definitely a launch vehicle geek, but there's a lot to be said for engines, satellites, probes, station components, and instruments as well. This is especially true given the Google lunar XPrize.
  4. I'm almost positive a number of these firms have faded into oblivion, some of them a while ago. When I first drafted this page, XPrize was a recent event and a lot of these projects still were riding that high. I know a few have been bought out but exist largely as is, some have been incorporated into other company programs, and a few have poofed from existence entirely. I'll make an attempt at updating the status' on those with citations since they seem very hard to come by as it is.
  5. I think there could be a few more data elements in the lists to improve the depth of the information. To follow the trend of the spaceflight timelines a company logo would be good if I can wrestle an approved image from the company. The flag from the nation of origin would also be useful. Projected first launch date would be a very nice item, but may be a pipe dream given the disclosure policies and drifting timelines of companies of this sort. Even established companies seem to slip their launch/flight dates by months if not years and many are unwilling to commit to anything. Along the same lines, but less useful would be counts of successful launches/flights.
  6. Finally, these programs have very little in the way of wiki content on the programs themselves, so I'd like to tackle some of that as well. I'm doing work on the JP aerospace page right now. Actually, now that I think of it, JP aerospace isn't even on there at the moment.
  1. New Addition: There are definitely a few companies missing, particularly non-US projects/firms. I've spotted a few and I'm going to try to add them with citation. aremisasling (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what time I have to commit to this, but I'll put in whatever I can squeeze in between my real world obligations.

aremisasling (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the companies in the list have been moved to categories. There are definitely a number of them missing and a number of the ones listed in the categories fit in other categories as well. But at least at this point we're not missing any of them from the big list so I'm dropping it.
Added Space Station, Probes, and Components sections. I'm not 100% happy with the categories, but they're getting there.
I've added a few items to the suborbital section. The same needs to be done for the orbital section.
I think the components and probes sections need a column for what components they produce.
The propulsion systems section could use some info on what sort of engine/thruster/etc it is (ie ion, LOX, hybrid, etc)
The Spaceliners could definitely use a slot for whick companies they book launches/flights for.
There may be some use for a notes column for innovations, etc.
JP Aerospace added aremisasling (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the successful launch of the ATEA-1 from Rocket Labs of New Zealand. But all the colours are wrong for at least the launch vehicles. Can someone please fix? (A Wikipedia page on the ATEA-1 rocket wouldn't go astray either).(Mollwollfumble (talk) 06:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Elliminating the full list[edit]

I'm using the Full List as a checklist for it's own removal. As each company is accounted for in the categorized sections, remove them from the list.

Checklist completed. Some of these companies do fit into other categories as well. I'll have to continue crawling them to keep it up to date. aremisasling (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Expert Needed tag[edit]

Since there are no degrees associated with being an expert, I guess I'm not one to make that judgement, but I've filled in a lot of holes and will continue to do so. I'm also planning on starting my own blog on private space based on my work here and my discussions with the companies themselves. So I guess between the two, I fit the bill. aremisasling (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slight reorganization needed[edit]

We need to separate space launch vehicles from orbital payload vehicles. The SpaceX Falcon 1 and 5 don't belong in the same table as the various capsules, and the Falcon 9 should be in whichever table gets created... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agreed. I was just thinking that yesterday as I moved the Falcon 9 link down to the launcher section of the Dragon entry. I'm glad to have another set of eyes on this page. I began to worry it was becoming more of a pet project than a wiki page. I don't mind being a heavy contributor, but I begin to worry when I'm the only contributor. aremisasling (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have people looking over your shoulder. I'm in the industry, and I know most of the rest of the key people firsthand, and they also keep an eye on the WP articles on their products and on related articles. You're doing fine in general 8-) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Though, I'm wondering, do we need to record the technological demonstrators? Things like sounding rockets, the DC-X and Armadillo's Quad (rocket) seem a bit odd when nestled amongst heavy lifting systems (as there are many many demonstrators, and not all of them were even designed to BE spacecraft). I think we could create them their own section, or get rid of them entirely. Thoughts? Anxietycello (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it's an arbitrary distinction or not, but I'd say it depends on whether or not it's an operational payload. While sounding rockets are often tech demonstrators, many are used or are at least planned to be used for scientific payloads. But I do agree that they may be better placed in their own columns. aremisasling (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't quite figured out a nice way to reorganize the page, so I was holding off for a bit, but you're modifications really cleaned things up nicely. aremisasling (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of the list title[edit]

Just to make sure, is this an article listing:

