Template talk:Reusable launch systems

Buran

Shouldn't Buran program be on this template? 70.55.85.84 (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Buran was a spacecraft, not a carrier rocket. Meus Nomen 09:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

So why do we have the X-37 ??? Hektor (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like an anon added it and nobody noticed. Reverted. --GW… 14:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

"According to [1] Buran had a cargo bay that could launch and retreive spacecraft, therefore, a space launch system. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

What's the distinction between the Buran and the Shuttle? They are both partially reusable, rocket launched, horizontally landing spacecraft. Both carry people and cargo. I'm adding Buran to this unless anyone has any objections --Nick2253 (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Launch systems

SpaceShipTwo is put under a "current" section here. In what context does that apply ? First, SS2 has not yet launched under its own power. Second, its a suborbital system, only PLANNING to reach Karman line. Lots of other prospective projects should be categorized here too, if SS2 is listed ( Armadillo, Masten, BlueOrigin, RVT and so on .. ) or distinction should be made between suborbital and orbital launch systems, and clearly drawn line between things that are "in development" and that are operational. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.59.206 (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

X-37

Does the X-37 qualify as a reusable launch system? Seems to me that based on current evidence it is the payload. For that matter no way you spin it is it completely reusable as the Atlas V certainly isn't reused. ChiZeroOne (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

SpaceShipTwo, Divine Dragon (Shenlong) are current systems?

Altough SpaceShipTwo and Shenlong programmes built spacecrafts able to reach space neither did that to date. I suggest these should by classified under the Planned category. Tom Paine (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Dream Chaser

SNC/SpaceDev Dream Chaser is not completely reusable, it isn't even a complete launch system, it requires an expendable booster. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. DC is an orbital spacecraft, not a LV. --PSR B1937+21 (talk) 01:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

"launch system"

Why are we listing incomplete launch systems instead of the complete launch system that the platforms the components are part of that are currently listed? The Space Shuttle is a part, the platform is Space Transportation System (STS), similary SpaceShipOne and SpaceShipTwo are elements of Tier One and Tier 1b platforms, which include WK1 and WK2; and the X-15 needs the mothership. Buran needs Energia. Shouldn't the complete package be listed instead of just the final stage?

In the cases where the linked to articles are the platforms/package/programmes this would involve changing the linktext, in the cases where the linked to article is just the final stage, either add links to the platform article, or replace with links to the platform article. -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Buran

On the mess with edits of Buran: Buran (spacecraft) is a spacecraft, article Buran programme is an article desciribng the entire launch system and it's history. Please, stop erasing Buran on some pointless arguments, if space shuttle is on this list then Buran should be too. SkywalkerPL (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't the CST-100 Starliner be an in-development spacecraft, too?

Why is the Boeing Starliner not listed as an in-development reusable spacecraft? It's certainly as far along as Orion (spacecraft) is, and that's listed. Rwald (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)