Talk:Space Rider

Proposed merge with Programme for Reusable In-orbit Demonstrator in Europe

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was: no consensus. It was remarked one is the program and the other is the spacecraft. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

---

As PRIDE and Space Rider are different names for the same project[1], they should be covered in the same article. PRIDE was its name during the proposal phase. Space Rider is its new name following project approval, and the spacecraft design has been refined. The title should remain Space Rider as it's the current name of this project, and content from the PRIDE article should be moved here. There is no need to complicate readers by having two separate articles.Hms1103 (talk) 08:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support. ChiZeroOne (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit: Since this has received opposition I'll clarify my position. Multiple sources identify Space Rider as simply the new name for the PRIDE ISV project; in fact the Lockheed source quoted below specifically states "This future SV has been named Space Rider (previously known as the PRIDE Innovative Space Vehicle (ISV)) and aims to be in orbit by 2021." Also from the BBC [2] - "After IXV, ESA had plans for its Programme for Reusable In-orbit Demonstrator for Europe – Innovative Space Vehicle (Pride-ISV). Space Rider is the new name for Pride-ISV with a slightly different design." Do the slight differences warrant a separate article? No not really, there is little inherent notabilty. While the initial concepts when under the name PRIDE ISV looked slightly more X37-like it is not unusual for ANY space project to go through many iterations and names before a design is finalised. E.g. the Lunar_Orbital_Platform-Gateway article was originally at the old name "Deep Space Gateway", and its design likewise is also still in flux. I simply do not see the worth of keeping the PRIDE article as it will remain little more than a stub with no new sourced information, why do they need to be separate? It makes sense to keep all of the information on the project together, it is not like either article at present is particularly overflowing and most readers looking for information on the development history of Space Rider will head to that article first. The PRIDE information is well suited to a "History" section of Space Rider. ChiZeroOne (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Disagree. But I suppose this gets into where a name change and "refined" design is distinct enough to warrant another page, and these need cites. There was previous a discussion (here) about the distinction between Space Rider and Pride, which lead to the creation of this separate article. There are additional sources noting the differences between the two [3][4]. My understanding is while both are derived from IXV, and Space Rider incorporates technologies intended for PRIDE, they are not the equivalent. @SteepLearningCurve:, thoughts? Dbsseven (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment - Both the IXV and the Space Rider are developmental items under the PRIDE program. They should be in the same article, because they are developmental steps within the same program (PRIDE) for a single spaceplane. Rowan Forest (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Disagree. In my understanding, PRIDE and Space Rider are two different projects. SR is build on the flawless success of the IXV, but it is only a lifting body, with no ability to land on a runway as is intended for PRIDE. Long story short, it seems that it is essentially an opportinistic spin-off from the IXV: if this model works, let's commercialize it without changes. but that doesn't means the project it originates from is stopped or anything. Although it is true that ESA is bad at communicating, and they do not update each project's page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lapantouflemagic (talk • contribs) 04:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Support. PRIDE is the program under which IXV and Space Rider are created but most of all according to Lockeed Martin UK Space Rider is the new name of the spacecraft previously known as PRIDE Innovative Space Vehicle. See this paper at page 10: [5] --Pippo skaio (talk) 09:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• PRIDE ISV is not PRIDE programme. If anything should be done - PRIDE article should be clarified that it's about the programme itself and not the vehicle. SkywalkerPL (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Support The program is called PRIDE and Space Rider is part of it, along with the experiment IXV. See it at their home page: [6]. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Disagee PRIDE is a programme which encomparses both: IXV and Space Raider vehicles. This page is about specific vehicle NOT a programme. SkywalkerPL (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 6 June 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Space RIDER → Space Rider – Both a commonly recognisable name for the spacecraft, and its official name. There is no source for a capitalised "Space RIDER" name, and multiple sources for the normal caps "Space Rider" name. [1][2][3][4][5] – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 21:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support In ictu oculi (talk) 06:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support Whatever the Italians used in the past, ESA currently uses "Rider". Rowan Forest (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please clarify Mass under specifications

It is mass of spaceplane including propellant, or is it mass of spaceplane and propellant and service module with its propellant ? - Rod57 (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)