User talk:Doublesuited

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Doublesuited! I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions check out Wikipedia:Questions, or feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. Again, welcome! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 04:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

SpaceX Landing Edit

I don't want to get into an edit war, but it seems like none of the sources linked to that sentence word it that way? The orbital stage did not land, just the suborbital booster stage after reaching a similar altitude to the blue origin booster. It may be a more impressive landing, but I'm not sure that qualifies it as a first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoff0839 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort to avoid an edit war. No disrespect was intended by the reversion. I thought you might have missed the key word in the sentence you deleted, or that you didn't understand the significance of the SpaceX landing. According to some, it was an order of magnitude more difficult than Blue Origin's landing due to the much higher speed and complexity. As for the cited sources, the first says this (emphasis added):

"Bezos’ Blue Origin successfully landed the propulsion module of its New Shepard suborbital vehicle on a Nov. 23 test flight from the company’s West Texas test site. After the test, Musk congratulated Bezos for the landing, but suggested that the achievement was not as significant as Bezos claimed, citing SpaceX’s record of low-altitude landing tests and SpaceX’s use of a larger vehicle that is part of an orbital launch system."

There's also this article, which I just added as another source:

"SpaceX had not previously attempted to land a rocket on land, and it marked the firm's first successful attempt to recover a rocket from an orbital flight.... Blue Origin, founded by Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, stuck a landing last month — but Musk pointed out that was a suborbital trip, the requirements for which are considerably different."

Bezos tried to claim that they're equivalent accomplishments, but that doesn't make it so. See https://imgur.com/ATkpdAX for a graphic illustration. Doublesuited (talk) 06:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra information! My big issue was that none of the sources linked worded that statement in the way it was presented, your new source definitely does. Given that wording, I can't argue that it is not a factual statement. I do have to say that I still have some questions. According to all the information I have been able to find (and the new article that you linked) the Falcon 9 booster is suborbital and detaches at ~62 miles (100km) the exact same altitude as the Blue Origin ship (although graphic you shared seems to conflict with this?). This is outside my area of expertise, but it seems that while SpaceX has one-upped Blue Origin they are not the first to achieve the feat. It looks to me like 2 powerful individuals who both really want to stamp their name on the first booster VTOL. I will be interested to see who the history books give this one to (as well as any other info you might feel like sharing on the subject).

Thanks Hoff0839 (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an expert either, but my understanding is that there's more than one "first" to be claimed here. A few years ago, SpaceX did a VTOL with the Grasshopper, which only went to low altitude. Blue Origin was the first to get something into "space" (as commonly defined) and land it vertically. Then SpaceX did their VTOL with an orbital rocket booster, which as I said is a higher degree of difficulty because it has to return from much further away and deal with higher speeds. Blue Origin definitely gets credit for the first vertical landing from a suborbital space vehicle. Credit to each where due. Doublesuited (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses on this - I've been researching it more (a lot more material has popped up since the story broke) and I understand the distinction more clearly now. I've also found that most sources cite the SpaceX booster detachment at 124 miles - double Blue Origin. To retract my initial opinion of SpaceX recieving too much credit I'm now wondering if maybe that sentence should give them even more credit - such as mentioning they were carrying a real mission payload?

Anyway, thanks again for the feedback Hoff0839 (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)