Misplaced Pages

Talk:XCOR Lynx: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:03, 14 October 2013 editSkyring (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,610 edits →Current status?← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:16, 26 December 2024 edit undoWbm1058 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators265,447 editsm remove left-to-right mark 
(207 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WPRocketry}} {{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject Spaceflight|class=Start|importance=Mid|HSF=yes|HSF-importance=}} {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
{{WikiProject Rocketry}}
{{WikiProject Spaceflight|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Aviation|b1=yes|b2=no|b3=yes|b4=no|b5=yes|Aircraft=yes}}
}}
{{Old XfD multi|page=Lynx (spacecraft)|date=13 October 2013|result='''keep'''}}
{{Merged-from|XCOR Xerus|talk=no|date= 7 June 2009}}
{{Merged-from|Xerus (spacecraft)|talk=no|date= 21 October 2013}}
{{Archives|banner=yes}}
{{mbox|text=This talk page is '''automatically archived''' by ]. Any sections older than '''90''' days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:XCOR Lynx/Archive 1
}}
{{Annual readership|expanded=true}}
== According to XCOR, the Lynx will fly four or more times a day ==


Looking at news reports, this pig is never going to fly at all. I suggest we accept the reality of the situation and tone down the space cadet "build the rocket in the shed" enthusiasm a notch or two. For over a decade, this lot have been going to fly "Real Soon Now", all the while happily taking in deposits from eager space tourists with stars in their eyes and wallets full of empty.


Since I've added some references and I as well as others have expanded and wikified the article, should some of the article issue tags at the beginning of the article be removed?] (]) 01:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC) The record is full of delays and setbacks, the senior officers have left the company, the next step is bankruptcy, and the half-built prototype will make its short and piecemeal parabolic flight into the dumpster. --] (]) 13:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
:OK, I've removed the "notability" and "wikify" tags, and replaced "unreferenced" with "refimprove". This means that the article is still missing references to a couple of sentences, would require some cleanup, and needs more articles linking to this one. ] (]) 00:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


:Which news reports? Per WP:CRYSTAL, we don't generally report on something until it's actually happened. Once they've filed for bankruptcy, then we can report it. As to toning down the enthusiasm, please be more specific.about what statements need to be toned down. I didn't see anything obvious on a brief read-through. - ] (]) 21:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
== Potential sources for Lynx ==


::You seem long on predictions and opinions. Please post some reliable sources that support these theories and we'll gladly update the article to reflect that. Otherwise talk pages are ]. - ] (]) 21:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
* Here is a recent article from Parabolic Arc on Lynx: , 23 Feb 2011. Enjoy. ] (]) 07:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for your comments ] and ]. Let me restate my point. According to news reports, this pig will never fly. Time to tone down the space cadet talk of details of prototypes and plans, don't you think? --] (]) 22:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
== Current status? ==


There seems to be little in the way of hard facts on current status. Um, what is it? --] (]) 17:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC) :It's dead. What difference does it make now? ] (]) 22:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
::We don't need to give details in our encyclopaedia about a project that never got off the ground. The interesting part is not the paper plane but that so many fell for what was a con job. Any of those who forked over a hundred thousand dollarbucks ever get their money back? --] (]) 22:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


