Talk:SpaceX reusable launch system development program/GA1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Jamesx12345 (talk | contribs) + |
two more fixes |
||
Line 37:
***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.
**{{fixed}} — 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)
*"for March 2014 at the earliest." - another ref needed. I'll stop referring to refs by number since they might change unpredictably as you add or move them.
**{{Fixed}} — and good idea on referring to them by some other means. I'll just search for your textual clues. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 23:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Line 53:
**{{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.
**{{fixed}} — [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 17:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
*"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..."
**{{fixed}} — [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 17:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
*"Grasshopper is a set of experimental technology-demonstrator..." - the two refs in that paragraph not at the end of the sentences - currently 33 and 34 - could be moved to the end.
*"...flight tests of the vehicle are to occur in Texas." - ref needed.
| |||