I'd like to think of it as the latter, in which case, maybe the list could do with renaming? Perhaps to something like List of companies offering human spaceflight, which is clear and unambiguous. Anxietycello (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking further, this defiantly should become purely a list of companies offering human spaceflight, as otherwise most of List of orbital launch systems could be included (under the current loose definition of "companies who put stuff in space"). Most rockets and probes are designed and built by private companies working under contracts and funding from government agencies.
In which case, some entries may need to be removed from this list. Perhaps the lunar lander section could be moved to Google Lunar X Prize, etc.? This is a very complex subject. Anxietycello (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bite. I agree with you that the list has become unwieldy, and it is difficult to tell just where to draw the line given the current list title. That said, in my view the list was originally (mid-2006) intended to capture the companies that were developing space vehicles with private funds, as opposed to the government funding that was the foundation for all space vehicles in the early decades of space (1940s through 1980s). Today, I've seen this part of the space industry referred to as NewSpace, but I don't have a good citation right now and the WP article on NewSpace is poorly sourced. (I will endeavor to improve references in NewSpace, so it may be better by the time others read this.) By 2009-03-29, this article had morphed into "private entities offering or planning spaceflight or spaceflight equipment and services." I agree with Anxietycello that that definition is hopelessly broad as it would include nearly every company, even the large MIC companies in the US and Europe, except perhaps space vehicle development in Russia, China, North Korea, Pakastan, Iran and a few other nations where the national government owns the means of production for all space vehicles themselves.
The edits in the past ten days by Anxietycello have attempted to narrow the longstanding scope of this list to just human spaceflight, but I've not seen any edits by other editors since 2009-03-29 that would validate that fundamental change to the scope of the article. My view: I don't believe the scope of this article should be as narrow as a List of companies offering human spaceflight, although I would have no problem with someone starting a new list for that purpose as long as it supports the WP list guideline (see next paragraph).
I do very much support a discussion here on the Talk Page to better define the scope of this article, and would hope that multiple other editors would weigh in before we try to develop a consensus on a new name for this list. The Wikipedia guideline for lists is WP:LIST. By the guideline, any list ought to have "have a self-explanatory title, and a lead-in description with further explanation as required" -- clearly, this article title, lead and list entries are not consistent. Furthermore, all WP lists "are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others." Thus, any limitations on the scope of the list ought to be explicitly and clearly stated in the lead, and all list inclusions ought to be cited with a verifiable source, which this list is not, at present. What do other editors think on this question, and what is your rationale for a change or leaving the 2009-03-29 status quo? N2e (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to verify, since I originally created the article, that that was the intent, to create a comprehensive list of privately-funded spaceflight companies. Of course, I don't own it in any way, but for whatever my original intent is worth, that's where I was trying to go with it. aremisasling (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I hadn't seem the NewSpace article yet; it seems to be quite a useful term for this topic. Though, I'd be careful to make clear you haven't coined or synthesised it yourself (what with original research rules, and that). I'll very much look forward to seeing what the article turns into, but I think I'll leave that one to you.

On the subject of this article, I think I see what you're getting at. I don't think there should be a new article entitled List of companies offering human spaceflight, as it would inevitably be very similar to a broader scoped-definition. I'd somehow like to fashion a definition for this article that (for example):

  • excludes the shuttle-building practices of Boeing
  • includes the purely non-governmental Bigelow space stations, and SpaceShipTwo, and the so-called 'spaceliners'
  • includes the partially government funded and utilised Dragon and Cygnus (even though the latter isn't for tourist purposes at all)
  • somehow doesn't include corporate sounding rockets, but does include testing systems for NewSpace companies...

