Talk:SpaceX reusable launch system development program/GA1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:15, 1 March 2014

Revision as of 13:37, 1 March 2014

Line 34:

*"24-story" - this needs a source, preferably for the height in metres. In terms of buildings, the spelling should be storey.

**{{fixed}}. Added a source, and eliminated the "24-story" reference completely. BTW, in American English, the height of buildings is spelled "story", whereas it is "storey" in British and Canadian English. There is one other reference to "12-story" in the article (about an earlier Grasshopper test flight). Let me know if you think it might be better to eliminate that arcane sort of linear measurement as well now that I took out the "24-story" term. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 00:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

***I stand corrected.

*"SpaceX made history in September 2013 when it relit" - "In September 2013, SpaceX successfully for the first time relit" - seems a bit promotional. My wording isn't great, it's just the "made history" that doesn't feel quite right.

**I've copyedited this, and eliminated the "made history." Yes, sounds a bit promotional in that form. It was an historic event, and something that had not been successfully accomplished with a booster rocket strictly under rocket-control (no aeronautical flight surfaces like wings or a lifting body, etc.) previously. See what you think. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 23:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Line 44 ⟶ 45:

*"have a major impact on the cost of access to space" - not sure about the use of the quote here. I think there is probably some scope for expansion with regard to what it would mean for putting things in orbit.

*The '''Technical Feasibility''' section is a bit odd. I think it would be better if it were integrated into '''Technologies''', with the problems and solutions in one place.

*The bullet points in '''Test program''' are also inconsistent re. full stops.