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

Revision as of 16:02, 11 March 2014

Revision as of 17:03, 11 March 2014

Line 48:

**{{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.

**{{fixed}} — I have removed the direct quotation and rewritten the prose. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 17:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

*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.

**{{in process}} Two comments for now: 1) I believe the difficulty of this undertaking is of such a magnitude, and so many have thought quite impossible, that it probably does warrant a section on ''Technical feasibility'' to address this. Moreover, while this sort of return/landing and reuse have been hypothesized for decades in Science Fiction and a few academic papers, none of the current space programs have even attempted full and rapid reuse. 2) Having said that, I do not believe the prose that was in the section adequately covered the problem nor the topic. I have made several edits to broaden the explication of the problem, and how SpaceX has (to date) only a theoretical understanding that it can be done, and may be economic to do so. I will look to make a few more changes here in the coming days. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 17:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

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

*"tests of post-mission (spent) Falcon 9 booster stages" - that link is a bit confusing. I think that whole bullet could be made somewhat clearer, perhaps by starting with "September 2013..."