At which point the definition would need to be so complex, that I start to feel like giving up. An article with the name I proposed would be the simplest, easiest route out of this problem, IMO. And, until we have an established, referenced article on NewSpace, I wouldn't want this article renaming List of NewSpace companies and products, or anything like that (even if I guess that was what I was getting at). Anxietycello (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back in January I puzzled (mostly to myself, sadly) on Talk:Private spaceflight on this topic. Those definitions, while far from perfect, actually are pretty enlightening and comprehensive on the subject. (quick note, the enlightening definitions I'm referring to are those used on the page, not my own. I reaslized that sounded a little pompous the way I phrased it aremisasling (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)) It has actually be covered before on that Talk as well. The solution I came up with was:[reply]
  1. Any launches/flights of spacecraft developed using primarily private funding and owned by private companies. (The shuttle is funded, owned and operated by NASA, as are the Russian, European, and Chinese craft).
  2. Any spaceflight with at least one entirely private payload.
  3. Any privately-owned spacecraft with a history of flights meeting criteria 2. (I think this needs a narrower definition, perhaps defining it by the majority of flights)
  4. Any company providing spaceflight services funded entirely by a private individual or entity. (Covers the spaceliners as well as Space Adventures)
The trouble with all of this is that technically I suppose it's original research. On the other hand, it is an identifiable entity of it's own and, so far as I've seen, it has no solid definition. I'm tempted to use the America's Space Prize or XPrize definitions, but again, they define it narrowly enough that some major companies including SpaceX have been removed from the runnings. So, while I think it's a valuable view on the space world, I don't know that there is a referenceable definition out there to support the list as is.
I would totally agree that the list will likely require narrowing to make it compliant, I just don't know how we can draw that line with references. aremisasling (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think cutting out the non-flight hardware manufacturers would be a start. I'm in the fence on the spaceliner subject, though. They have a voice in all of this, but I'm finding it harder and harder to justify their home on this page. I do think that any wording regarding space tourism is unnecessary, though, since as a rule those activities have been supported either by a privately funded launch company or by a privately funded launch services provider and likely will be for the foreseeable future. I feel space tourism can be included and excluded along those lines without explicit inclusion in the definition. aremisasling (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think referencing the list as a whole is definitely going to be difficult, regardless of what definition we pick. I think - since I'm finding it all a bit complex - I'll drop out of this debate, and let the article evolve naturally by itself. Though I'll definitely be back from time to time to update, or browse or whatever (since remains genuinely fascinating as a topic). You aren't alone on this one! Anxietycello (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good input everyone. I'll make a couple of observations here.
Anxietycello--the work you've done on this article is very good, and has advanced the quality and completeness of the article significantly. I would recommend you NOT stop your efforts at making a list of companies doing or planning on doing human spaceflight. If you create a new list article with that reduced scope, I think it will be easy to list only those companies that are verifiably included in that narrower definition. Also, while we are, all of us, waiting for this article to, as you say, "evolve naturally," I recommend you change the lead scope back to what it was for a long time before your recent narrowing to human spaceflight -- but I don't think you should take out, right now at least, ANY of your other changes to this article. It can evolve as we work out the scope over the coming days (see next comment).
Aremisasling -- Thanks for your thoughtful input to the discussion. Even though the definition of NewSpace private companies is a bit of a casting in wet cement, it seems we may have a consensus among at least three editors that the scope of this article on private spaceflight companies ought to be narrowed, and ought to include some sort of understanding of private funding for vehicle development rather than -- as is the case with Boeing, LockheedMartin or ArianeSpace -- just a private company name on a principally government-funded development effort. WP doesn't ask for perfection, and understands evolving knowledge; so let's consider narrowing the scope of this article to the consensus. We could continue to discuss the details on the Talk Page to work out issues before making any narrowing in the article title and a clarified lead. Whadayasay? N2e (talk) 04:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for it. aremisasling (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There already exists an article titled "List of spacecraft manufacturers", which could use some work. Why not rename this article as "List of space tourism companies", and migrate all the then irrelevant information into the existing list of spacecraft manufacturers, transforming it in the process into a much more exhaustive (and tabulated) list in its own right. Sound good? Anxietycello (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back in on the discussion Anxietycello. Two questions:
1) Are you seeing list of Space Tourism companies as a subset of the article you previously recommended "list of companies offering human spaceflight," or do you see them as merely different potential article names for the same thing?
2) I took Aremisasling's last comment to be consensus support for the idea of making this article somewhat broader than merely human spaceflight or space tourism companies. That is, to include all companies who are doing privately-funded spacecraft and space system development, yet not so broad as to include all space companies that are "private" in a technical sense (stock traded on a market exchange) who do their spacecraft development on the government dime. I'm open to correction from Aremisasling. But if my understanding is correct, how are you with that? In other words, we could think of List of spacecraft manufacturers as the superset, with this article (NewSpace space systems, but under a modified article name that is TBD) as a subset of all spacecraft mfgs, and then those companies that do human spaceflight or space tourism as yet a subset of this article (with the possible exception of the Russian Soyuz folks who are clearly government funded and have done very limited space tourism.N2e (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I disagree with what you think Aremisasling means (I think he meant he just wants discussion). I want two articles: one listing space tourism ventures, and the vehicles they're developing; and another, much longer list of all companies and contractors that can put, have put, and help put, stuff into space (but not discussing their vehicles, as that would be far too long). I've drawn up the two articles as I'd have them at User:Anxietycello/List of space tourism companies and User:Anxietycello/List of spacecraft manufacturers (the latter needing much work). I think the space tourism article should be titled so, as that's a more common term in the media than "private spaceflight", and also fixes the original query of this section. I'm developing them now, and unless anyone has any major objections, I'll be putting them in the enyclopedia soon. I go back to uni at some point next week, and then you won't be hearing from me till the summer. Anxietycello (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decided to just be WP:BOLD, and do it. Since I ran out of time. What'dya think? I think it works much better this way (though like I said, List of spacecraft manufacturers still needs work). Anxietycello (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be a little quiet of late. Life intervenes. Ultimately you are both right in what you thought I meant. I am of the personal opinion that tourism limits it's scope beyond where I saw it(I think a lot of people would disagree with the classification of SpaceX as a tourism firm for instance). I actually had already edited the intro once to eliminate that type of narrowing. But at that point I was pretty much the sole regular contributor, so I had no other opinion to really go on and the intro at the time was more of a misunderstanding of the page than an explicit attempt to redefine it's purpose. But you are totally right, Anxietycello, in that I think it should be up to discussion as to where it goes.
I guess I still feel that limiting it to human spaceflight only or even moreso to tourism starts to lose some of the depth like the COTS participants that aren't launcher manufacturers, manned vehicle manufacturers (though Dragon can be) or tourism firms. But then I also cant really say that the COTS program is anything but a government funded effort though the result may be commercial access to destinations like Bigelow modules. I guess I still feel like there's a potential to lose some voices, but then the definition is so problematic that I find it hard to broaden the scope of the article on those grounds alone. And then I've managed to argue myself into a corner again. So I vote for discussion mostly out of my own indecisiveness and out of an almost paranoid fear of crossing the WP:OWN line as the original creator and long time sole editor of the page.
I will say I contacted Jeff Foust of the blog 'Personal Spaceflight' and got the answer I figured I'd get when looking for a clean definition. He said, and I quote, 'I know it when I see it.' I think I've rambled for three paragraphs without actually clarifying my position any. aremisasling (talk) 06:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to weigh in on the changes made to change the article name and significantly modify the scope of the article. In short, I do not believe there was a consensus, even among the three editors recently commenting, for such a drastic change. I support a great deal of the improvements Anxietycello has made to the article in recent weeks; but not the quick and apparently unilateral decision to narrow the scope of this article to human spaceflight alone. I continue to think the best option would be for Anxietycello to have created a new Wikipedia article with exactly the content of what he now has in this article, and to have left this article to continue to evolve in getting the scope of "private spaceflight" narrowed as more editors weighed in. I will create a new section to discuss "what next." N2e (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pulling this back to private spaceflight companies, partly because all parties involved seemed to agree that major scope changes should be agreed upon ahead of time, and partly because the new structure and scope was no clearer or more accurate than the previous form. I don't intend on starting a revert war, and I don't want to discourage User:Anxietycello from contributing as both his contributions and his opinion have been very helpful. I also understand that as he was running out of time before his personal life prevented him from contributing so he made the steps in anticipation of agreement. I do think space tourism could be well served by it's own article as a discussion on Talk:Private spaceflight makes it clear that space tourism is not a nice clean subset of private spaceflight. aremisasling (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009-04-20 Article Rename and narrowing of article scope: What next?[edit]

