Talk:SpaceX reusable launch system development program/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jamesx12345 (talk · contribs) 22:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll take this on in the next few days. James^x12345 22:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Initial review punch list

• 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. N2e (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Y—Hey 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. 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 :-) James^x12345 21:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
        •  Question: —Oh, that might work. We have a LOT of photos of the launches. Anytime a rocket launches from a US government leased facility (such as the pads that SpaceX leases from the US Air Force), the USG takes lots of photos, and they are released under quite acceptable licenses. So we could definitely get more of those; there is one in the article already.

The problem is our EXTREMELY limited photoset from anything at all related to the reusable technology (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 another photo of the rocket launching? (beyond the one we have in the article now?) None of that is reusable tech tests etc. N2e (talk) 22:19, 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? 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.
      •  Done — N2e (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• "occur at a velocity of approximately" - km/s would be adequate here, I think.
  • 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. 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. James^x12345 21:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Cool, then that's Approved by you. 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 — N2e (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• I've tagged 4 dead links using Checklinks. There's also a needing fixed, but that might be covered by ref 46.
  •  In progress
    • The WPO article is based on this video by AP [1] - I think that might be a better ref. Template:Cite AV media could be used for this purpose. James^x12345 17:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Unfortunately that link at the AP only has a couple minutes of the news conference on it. But I was able to locate another link, on the National Press Club archive. I've added that video link (as you suggested) to the NPC line to supplement the (very good, but now dead) WaPo article. N2e (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
        • I've just removed the link altogether. I think it's probably less confusing that way, and just as good as an unlinked ref to a paper source. James^x12345 20:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
          • 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. N2e (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Y—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. N2e (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• Checklinks appears to be fine. James^x12345 21:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• Cool, then that's another one Approved by you. 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 {{As of}} or {{Update after}} could be used.
  •  Fixed — N2e (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• "News of the new test rocket" - "News of the test rocket"
  •  Fixed — N2e (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• "re-entry database" - not sure what this is. From the context, it seems to be data that will allow a computer to work out where it will land, but I could be quite far off the mark.
  •  Fixed It is really just a bunch of wind tunnel test data that shows how a very large rocket body (about 3.3 metres in diameter and over 50 metres long behaves at a bunch of different velocities and altitudes in the atmosphere, with the rocket body moving through the atmosphere in various orientations. It's all quite essential for coding up the control algorithms to tell the engines and thrusters what to do based on where the returning rocket finds itself. But I can really see how that esoteric info was quite unclear with the term "re-entry database". Good catch! — N2e (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• NASA can be linked in the first instance.
  •  Fixed — N2e (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• "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. N2e (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Y—James—Please me us what you think here. N2e (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Much better than what I suggested (which isn't very clear on reading it again). James^x12345 21:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Cool, one more Approved by you. 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. N2e (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
    • 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. 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. N2e (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• Transonic can be linked.
  •  Fixed — N2e (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
• There is inconsistent use of full stops in Technology. I think it's just 3 that are needed.
  •  Fixed, but recommend you take a look to see if the three remaining are the three you were thinking of. — N2e (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
• "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 progress—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.
    • Y—James—please note my comment above and see what you think now. 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. 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 — N2e (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
• "have a major impact on the cost of access to space" - not sure about the use of the quote here. I think there is probably some scope for expansion with regard to what it would mean for putting things in orbit.
  •  Fixed — I have removed the direct quotation and rewritten the prose. N2e (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• 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 progress 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. N2e (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Y—James—Okay, I've made a few more changes. See what you think. N2e (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
      •  Question: I think maybe you didn't see this one yesterday. N2e (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• The bullet points in Test program are also inconsistent re. full stops.
  •  Fixed — 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 — 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.
  •  Fixed — N2e (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• "...flight tests of the vehicle are to occur in Texas." - ref needed.
  •  Fixed — N2e (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• "...and did so." - this is quite abrupt, and also needs a ref. I can't help but feel that there is a nicer way to say it.
  •  Fixed — N2e (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• "Four additional test flights were made in August 2013." - another ref, or instance of ref.
  •  Fixed — N2e (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• "Grasshopper version 1.0... and is 106 feet (32 m) tall." - is quite clumsy. Perhaps "Grasshopper version 1.0, the company's first test vehicle, consisted of a Falcon 9 [v1.0] first stage tank and pressuriser with a single Merlin-1D engine. It had four steel landing legs and a support structure, and stood 106 feet (32 m) tall." or something like that.
  •  Fixed — N2e (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• "In an arrangement unusual for launch vehicles,[18] some first stages of the SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 versions of the rocket are testing propulsive-return, over-water aspects of the reusable rocket technology." - this is quite confusing, and it is unclear what the ref supports - I would move it to the end of the sentence. Another ref might be needed in that paragraph.
  •  Fixed — N2e (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• "Falcon 9 test plan calls for the" - does this need to be updated?
  •  Fixed — Gopher65_talk 20:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I did some further copyediting on this. Since it is an introductory paragraph to the section, I think it best for it to describe the general test plan for these post-mission booster descent tests, not just any one particular test. The test history is better covered in the paragraphs below the introduction. See what you think. N2e (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• needs addressed at the end of that paragraph.
  • {Fixed}. I just reused the reference at the beginning of the next paragraph, since that whole paragraph about that very flight. — Gopher65_talk 20:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC) Never mind, I didn't actually fix this, I fixed something else instead:P. Sorry. — Gopher65_talk 20:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
    •  Fixed—for real, this time. N2e (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• "the booster stage attitude was reversed" - also confusing.
  •  Fixed — Gopher65_talk 20:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• "With the many..." - quite colloquial.
  •  Fixed — Gopher65_talk 20:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• The See also section would ideally be removed if a good way to link to Falcon (rocket family) can be found.
  •  Fixed — Gopher65_talk 19:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll wait for you to make any changes you feel are necessary and look at it again in a few days. Sorry for the delay in completing this review - I've been quite heavily occupied for the past few weeks. James^x12345 18:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much James! Glad you made it through the entire article. I'll get back to addressing your review comments starting today.

