Talk:SpaceX reusable launch system development program/GA1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Initial review punch list: respond |
okay, tidied up the list again following comments from yesterday. How is it now? I left two specific questions for James. |
||
Line 13:
***{{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)
****I'm afraid I don't know much about image licensing. It doesn't actually need any images at all for the purpose of a GAR, but they do make it easier to understand. Ideally, somebody would pay for me to attend a launch and I'd take a few snaps :-) [[User:Jamesx12345|James]]<sup>x</sup>[[User talk:Jamesx12345|12345]] 21:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
*****
:::::The problem is our EXTREMELY limited photoset from anything at all related to the <u>reusable technology</u> (e.g., Grasshopper v1.0 flying, or of the landing-over-water tests). These are private, SpaceX takes lots of photos; releases a very few to the press, but none with Creative Commons-acceptable licenses. :::::So do you think we should just insert
**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)
***I think so. Schedules seem like the kind of info best kept for the main body of the article.
Line 34 ⟶ 37:
::::::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)
::::::::*Cool, then that's another one {{Approved}} by you. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 16:48, 13 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 46 ⟶ 51:
**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)
****Much better than what I suggested (which isn't very clear on reading it again). [[User:Jamesx12345|James]]<sup>x</sup>[[User talk:Jamesx12345|12345]] 21:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
*****Cool, one more {{Approved}} by you. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 16:48, 13 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 62 ⟶ 69:
***{{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)
****It looks OK now on second reading. If anything, I think more could be made of concerns about reliability (have any agencies said anything for example? I don't think the JWST would go up on a used booster, for example.)
*****Cool, one more down. {{Approved}} by you. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 16:48, 13 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 68 ⟶ 77:
*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)
***{{Yellow tick}}—[[User:Jamesx12345|James]]—Okay, I've made a few more changes. See what you think. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 21:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
****{{question}} I think maybe you didn't see this one yesterday. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 16:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
*The bullet points in '''Test program''' are also inconsistent re. full stops.
Line 113 ⟶ 124:
====Continuation, after the initial "punch list" was worked through====
Since this list is kind of long and hard to navigate, I'm starting a new section for ''new'' items that you or Gopher65 see that need attention. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 21:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
:James, I have tidied up the list above, trying to ensure I've not missed anything. I believe there are just two questions for you now, both marked with the {{question}} symbol. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 16:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
| |||