As mentioned immediately above, I disagree with the (well-intentioned) recent decision by editor Anxietycello to rename this article to List of space tourism companies. I do not believe there was a consensus on such a move, even among the three editors who had been recently discussing the subject. Specifically, I do not believe there was a consensus to eliminate an important Wikipedia article, one that had been in Wikipedia for nearly three years, that attempted to provide a list of companies doing non-governmentally-funded spaceflight endeavors.

Proposal: So, given the "move" was completed, what next? I think it would be best to:

  • 1) return this article to it's former name, List of private spaceflight companies, the name by which the article has been developed by many editors for nearly three years, and with the content of the article as it existed 18 hours ago. After that, we can continue the discussion on how to clarify the scope of the renamed article to continue and see if a consensus can be reached on the scope, and perhaps a new name, of a private spaceflight list article.
  • 2) This is in no way a position that believes it is inappropriate for a new article to be created that is titled as Anxietycello has proposed, specifically limited to human spaceflight. So the second part of my proposal is for Anxietycello to go ahead and, then, create a new article, List of space tourism companies, with the content that he now has in the former List of private spaceflight companies as he has significantly changed it in the past 24 hours. N2e (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with the above proposals. I don't see any real justification for narrowing the scope. A company that is privately developing rocket engines for non-tourism purposes is no different in reality that one who has selected tourism as the ultimate market for their products. Once you start labeling companies by their perceived markets, there is all kinds of problems. For instance, XCOR Aerospace is currently developing a tourism rocketplane, but before that they were developing rocket motors for other uses. They would fit in the list as it was originally conceived, but their earlier work wouldn't fit into the current scope of the article. Given that the applications of the technology are wide open, it doesn't make much sense to me to focus on those which might only be used for tourism and leave out the others. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 15:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree I think certainly the previous state was too borad, this is a bit too narrow. There's more to private spaceflight, by far, than human launch providers. Furthermore, the entire private spaceflight venture relies more on research and commerce applications than tourism. Space tourism is only the most public and inspirational angle. aremisasling (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additions and removals of companies[edit]

There were a few additions and removals during User:Anxietycello's edits that I don't really see justification for. In specific they include:

Adding Lockheed Martin - I think this was the result of the rescoping to human-rated

Removing Canadian Arrow

Removing McDonnell Douglas - This may be a justifiably non-private removal

Removing JP Aerospace - They are definitely unconventional in that they are a 100% balloon launched system, but I don't think any definition we come up with necessarily requires that it be rocket or engine-only.

Aside from the tourism change, these were the only real issues I spotted and they certainly are pretty minor and possibly debatable. Any thoughts? aremisasling (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some new ideas on proposed changes[edit]

I like the things User:Anxietycello did with separating out the test vehicles. But I think including research vehicles in the mix is not quite right. It's really more of a tweak than a complete alteration, but I think slipping those back into hte launcher category would be more accurate. We could definitely leave true tech demonstrators in a separate list.

I also would like to note that contrary to their insistence, Lynx is not a spaceplane. It's not designed to break 100km. It's the same reason the guys from the early high altitude balloon tests didn't get astronaut wings, but the x-program guys did. Do we want to redefine it as including upper atmospheric craft as well? If so, where is the line drawn?

I also propose we eliminate equipment only manufacturers including propulsion.

These are all gray areas, so I'm looking for some opinion and hopefully consensus on them one way or another. I'm keeping it on this talk as it's not directly relevant to the overall discussion on the private spaceflight pseudo-project. aremisasling (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also mulling over having Bigelow, et al listed under capsules as capsule really evokes more of a transportation vehicle image than a mostly stationary habitat. I still support putting those in their own section, partly because I can't think of an appropriate title that encompasses both meanings. aremisasling (talk) 07:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

traditional vs. private space companies[edit]

Clearly the page focuses on the new, smaller players, but I think the heading "private" includes also the tradional aerospace industry companies like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, their ULA/USA joint ventures, EADS, P&W Rocketdyne, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, etc. (I don't know if russian and ukrainian NPOs, Krunichev, Energia, Yuzhmash, etc. are privatized or government-owned) I see the difference between military/government subcontractors (the "big aerospace") and commercial self-funded ventures, but both are "private", so maybe we should add some additional clarification. Or a new section for "mainly working as military/government subcontractors". Alinor (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the large amount of material out there regarding the bigger current players in the market, I've always been of the opinion that this page should maintain it's distance from "big aerospace." The trouble is exaclty how to draw the line. I had proposed a scheme for figuring out what was or wasn't "private space" at one point, but the critical issue was that it was necessarily arbitrary. Even those who work in the industry and those who do journalistic work on it take an "I know it when I see it" approach, which is nice for the average reader, but presents a challenge in an encyclopedic work. I guess my two cents is that this is a distinct, important, and current topic that offers merit in its own spotlight. aremisasling (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I look into this I think that the distinction currently made on the page is between "privately funded" and "state funded" projects. This looks better than project executed/operated by private company in general (but I don't find such explanation on the page itself). So, if a private company (say Boeing/LM United Launch Alliance) does a project for the government (Atlas V EELV) this is not included, but if the same company develops some launcher/spacecraft with its own funding it is included. This seems reasonable to me, but again drawing the line is a hard job - do the SpaceX&OSC COTS/CRS contracts count as "state funded" or "NASA is just a customer for a Commercial off-the-shelf service"? Alinor (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's been a challenge for me to draw a line. In my head SpaceX is more of a de facto commercial of the shelf by virtue of the fact that they intend to build it with or without NASA support to largely their own specifications. Manned Dragon is a little shakier as they've pinned those hopes to NASA funding at least in regards to their Augustine presentation, though earlier comments suggest they may build it without funding, just not in the timescale of two years. OSC et al, however, is building their project specifically for this purpose as part of the NASA requisition. And since I've heard no talk of any use beyond COTS ISS resupply, it really seems like this is a new face on an old routine from the OSC side. I can condense that into a summary, but is that too arbitrary of a line? And does it adequately cover the differences between the two? There are definitely clear cut cases of both sides, it's the gray area in the middle that makes the definition a challenge. These are the things that have held up any edits I had planned. aremisasling (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And on the other hand, I get the impression that all the ground crew work will be handled by OSC/SpaceX. In other words it would be commercial from construction to launch unlike the full hardware handoff typical of the old space world ala Space Shuttle or Delta. So do we take the 'posession is 9/10 of the law' approach? aremisasling (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I am of the opinion that the distinction between "state-funded" development efforts and "privately-funded" development efforts is the key distinction here. If a private company designs its' own set of nuts and bolts, and acquires the capital equipment to make those nuts and bolts with substantially private funds, and then manufactures said nuts and bolts, it is a private company even if the largest purchaser of those nuts and bolts is the government. Most of the "Big Aerospace" projects of the past have been funded on cost-plus contracts from the state; i.e., development was paid for by the state. Thus, they are state funded projects and clearly don't belong in private spaceflight companies. On the other hand, XCOR, SpaceX, ScaledComposites, etc. are all NewSpace companies developing space technologies on their own dime, and taking the risk on themselves like most any private enterprise. I think Clark Lindsey has a working definition of "NewSpace" on his site. I think my distinction here is pretty much in line with what Alinor said above at 14:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC) -- so I want to credit his statement of it for getting me thinking. Does this help you Aremisasling? Do you think we can articulate and defend such a definition? N2e (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Despite emphasis of NewSpace on privatization, NewSpace these days has much more to do with being "new" than with private markets. Dragon, Cygnus, and VASIMIR are three good examples of NewSpace favorites that should not be on a list of private projects, because most of their funding comes from a single government and the only customer signed up for them is that government. SpaceX has enough commercial satellite customers for Falcon that one could arguably include it on a list of private companies, but then again the same is true for Boeing with Delta and Lockheed with Atlas, and perhaps even EADS and Arianespace with Ariane and various Russian companies. As for OR, we have to have criteria for what does and does not get included in this article. Research to determine whether a company or project matches the criteria hardly could count as "OR" otherwise we couldn't have an article. Flegelpuss (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure. Do you have a source that most use of the term NewSpace has more to do with "new" than with private markets? The NewSpace article seems to use a definition from a source by Clark Lindsey; there NewSpace means a variety of things but, importantly, non-cost-plus contracts for hardware that put the development risk and responsibility for cost overruns on the private company seems key. I continue to think that is the key distinction. N2e (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, here is a durably-archived media source that makes the distinction between a private company of the Military Industrial Complex (with cost-plus contracts) vs. SpaceX's Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 development with private funding. It is from The Economist, June 5, 2010, Feathering the Falcon’s nest.
Key graf:

