Revision as of 09:56, 2 December 2015 edit Gnugnug (talk \| contribs) 39 edits →Relevance of New Shepard launch: new section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:06, 2 December 2015 edit undo IanOsgood (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 4,859 edits →Relevance of New Shepard launch: +1 Next edit →
Line 94: Apologies in advance as I'm a new editor, but I'm not sure the [[New Shepard]] launch, currently mentioned under History, is relevant to this article. Musk himself tweeted that the recovery of a booster from a suborbital flight is a much different goal than the recovery of the Falcon 9 orbital stages and it doesn't seem to affect SpaceX's program. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to put New Shepard under a "See Also" heading? [[User:Gnugnug\|Gnugnug]] ([[User talk:Gnugnug\|talk]]) 09:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC) : Yes, I completely agree. At this point in time, the Blue Origin results are more relevant to the other suborbital tourism players like Virgin Galactic and XCOR Aerospace. --[[User:IanOsgood\|IanOsgood]] ([[User talk:IanOsgood\|talk]]) 22:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

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