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

Revision as of 19:06, 1 March 2014

Revision as of 19:18, 1 March 2014

Line 44:

**{{Fixed}}, but recommend you take a look to see if the three remaining are the three you were thinking of. — [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 19:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

*"and upon introducing space launch customers to the idea of putting a payload in space with a used stage" - quite colloquial "and upon space launch customers being willing to put a payload in space with a used stage" is a bit clearer, maybe.

**{{in process}}—not quite sure how to reword this... The idea in the source is that this is ''very'' new thinking to the sorts of large customers who might buy launch services, and that customers may very well not warm to the idea of utilizing a "used" booster to carry their precious cargo to orbit ('they've never done it that way before' ... it has never been an option since government-designed space programs, in all nation-states that have gotten to space, have only built expendable systems, and even with that, they can only get a very small percentage of the liftoff weight (something like 3%) to orbit. This really is a huge paradigm shift for the industry, '''if''' SpaceX are even successful in getting this expensive project to work at all. At any rate, that is the idea behind "introducing space launch customers to the idea of putting a payload in space with a used stage" -- but I'm thinking on some ways to rephrase that.

*"If all aspects of the test program go very well, and if a customer is interested, SpaceX said in September 2013 that the first reflight of a Falcon 9 booster stage could be done in late 2014." - "in September 2013, SpaceX said that if all aspects of the test program are successful and a customer is interested, the first reflight of a Falcon 9 booster stage could be done in late 2014."

**{{Fixed}} — [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 19:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

*"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.