"Other rockets of this class, such as Boeing’s Delta IV and the Atlas V, operated jointly by Boeing and Lockheed Martin, are children of the military-industrial complex. Though built by private firms, they are the result of taxpayer-financed programmes, often on a “cost-plus” basis, that only superficially resemble anything which a real entrepreneur would recognise as free-market capitalism."

Might be useful sometime as a source for the article on the privately-funded development vs. government-funded cost-plus contracts. N2e (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

I reverted the last well-intentioned edit to use only a single Bigelow source for a bunch of claims. My argument is that we don't want to do that, or at least, should not do so without discussion on the Talk page. I have three basic arguments, which I don't have time to fully develop now, but should at least summarize. 1) As I mentioned in the revert edit summary, we don't want to have any "loss of reference information; ... [nor 2) replace] any WP:secondary sources with primary sources; nor [3)] lose the article character where individual claims are sourced." I will be happy to develop these more fully soon; but gotta go to non-Wikipedia life stuff right now.N2e (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EADS Astrium[edit]

Sorting not working![edit]

I tried to sort by several column headers and it just doesn't work properly. Can someone fix it? user:mnw2000 19:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colspan and sortable tables do not mix well. Fixed. ChiZeroOne (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, just realised this affects the other tables as well which do it for the company names. *sigh*. ChiZeroOne (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


just a suggestion[edit]

use the STATUS "operational" or "development" only for SpaceX, Orbital Sciences and Bigelow

for all other "vehicles" use the words "toy", "photoshop" and "scam"

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.103.78 (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about thumbnails of images in tables?[edit]

I think this article would be enhanced with small thumbnail photos in the table, where they exists. user:mnw2000 13:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Government verses private funding[edit]