In the meantime, I see that another editor has helpfully joined in to help get the article improved to GA quality. Thanks Gopher65! N2e (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

James — I believe that that we have addressed 100% of the items you identified above. I've left 4 or 5 questions for you as marked by the YELLOW CHECKMARKS: Y, like this. See what you think.

Please address the old items in the list above, but add any new items you see below, as the long list is getting rather hard to navigate. N2e (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

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. 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. N2e (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I've watched the videos, and admit that it is pretty cool. Launch 8 especially is pretty spectacular from above. I'm afraid I can't finish tonight, and probably not tomorrow, but will definitely get all your comments replied by Saturday. Sorry. James^x12345 23:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

No worries. That will be fine. (and BTW, just late yesterday US time, SpaceX and NASA announced that the CRS-3 flight would be delayed at least a couple of weeks, so the second high-altitude, booster controlled-descent flight test won't occur any earlier than March 30th.) N2e (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Part II

I'll just look through it again since it has changed quite a bit. This review shouldn't take long. James^x12345 12:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• A larger family photo would be nice - maybe 250px or something.
  •  In progress I'm having a bit of trouble with the resize parameter; it is dropping the image caption whenever I replace "thumb" with "250px". I asked for some help. — N2e (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Fixed. James^x12345 15:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• "Restarts are required at both supersonic..." - perhaps a quick note about why there are two restarts?
  •  Fixed — N2e (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• "throttleable rocket engine technology" - this bullet is quite short, and also uncited. An explanation (or even a definition) would make it more useful.
  •  Fixed — N2e (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• "order of magnitude" could be linked (just for the definition.)
  •  Fixed — N2e (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• "However, even if SpaceX is successful with the technology..." - that's a really fascinating point.
  • Thanks.  Done — N2e (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• I would spell out the full name of the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation - it's quite well known.
  •  Fixed — N2e (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• "...nearly precludes it." - this would need a ref in this form.
  •  Fixed — N2e (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy now that I've read through all of it, and that it meets the GA criteria. Thanks for being much quicker at responding to my comments than I was to yours. James^x12345 16:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)