Talk:Landing Zones 1 and 2

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

Addition of Landing Zone 4[edit]

As SpaceX is building up to land their first booster at Vandenberg tomorrow, we should add LZ-4 into this article. The only major reference that can be cited for the name is Vandenberg AFB's website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XXBuilderXx (talk • contribs) 03:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user is from 2019, and SpaceX has used LZ-4! Added some information about it. I think this Wikipedia page should be named SpaceX Landing Zones to include LZ-4. (see the discussion below) 173.52.238.41 (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Over-citation[edit]

We probably have too many citations supporting single points in this article. For example, does the first sentence really need 8 citations from separate sources? It's not as if anything in this article was sufficiently controversial to need this many citations. Two, three, even four would be fine, but eight? -- The Anome (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course not. I think that what you are seeing is not a planned or intentional result, but just an emergent outcome of the recent history of this article (moved, then split, many editors doing quick cleanup, etc.) Some of the citations likely exist as they were backing up particular historical info of events re this landing pad/zone over the past year, and have been left as some of that history-related prose is or has been cut out, rightly or wrongly, in fairly quick edits earlier today. I don't think there is any deadline on cleaning this up; after all, the most recent major split only occurred today, making this a standalone article. It's not even clear that the current balance (much less history, more current stuff, lede is a bit too long per article standards ({{lead too long}}), etc.) will even be there after a few days or weeks of time have passed.
The big issue: It just takes some volunteer editor time to ensure that each point made in a statement has support in a reliable source citation. My guess is that this will happen over time. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Landing Zone 1 vs Launch Complex 1[edit]

An editor recently changed the name in the body of the article to "Landing Complex 1." The press kit for the CRS-9 mission still refers to it as "Landing Zone 1":

http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/spacex_crs9_press_kit.pdf

Is there any source for the change?--agr (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I switched the article back to Landing Zone 1 absent any source for the change.--agr (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Might be wise to change it to "SpaceX Landing Complex 1" since there is a LZ-4 Pad now. I'm really confused if this article should only contain info about LZ-1 and LZ-4 or all of SpaceX's launch pads.(see discussion below) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.238.41 (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Landing Zone 1. 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) 08:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

This being an encyclopedia, the article needs a bit of History, and not merely landing history. When was it built? Why? By whom? How paid for? How many pads at first? (A: 1) How many being built now? (not sure, but I've seen in press articles that more pads are coming). Damage and rebuild? Etc.

In short, seems the article could be improved a bit with more sources and an overview of the History of the idea, the construction, various phases, etc. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did not find a lot of sources, but was able to find a couple:


Requested move 11 February 2019[edit]

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 section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus on the move. (closed by non-admin page mover) B dash (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Landing Zones 1 and 2 → SpaceX Landing Zones – May want to update title to reflect the use of LZ-4, reflecting a change. For Citations see this page 173.52.238.41 (talk) 04:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 04:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. SITH (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably add more information about LZ-4 first also there is mention of LZ-4 in this Wikipedia page here Thanks for your help! OkayKenji (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also per 173.52.238.41 creating an article just for LZ-4 does not seem significant enough OkayKenji (talk) 04:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(oppose) Also there is a page already called SpaceX Landing Zone (does not really have any content) so a reason not to rename this article, but could be renamed SpaceX Landing Complex 1 instead and remove all references of LZ-4 in this page (because already in Vandenberg AFB Space Launch Complex 4) . OkayKenji (talk) 04:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have the article Landing zone, to which Landing zones and Landing Zone redirect, so it would be good to rename this something starting with "SpaceX" per WP:PRECISE. 188.143.76.152 (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose each launchpad complex has separate articles. Airports have separate articles, they are not combined into a single article. These two sets of landing pads are thousands of miles apart! There's no reason for a combined article. Delete the LZ-4 information from this article, revert to the status this article had in 2018, before "improvements" were made by adding LZ-4. There might be a reason for a separate "Rocket landing zone" article (as a topic, like airport or spaceport) or a List of SpaceX Landing Zones that isn't a detailed article but a simple list (possibly included ASDSes) (which currently exists as a disambiguation page), but there is no reason for this to be a combined article, since each site is a separate location. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2019

(UTC)

I agree (with the opposition). Maybe we could include "See Also" section and then in there link article to LZ-4, since technically they are related, just like you said they are too far apart to be in one article. Also already a page like List of SpaceX Landing Zones here -> SpaceX Landing Zone. You also make a GREAT point in mentioning ASDS since titling "SpaceX Landing Zones" would be to general and might include the ASDS. So combining ideas in this discussion so far best name would be to keep it as it is. Maybe if ok with 70.51.201.106 rename as SpaceX Landing Zones 1 and 2. OkayKenji (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

//just a note 173.52.238.41 and OkayKenji are the same user, one time was logged in another time not logged in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OkayKenji (talk • contribs) 05:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Landing Zones 1 and 2 → SpaceX Landing Zones – I mean SpaceX does use three Landing Zones now, just saying LZ-1 and LZ-2 does not reflect the content of the article. Also creating an article just for LZ-4 does not seem significant enough.(not really controversial, more like updating title to reflect recent changes. ) 173.52.238.41 (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object to speedy move LZ1 and 2 are in Florida, LZ-4 is in California, this article until recently covered Florida. I don't see why the two sites should be conflated. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 05:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please Read Carefully, if you have time Ok, sounds great!! Though the discussion I (who proposed to change the title of the article) retract my proposal to change the name of the article to "SpaceX Landing Zones". Maybe after more people contribute to this discussion we may be ready to close it.173.52.238.41 (talk) 06:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So in summery I (who proposed the new title and combining the ideas here) think we should:
-keep the title as it is, just add "SpaceX" to it ("SpaceX Landing Zones 1 and 2) (Idea from 188.143.76.152)
-remove all references of LC-4 I -> I'm willing to do that (173.52.238.41) (Idea from 70.51.201.106)
-instead just put it in the "See Also" section linking to this article Vandenberg AFB Space Launch Complex 4.
-Creating List of SpaceX Landing Zones (or editing SpaceX Landing Zone) (Idea from 70.51.201.106)
-Remove redirect SpaceX Landing Zones

-Also maybe include this also
For LZ-4, SpaceX's other ground landng pad see, see Vandenberg AFB Space Launch Complex 4.

Any other ideas? Thanks for all your help so far in this! Going to be signed off for a few hour, will check on this discussion later. :)173.52.238.41 (talk) 06:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone think creating an article on Landing Zone 4 (dedicated to it) has enough notability to make an article with? OkayKenji (talk) 06:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has relatively the same notability as this LZ-1/LZ-2 article had when it was created in 2016 [1] -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support + merge LZ-4 article here. Notability of SpaceX landing zones is global; there is no need to have a separate article for each of them. Redirects will do the trick when linking to individual zones from launch reports and such. — JFG talk 10:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Small tweak: the combined article should be called SpaceX landing zones, per MOS:CAPS. — JFG talk 10:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the LZ-4 article is already merged into the Vandenberg site article, Vandenberg AFB Space Launch Complex 4. If this were to be merged, it should merge to Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 13, the site article for this locality, where LZ-1 and LZ-2 are located. I see no good reason to merge two sites thousands of miles apart. It is a reuse of the site LC-13, so if it is merged, it should merge to LC-13, as the current use of LC-13. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment if the landing zones are that "very" notable, then they should exist in separate articles (one for the LC-13 one, and one for the SLC-4 one) and not a merged article for LZs. If they are not sufficiently notable, then they should exist in their respective launch complex articles. A "SpaceX landing zone" article would just be an overview article about general specifications of SpaceX sites, and not a detailed article on the three LZs that exist. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 07:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment They are notable as a block, less notable as individual pads. There are multiple examples where pads that have A and B designations are merged on the launch pads. These just happen to be at different areas, but Landing Zone 4 is not significantly notable on its own. I see no reason to oppose the move from a perspective of notability. UnknownM1 (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment you are suggesting that California and Florida be merged into one article, not that A&B in Florida be one article. Where do we do that? LZ-1 and LZ-2 are merged together, in this article. LZ-4 isn't "C", it's something located on the other side of the country. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support SpaceX landing zones merged article UnknownM1 (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. "SpaceX landing zones" is not a proper name, so lower-case per MOS:CAPS. I agree that this is going to be much better as a merged article instead of a bunch of stubs. Could also be "List of SpaceX landing zones" if the intent is to use a simple list format.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SpaceX Landing Zone <-Already a list article, only confusing thing is that "Zone" is not plural. 173.52.238.41 (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is a naturally plural idea, a clear exception to WP:SINGULAR. "A SpaceX landing zone" isn't really a discrete sort of thing (a category of generic members) in the world, like a mountain lion or an operating system or a first-person shooter video game; rather, there's a very finite list of SpaceX landing zones, which are basically just labels/designations for facilities and their grounds. If Option B below goes forward, what we'll have is basically a WP:Set-index article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Saying "SpaceX Landing Zones" might be to vague, as SpaceX also has Autonomous spaceport drone ship, which are "landing zones". Maybe if we are to merge the LZ-1, LZ-2, and LZ-4; we should include "Ground" or "Return to Launch Sight" (RTLS) (at least specify that its return to land) in the title, to avoid confusing with the ASDS. Note : I feel that the ASDS and landing pads are different enough to each deserve their own articles. OkayKenji (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose LZ-1 and LZ-2 can be considered different from LZ-4 per LZ-1 and LZ-2 were "For previous launch operations at the site, see Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 13." Cite: Link, Spaceflight now, explains LZ-1 (LZ-2 later on) was Launch Complex 13. Hence may be the reason why LZ-1 and LZ-2 are together. While LZ-4 (West Coast) is different since it was not built from Launch Complex 13. So if anything, just add SpaceX to title. 173.52.238.41 (talk) 04:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Organically this article was title "Landing Zones 1", then "Landing Zones 1 and 2" once LZ-2 was in use. So it might be appropriate to recognize LZ-4, by calling the article title "SpaceX Landing Zones" or a title similar to that. 173.52.238.41 (talk) 04:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Or just remove LZ-4 information and crate it's own article or something. 04:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose capitals. I agree with SMcCandlish on this occasion. Tony (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to "SpaceX landing zones". Adding "SpaceX" to the title would enhance clarity, since the present title could refer to any two LZs. It is too nondescript otherwise. "Landing zone/s" is descriptive, not a proper noun and not capitalised. There is the issue of LZs other than 1 and 2 (ie LZ4) that can be accommodated by normal editing - even a quick note in the first instance. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting out confusion[edit]

This move request has become confusing due to the various assumptions and proposals floating around, as well as intervening edits. Let me try to summarize the current status:

Recently, information about LZ-4 was added to this article, and in parallel the renaming proposal was started. From the ensuing discussion, there are two options on the table:

  • Option A: Keep the current article focused on LZ-1 and LZ-2, essentially because they are in the same physical location. Remove LZ-4 information from here and keep it within the VAFB SLC-4 article. Keep SpaceX landing zone as a dab page/micro-list pointing to LZ-1, LZ-2 and LZ-4.
  • Option B: Keep LZ-4 information in this article and rename it SpaceX landing zones. Keep some information about LZ-4 in the SLC-4 article but point here as the main article. Redirect the dab page SpaceX landing zone to this renamed SpaceX landing zones.