Is it possible to add if these entities are utilizing private funding, public funding, i.e. government/federal/NASA/foreign funding, or both and if so, what percentages? Dwfunk4475 (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off, yes it is, as long as the information you add is verifiable, and you add reliable source citations for any claims you make. Wikipedia allows anyone to edit. So go ahead and start editing, adding the information you find that is verifiable on the matter.
Having said that, this particular topic is unlikely to be a simple matter. Why? Because how one utilizes public funding is critically important to the matter. Is it "cost-plus" contracts with fairly little corporate financial risk, or is it risking private capital on entrepreneurial ventures that might very well go sour—and in fact will fail for some (perhaps many) of the competitors who might try to compete in each subsector of the space market—but then later perhaps selling some technology advance, or some data, or launch services to the government on a "fee for performance" basis, just like the government buys PCs, office staplers or food service for meetings and conferences. These are two very different business models.
For example, the traditional U.S. space industry is filled with "commercial" companies that only do space development and launch work on a cost-plus basis. That is to say, many so-called commercial companies contract to build specific spacecraft or launch systems that are essentially spec'd, and fully controlled in every step of the process from beginning to end, by the governmental space organization. In the U.S., just like in nearly every space-active nation (the European nations, Russia, Japan, India, China, etc.), the government has typically had a national-monopoly on all space business throughout the early decades of the space age. The NewSpace or alt.space paradigm is different, in private space ventures, companies generate their own business plans, develop their own technologies, establish prices, etc., yet still may sell services or equipment to the government. After all, with private markets underdeveloped, in many parts of the market, the government may be the only customer (monopsony). They may even (and many have) respond to government solicitations for the purchase of "commercial" services. (e.g., CCDev and COTS). So the lines can become very fuzzy, and are quite difficult to draw consistently.
Good luck. N2e (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue it goes beyond even this sort of scope of usage for this page. If you can go to one of these companies, throw a check down on the table (assuming you have the cash to do that), will these companies let you buy that spacecraft and can go you into space with it?
By that notion, vehicles like the Ares V and the Space Shuttle don't belong here as you are prohibited by law from being able to buy one of these vehicles or to buy a flight on one of them. There were efforts in the 1980's by a private investor's group that wanted to buy a couple more shuttles from Rockwell International... since they had the production line going anyway for NASA. After some debate in Congress and a few other places, the answer came back to be a resounding "No". I think that decision perhaps was good for those investors as they would have taken for a ride had they purchased the Shuttles, but it is an interesting issue none the less. There certainly are spacecraft you can't use for commercial purposes of any kind.
I don't know how that applies to the Soyuz spacecraft as you are certainly capable of being able to buy a flight or even a whole spacecraft from RKK Engergia and do whatever you want... within reason (like non-military applications). Should that spacecraft be included in this list? They are listed as providing a module builder for private space stations, but the Soyuz spacecraft is available commercially on a "cash and carry" basis if you want.
The ATK "Liberty" spacecraft is really a fuzzy line in this aspect, and I'm not entirely sure if they really want to get into the commercial spaceflight business or if it is going to be strictly a government financed and operated spacecraft. There certainly is some room for interpretation, but I'd argue that the scope here is if the spacecraft or launcher can be used for a purely commercial purpose. Hitching along as a secondary or tertiary payload is not sufficient to call that a private effort such as some commercial payloads on the Space Shuttle before that was prohibited. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is understandable that there are complex cases with private companies receiving funds or grands or practically working for the government. But there are also clear cut cases. The Swedish Space Corporation is a 100% government owned company. It should clearly not be listed here. User:StevenM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.231.104.168 (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistencies in "passenger capacity" column[edit]

I note that some vehicles seem to count the pilots—which is certainly consistent with all spacecraft to date, where the pilot were definitely a part of the human-carrying capacity—and some don't. For example, Space Ship Two includes the pilots, Lynx does not. I suspect the entire column needs to be reviewed to get it consistent, and then we need to confirm capacity from the sources given. Should we retitle the column to merely "Capacity", or maybe "Human capacity"? I suspect it may be a little too early in the industry to easily distinguish between "crew" and "passengers", say on a vehicle like Dragon, when none of the folks on board are essential for launch and successful docking (much as the Air Force pilot types might not like to think about it). Furthermore, for carrying folks to a space station, the relevant metric is just how many bodies can be carried, kept safe, and in a benign environment for the journey to a space outpost. Thoughts? N2e (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Development vs. Testing[edit]

What is the critera for classification in the "Developement" status vs. the "Testing" status? Dreamchaser is in the Development stage while the CST-100 is in the "Testing" stage. Why? user:mnw2000 02:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I may be so bold to propose some sort of standard, I would suggest that development is for stuff still in the planning stages where issues like financing and even getting approval from whatever government agencies are involved to be able to make this kind of equipment. A "testing" stage would be when you have actual flight-worthy hardware of some sort that is either on a test stand, in a wind tunnel, or undergoing preliminary flights (like the current flight trials of SpaceShip Two, to give an example).
I'd agree that the standards for inclusion in each "category" of the development process should be more clearly defined on this page. Also note that this page is horribly out of date for some companies so if you feel that some changes need to be made, please include references to reliable sources showing a status change (it is preferred that you show the reliable source) and make those respective changes.
In the case of both the Dreamchaser and CST-100, I'd say they are both in the testing stage as both vehicles have actual flight hardware that is built (or at least test articles) and the respective companies have been doing the flight tests in terms of doing stuff like drop tests and have done wind tunnel testing for both vehicles as well. Unless you can find a reliable source which shows this actual flight hardware and going some kind of physical equipment testing, it shouldn't be considered in a testing stage. There are many projects that are just press releases and often they are cancelled even before flight hardware testing happens. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Number of SpaceX Dragon flights[edit]