:::The level of detail we have now seems fine to me. It is all "unrealized plans", but the past tense shows that. If nothing else this is a cautionary tale for future projects (and potential investors) and the level of detail shows that. We have many articles on failed aerospace projects, because lots of them fail. If you think more can be added on where the money went, that would be great to sort of close out the story, but we need some refs that say what happened in that regard. - ] (]) 22:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
:Well, you are asking at a fortuitous time. XCOR is heavy into the year-long process of the build of the first Lynx rocketplane right now, and they began a serious effort at openly communicating their progress during the next year just about two or three weeks ago, with a commitment to do five blog posts a week on the company blog about what's up with them. Those are appearing at , five weekdays each week.
:While that is a ], and thus not the best as a ] (by Misplaced Pages standards), a little bit of searching around will no doubt find reliable source space media that are covering the XCOR Lynx build process. I recommend looking at parabolicarc.com or newspacewatch.com.
:In the meantime, do keep in mind that this is Misplaced Pages and ]! So why not take a stab at finding a source or two, and writing that prose for the article yourself, being sure to add a ] (or two, if needed) to support your statement(s). Ping me if you would like some help. Cheers. ] (]) 04:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
::Thanks - I have an interest in the subject, but the article seems to be mainly press releases and little of substance. I'd be astonished if that Jan 2014 date for operations is met. --] (]) 04:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
:::You're welcome. And I agree with you. In fact, I think it is clear now, per recent published info, that they are not on a glide path for ''first flight'' until the roughly year-long build effort (their words) is complete. So quite obviously, as soon as ] are found, and ] is marshaled, the article does need updated. Cheers. ] (]) 13:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
::::We're not in the business of promoting fantasy. I think a couple of paragraphs on plans and a photo of activity to date - a partial test-firing - should suffice. If any reader wants more information we can point them towards the company's website, which is perhaps the most substantial part of the enterprise. --] (]) 19:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
::::Further to above, I've reviewed the blog, which purports to show bits and pieces of the finished vehicle. There are no photographs of anything resembling a body. Computer graphics and an off-the-shelf nosewheel do not make a concept into a spaceplane.


== External links modified ==
::::The most substantial bit of hardware on display is a small trailer with a fuel tank on it - supposedly the engine test stand. Really? One tests a spacecraft engine on something you tow behind your car?. The whole project is little but website and people in a garage, going by the actual evidence. I don't think that we as an encyclopaedia should lend credibility to this puffery. --] (]) 06:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
{{outdent}}Agreed, Misplaced Pages is not for promoting fantasy, but Misplaced Pages also does not allow ]; we editors don't get to look at photographs released on a company website and ascertain that "this type of engineering work is NOT development" while "this other type of work IS development."


I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . You may add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
Multiple reliable sources say the company is currently actively building the first prototype of this spaceplan. The company website says the same thing. NASA has signed some contracts for (future) suborbital spaceflights on this company. Customers have done the same. Advertisers have done the same.
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.xcor.com/press-releases/2008/08-03-26_Lynx_suborbital_vehicle.html


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).
This little spaceplane is WAY beyond mere "concept". At minimum, it is totally appropriate for Misplaced Pages to say it is "being developed". So, yes, the article needs a lot of improvement, but '''it is not merely a vaporware ''concept'' '''that we are talking about here. Cheers. ] (]) 13:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

:Can you point me to an actual photo of the craft? No. Just small, off-the-shelf parts and some CGI. The thing doesn't exist. I don't need an engineering degree to point out that the emperor has no spaceship. --] (]) 14:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
::(Uninvolved editor coming here from ]) The absence of proof is not proof of absence. There are plenty of other possible explanations for a lack of photographs besides the hardware not existing, and you're going to need to present much stronger evidence if you wish to contest the ''sourced'' assertion that it is under development. --'''''] ] ]''''' 14:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

:::Thanks. I'm going through the sources, and those that actually exist either come from one source - XCOR - or are obviously written based on a press release, such as the ''Popular Mechanics'' article. Without significant external sourcing, this looks very much to me like a deliberate attempt by someone - presumably XCOR - to boost the visibility of their project. Clearly the article needs a lot of work to reflect the actual status. Now, you're talking about absence of proof. Seems to me that if we don't have good sources, it doesn't matter if XCOR has a fleet of them ready to roll - we need sources, this being Misplaced Pages and not ''Popular Mechanics''. Where are the non-XCOR sources showing that there is an actual vehicle being built? Do we run on press releases and promises? --] (]) 15:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">]:Online</sub></small> 02:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
:::Further to above, I think it's pretty obvious that the article as it currently stands is poorly sourced, namely that far too much of it is based on primary sources, when there are good secondary sources available. ] is our guiding light here:

:::* '''Do not''' analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. '''Do not''' base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.
== External links modified ==
:::* Misplaced Pages articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles ''may'' make an analytic or evaluative claim ''only if'' that has been published by a reliable secondary source.

