Talk:SpaceX reusable launch system development program/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:37, 25 February 2016

Revision as of 04:58, 10 April 2016

Line 445:

::Incidentally, the lead section on the new main article [[Falcon 9 ocean booster landing tests]] sounds like a section header, and I personally don't think it shows [[WP:N|notability]] as well as it should. I'll try to work on it over the next few days, but please add any content or streamline content so that it feels less obviously "split". [[User:Appable|Appable]] ([[User talk:Appable|talk]]) 03:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

== Relevance of New Shepard launch ==

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)

: I concur. While interesting to many, the Blue Origin test program is both for a very different purpose than the SpaceX orbital booster as well as unrelated to SpaceX' own program, as is perhaps obvious by a clean up edit I made and edit comment I left recently. It fits in Wikipedia. Just not ''this'' article. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 00:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

:: Thanks for confirming. I've made the change. [[User:Gnugnug|Gnugnug]] ([[User talk:Gnugnug|talk]]) 11:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)