If the title is changed, there seems to be consensus that "landing zone" should be spelled in lowercase per MOS:CAPS. Would editors kindly choose their preferred option? Pinging all participants @Anthony Appleyard, OkayKenji, SMcCandlish, Tony1, and UnknownM1: for comments. — JFG talk 16:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Option B – Cleaner solution with one article covering all SpaceX onshore landing pads. Similarly, SpaceX drone ships have a single article called Autonomous spaceport drone ship, not one for each ship. — JFG talk 16:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B - Always a fan of having an overview article that can lead to individual pages if needed. Easier to have a general and then have links to their associated launchpad/site.UnknownM1 (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also wanted to add that is page could also discuss and redirect to the automous drone ships if editors agree UnknownM1 (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B – The problem with the current mess is that it presumes a lot of knowledge on the part of the reader (that they know the locations of these things already), and that these geographical details the the most important, which they clearly aren't.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A, we should not conflate two different things thousands of miles apart. We don't merge together all the different SLCs into one article, Cape Canaveral AFS is not the same as Vandenberg AFB, If this article needs to be merged somewhere, then Option C would be the choice to go with, since the facility is Canaveral SLC-13. There is no good reason to merge facilities on different coasts together. If we don't needs separate articles, then they should be merged into the respective SLC articles about the site where they are located. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 06:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B looks like the most natural and logical solution to me. It should bring the order into the mess and confusion we have currently. The second choice is Option A; it is pretty good option actually, but not when there are only three landing zones overall. When (and if) there are too many landing zones and too much information about all or several of them to pack it all into one article, option A (or its variation) could be the best solution. But not yet. Igor Krein (talk) 06:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no strong preference between options A and B; both have advantages and disadvantages. I would however oppose option C inasmuch as LC-13 has effectively been renamed, and we don't generally have articles setting out the current status of something but titled by that something's former name. An alternative solution would be to have a generic overview article such as Landing pad (just as we have Launch pad), with detailed articles for each of SpaceX's landing complexes, and hopefully another article soon for Blue Origin's landing facilities. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, that can be solved by renaming "SLC-4" to "LZ-4" and merging "SLC-13" into "LZ-1/LZ-2", since it is literally the same site (SLC-4 Vandenberg; SLC-13 Canaveral). -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A Sort of trying to find SpaceX's "naming scheme", if they consider all landing zones "as one", or recognize as a individual. Maybe add "SpaceX" to title. Per FCC permits FCC Permit 1 and FCC Permit 2, 1st link for LZ-4, second for LZ-1 (and presumably LZ-2). LZ-4 permit "Station Location" -> Vandenberg AFB and LZ-1 permit Station Location -> Cape Canaveral AFS. Since the permits note diffrent locations, possible reason to consider them as separate. OkayKenji (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@OkayKenji: I don't understand your reasoning. You were the person who initially proposed the change to a global article covering all landing zones, including suggesting the name change to "SpaceX landing zones", you added information about LZ-4 (part as IP 173.52.238.41, part logged in), so your own work has converged to option B, but now you support option A. Have you really changed your mind? — JFG talk 21:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JFG: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landing_Zones_1_and_2&diff=863715281&oldid=862969622 (not by me) was the edit that added info about LZ-4. Yes, after that I did add more information, but I did not initially add the LZ-4 info. I was just confused on why this article had info on LZ-4 and yet was called "Landing Zones 1 and 2", hence the reason why I suggested this change. I didn't realize we could just remove info about LZ-4. To be honest, I'll leave it to you and other to come up with a clever solution to the problem I had a hand in causing. I know that you guys will create a good solution. So in conclusion, I'm not qualified to give my opinion on the naming of this article's title anymore. Thanks. OkayKenji (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you very much for clarifying the history; I did not go back to October 2018 in my cursory reading of the edit history, and I had only noticed your (recent and good) additions of LZ-4 material. You performed good work, and you are as qualified as any other contributor to pick the solution that looks the most sensible to you. If you are now genuinely neutral, please amend your comment by striking the initial !vote and replacing it with "Neutral". — JFG talk 23:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll leave my initial vote as A then. Thank you. OkayKenji (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Infobox[edit]

Why is there a note in the infobox stating '---Falcon Heavy(s) counts as one attempt---'

If both side boosters of a Falcon heavy attempt to land on the pad, should it not count as two attempts - one attempt per booster? AmigaClone (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Made a change to the infobox, showing the landing attempts on each landing zone. This will allow all attempts to be properly documented, including any case where one of the boosters of a Falcon Heavy on a RTLS mission fails to successfully land. AmigaClone (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Landing_Zones_1_and_2&oldid=1208090046"