:::What I'm seeing in the list of thirty sources are thirteen from XCOR (manufacturer) or SXC (ticket sales). I think we can safely list XCOR and SXC as external sources and use the remaining secondary sources and any others that may come up. Some of the sources look very good, some not so much. There's a private blog, and a couple of dead links. We can talk about them on a case by case basis and refer to ] if need be. Anyone see any problems in rewriting the article to conform to wikipolicy? --] (]) 12:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified {{plural:3|one external link|3 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091208081624/http://www.space.com:80/businesstechnology/technology/xcor_xerus_030520.html to http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/xcor_xerus_030520.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130306043002/http://www.spacexc.com:80/en/bookings/ to http://www.spacexc.com/en/bookings/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100430002641/http://www.xcor.com:80/products/vehicles/lynx_suborbital.html to http://www.xcor.com/products/vehicles/lynx_suborbital.html

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 13:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

== External links modified (January 2018) ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160405003107/http://www.xcor.com/news/new-board-of-directors-and-advisory-board-members/ to http://www.xcor.com/news/new-board-of-directors-and-advisory-board-members/
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news%2Fawx%2F2011%2F03%2F22%2Fawx_03_22_2011_p0-299850.xml&headline=ULA%2C%20XCOR%20to%20Develop%20Upper-Stage%20Engine&channel=space

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 13:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:16, 26 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the XCOR Lynx article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconRocketry
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSpaceflight Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAviation: Aircraft
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion not met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 13 October 2013. The result of the discussion was keep.
The contents of the XCOR Xerus page were merged into XCOR Lynx on 7 June 2009. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history.
The contents of the Xerus (spacecraft) page were merged into XCOR Lynx on 21 October 2013. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history.

Archiving icon

Archives: 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 90 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

According to XCOR, the Lynx will fly four or more times a day

Looking at news reports, this pig is never going to fly at all. I suggest we accept the reality of the situation and tone down the space cadet "build the rocket in the shed" enthusiasm a notch or two. For over a decade, this lot have been going to fly "Real Soon Now", all the while happily taking in deposits from eager space tourists with stars in their eyes and wallets full of empty.

The record is full of delays and setbacks, the senior officers have left the company, the next step is bankruptcy, and the half-built prototype will make its short and piecemeal parabolic flight into the dumpster. --Pete (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Which news reports? Per WP:CRYSTAL, we don't generally report on something until it's actually happened. Once they've filed for bankruptcy, then we can report it. As to toning down the enthusiasm, please be more specific.about what statements need to be toned down. I didn't see anything obvious on a brief read-through. - BilCat (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
You seem long on predictions and opinions. Please post some reliable sources that support these theories and we'll gladly update the article to reflect that. Otherwise talk pages are WP:NOTFORUM. - Ahunt (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments BilCat and Ahunt. Let me restate my point. According to news reports, this pig will never fly. Time to tone down the space cadet talk of details of prototypes and plans, don't you think? --Pete (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

It's dead. What difference does it make now? BilCat (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
We don't need to give details in our encyclopaedia about a project that never got off the ground. The interesting part is not the paper plane but that so many fell for what was a con job. Any of those who forked over a hundred thousand dollarbucks ever get their money back? --Pete (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
The level of detail we have now seems fine to me. It is all "unrealized plans", but the past tense shows that. If nothing else this is a cautionary tale for future projects (and potential investors) and the level of detail shows that. We have many articles on failed aerospace projects, because lots of them fail. If you think more can be added on where the money went, that would be great to sort of close out the story, but we need some refs that say what happened in that regard. - Ahunt (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on XCOR Lynx. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—Talk to my owner:Online 02:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on XCOR Lynx. 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, 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on XCOR Lynx. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Categories: