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

Revision as of 21:36, 11 March 2014

Revision as of 20:50, 12 March 2014

Line 10:

*Intro seems a bit verbose. Perhaps another picture of the Grasshopper - to illustrate the concept of a rocket landing - would help?

**Re: Grasshopper photo: I very much agree. Have been endeavoring to find a Wiki-licensable photo of Grasshopper flying for 18 months now. See extensive discussion on Talk page. [[User:Huntster]], who is both very wiki-photo knowledgeable and an Admin on the English Wikipedia tells us that there simply are not any wiki-allowable images that anyone has yet found of Grasshopper in flight. (although there are lots of good Youtube videos released by the company). I've wondered whether perhaps a fair use criteria might work, but editors strong in wiki-photo fu have told me no dice. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 01:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

***{{Yellow tick}}—Hey [[User:Jamesx12345|James]]. See what I said before (above) about the challenges of obtaining a WP-license-able photo, and let me know if you are okay with this for a GA review. The editor who provided me the rather strict interpretation of ''fair use'' and the WP license practices did allow that some other editors might not take as hard a line on it as he does. However, I've not gone and tried to pursue a consensus from a larger group on this. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 20:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

**Re: tightening up the prose: The article just went through a [[WP:GOCE]]. But one idea I had is that we could delete the following sentence from the second paragraph, as it is only summarizing details presented in the article: "Eight low-altitude flight tests were made in 2012 and 2013. The first booster return controlled-descent test from high-altitude was made in September 2013, and a second test is planned for March 2014.[2][3]" Would you think that would help? [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 03:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Line 18 ⟶ 19:

**I would tend to agree, but what is there is a result of somewhat involved Talk page consensus; moreover, the original source only gives the velocities in Mach numbers, which are approximate, and so we felt we ought to leave those Mach nos. in the encyclopedia prose. And generally, in spaceflight related articles, we give velocities in both SI units and in English measurment units for a global audience. Do you think the GA criteria would trump the Talk page consensus? I would be happy to revisit the topic with the previous discussants. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 01:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

***If there is a local consensus to have it one way, I see no problem with that. [[User:Jamesx12345|James]]^x[[User talk:Jamesx12345|12345]] 21:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

****Cool, then that's {{Approved}} by you. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 20:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

*"It said this was an approximation." - this single sentence looks a bit odd. It also makes the use of refs 6 and 7 a bit unclear.

**{{Fixed}} — [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 22:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Line 27 ⟶ 30:

******That's a good solution. I wasn't sure what the standard is for that sort of thing (leave the link? take it out? what sort of note to leave? etc.) I'm very glad that you, as an experienced GA reviewer, knew what to do with that.

::::::In the meantime, I think I still have a couple more of the deadlinks to crawl through, and a few more "in process" items to work. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 21:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

*******{{Yellow tick}}—[[User:Jamesx12345|James]], I've looked and believe there are no more dead links. But I don't know how to use ''checklinks'', so if you would please take a look at this and then let us know if you are good to go. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 20:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

*"first stage is now being flight tested" - very liable to dating. Given that you and some other editors have focused on this article for a fair length of time, it should be OK, but an {{tl|As of}} or {{tl|Update after}} could be used.

**{{Fixed}} — [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 22:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Line 37 ⟶ 42:

*"reusable rocket system that will be powered by LOX/methane, "an evolution of SpaceX's Falcon 9 booster", and reiterated SpaceX's commitment to develop a vertical landing breakthrough technology." - "reusable rocket system to be powered by LOX/methane, "an evolution of SpaceX's Falcon 9 booster", and reiterated SpaceX's commitment to develop a vertical landing technology." - update tense, rm "breakthrough" - don't think it's needed.

**This one is a bit more complex; principally because it is not a second LOX/methane technology; it is a second ''reusable rocket system'', and this one will be ''both'' much larger, and also will be powered by a different fuel (LOX/methane rather than LOX/RP-1 as in the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy). At any rate, I've made a stab at making it more clear. See what you think. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 22:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

***{{Yellow tick}}—[[User:Jamesx12345|James]]—Please me us what you think here. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 20:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

*"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)

Line 50 ⟶ 57:

*"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.

***{{Yellow tick}}—[[User:Jamesx12345|James]]—please note my comment above and see what you think now. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 20:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

*"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)

Line 56 ⟶ 65:

*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.

**{{fixed}} — [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 17:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)