Shouldn't this be four, rather than three? The Dragon capsule has been launched to orbit and retrieved four times to date: December 2010, the COTS-1 demo flight, May 2012, the COTS-2+ demo flight, October 2012 (CRS-1) and March 2013 (CRS-2). See List of Falcon 9 launches for reference. --69.25.240.18 (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. SpaceX has completed four missions in four flights. These pages can sometimes become out of date, so if you see any other discrepancies like this... please point them out or better yet help us to edit Wikipedia so it can be more accurate. I updated the article with the correct information and fixed the reference link (which was broken apparently). --Robert Horning (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contentless Landers, rovers and probes[edit]

This list looks messy. I move that we cut the many entries here that have no craft name or type, no stand-alone wikipedia page, and only one reference. Thoughts? Fanyavizuri (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has commented over the last couple of weeks, so to be specific, I would start with a number of landers/rovers/probes that are former Google Lunar X Prize entrants. I would cut those which are clearly cancelled, withdrawn, or acquired. I think this means Team Selene, SCSG, Advaeros, Quantum3, Micro Space, Next Giant Leap, Lunatrex, JURBAN. Any objection to removing those from the list, since they no longer appear to meet the definition at the top of the page? Fanyavizuri (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have made these edits. More cleanup is likely in order, but I will pause here for others to review. Fanyavizuri (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also cut Chandah, as I could find no reference to it on the Lunar X Prize page in a 2010 archive.org web crawl, and there is none now. Fanyavizuri (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct companies[edit]

Hiya, i created this to be helpful for easy cross-referencing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Defunct_spaceflight_companies There are quite a few candidates on this list but its hard to confirm some, for example RocketRacingLeague has been dead as a doornail since 2011ish but nobody pronounced them dead yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savuporo (talk • contribs) 05:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This may not have been true in 2014 when you wrote this, but someone (perhaps you?) has since found a Leo Laporte webcast interview with Diamandis that declare's Rocket Racing League dead. Thanks for all of your work on this. aremisasling (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make sense to filter this list for active companies and projects only, and move the defunct ones to a separate set of tables on another page? This page is drowning in ancient history. Stellvia (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Originally this page was mostly active projects with a few cancellations here and there. But with the X Prize and its participants and successors fading into history a good number of them have gone dark. Some continue to make claims they are active, but appear to be making no tangible progress toward providing any kind of spaceflight services while others have significantly descoped to be providers of very specific spaceflight services. I stepped away from the page because I felt I was significantly at risk of appearing to violate WP:OWN if not doing so in actual fact. But aside from contributions from a few folks over the years, this page has largely rusted away. I can lend a hand on the cleanup. aremisasling (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of private spaceflight companies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of private spaceflight companies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of private spaceflight companies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes[edit]

Hey people, just so you know, I've updated some of the entries for Interorbital systems to reflect more recent changes in their launch plans. Tancred2 (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on List of private spaceflight companies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of private spaceflight companies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of private spaceflight companies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket Lab successful LEO launch[edit]

I noticed that Rocket Lab's Electron rocket is still listed as "development," but it did launch into LEO successfully yesterday (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11979201). I'm not sure what the different stages of development are in the table, but it seems to me that it should be listed as either testing or operational. I'll leave that edit for someone who knows what they are doing, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:2287:D200:1457:C10:BF7D:698 (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stages[edit]

While most people see the Electron as a 2 stage rocket, it is technically 3 stage rocketing with it what RocketLab call it's kick stage designed to circularize the orbits of its satellite payloads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:5A00:D86C:ED00:ACA9:78B8:EF7A:DE54 (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of what?[edit]

Isn't this a list of private spaceflight vehicles, not spaceflight companies? Someguy1221 (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I renamed that section "Launch vehicle makers". Is that enough? Rowan Forest (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no, that's not really what I meant. I'm meant the entire page. I would expect "list of private spaceflight companies" to be that. A list of companies involved in spaceflight. This entire page is not that. This is a collection of lists of launch vehicles, orbiters, engines, etc. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Spaceflight requires different components, generally fabricated by separate companies and then integrated: rocket, spacecraft, orbiter, lander, etc. Each of those is listed with the name of the company in the first column. I see no confusion. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, if you can actually read the title of the page, and the first (only) line of the lede, and actually think they are accurate descriptions of what follows... ok, sure. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also see https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/aerospace:product / https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/company=aerospace dulliman Dulliman (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vikram-S is suborbital[edit]

their next rocket, vikram-1 is orbital. A year out and 3 stage solid. 2001:558:6033:9C:D55F:13EA:C38:7FD9 (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_private_spaceflight_companies&oldid=1200714701"