Talk:SpaceX Starship/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Price discussion

There seems to be some controversy over listing "$2 million (aspirational and eventual)" in the infobox. To get the discussion going, what's the source? Musk's tweets are not WP:RS, he not only doesn't have an editorial board, he doesn't have a filter. A basic analysis of the costs involved in a super-heavy launch suggests that even "aspirational" is optimistic (the fuel costs alone will approach $2 million, not counting depreciation and refurbishing costs), while "eventual" implies a certainty which I feel is absent. A more accurate statement would be to say "unknown", because SpaceX, as a private corporation, does not publish their costs. Comments? Tarl N. (discuss) 04:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

If/how/when Musk tweets can be cited is a question as old as time. My understanding is that, obviously, it isn't a WP:RS in any sense. But it can be a WP:SELFSOURCE... (an aside: I just now learned that WP:TWITTER is the same redirect as WP:ABOUTSELF, which makes me think this applies).
The question is, can it be a source on SpaceX or Tesla's plans. Of course, we could write in the article Musk has stated he anticipates a Starship launch eventually costing as low as $2 million[citation to his twitter]. That is a clear application of WP:SELFSOURCE. But could we write SpaceX anticipates Starship launches eventually costing as low as $2 million[citation to musk's twitter]? As the CEO, are his statements citable as "company positions" in such contexts? For example, this has been a question in the past: if Musk tweets "we will try to launch SNwhatever tomorrow", can the article say "SpaceX plans to launch this tomorrow" or does it have to say "Musk said on twitter that SpaceX plans to launch this tomorrow"? I'd love if someone could direct me to a past discussion, or if there isn't such discussion, maybe we should start a RfC or something.
Also, I am generally highly skeptical of some editing frenzies (that I've seen in the past) where people tear through an article and replace every citation to Musk's twitter with a citation to a highly questionable source (that is nevertheless green on WP:RSPSRC) that literally just reprints Musk's tweet and adds no additional substance other than a SEO optimized "guys click this article". Per WP:LINKSINACHAIN this is no better than the original tweet. The journalists in these cases evidently don't have any additional knowledge beyond "Musk tweeted this". I think that kind of "source laundering" is a net negative. Leijurv (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I wrote up a whole thing about how if we cited [1] instead of a more direct source, it would make the article worse. Then I looked at the article and we do cite that techcrunch link in the body, and the direct source in the infobox. Oh well. I went off on the assumption that the $2 million figure came from a Musk tweet, based on your original message ... To get the discussion going, what's the source? Musk's tweets ... But it looks like it's something he said in an interview, not something he tweeted. So now I've gone on that whole tirade about tweets when it isn't even involved in this $2 million number, ah well, my bad. Leijurv (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Also, my bad. I should have distinguished between the issue of the source and the issue of whether it's a commitment. Musk's tweets and Musk's off-the-cuff comments in an interview, while official company positions, are not commitments. So the "eventual" implying any kind of certainty for achieving that result is what I think is problematic. Tarl N. (discuss) 06:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I was the one who added "eventual." There is a common misconception that the cost will be $2 million as soon as Starship becomes operational, or very shortly thereafter. So I thought some word was needed to note it may take a significant amount of time to achieve that (if SpaceX ever does.) "Eventually" definitely wasn't intended to imply any kind of certainty. If someone could suggest an alternative, I'd appreciate it. Fcrary (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I hadn't seen that misconception, but if it's out there, I'm with you. "$2 million (long-term goal)" perhaps? Polymath03 (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we need either certainty, or commitment, in order to put that number up. We just need a best guess. And if it's a particularly sketchy / implausible guess, it shouldn't be in the infobox, but rather explained in the article body. Then, once we get to a lot of reliable sources all saying about the same thing for cost then it could be put in the infobox. In this case, there are a number of sources republishing Musk's claim. Is it reasonable to put that up in the infobox? I'm not so sure. It seems like.... free advertising for a statement of dubious plausibility. Like Wikipedia lending its credence to the self-promoting claim? Just a feeling. Leijurv (talk) 06:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing the cost from the infobox entirely, since it is a pretty sketchy claim. But it we do leave that $2 million figure in the infobox, I'd be much more comfortable with the suggested "(long-term goal)" phrasing suggested by Polymath03. It's definitely a better description than the "eventual" I added. Fcrary (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

👍 on (long-term goal) Leijurv (talk) 07:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
"(aspirational long-term goal)" maybe? Stgpcm (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I think goal explains that it's, well, a goal. I don't think aspirational adds anything. Leijurv (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
"(Long term goal)" is better than "(aspirational and eventual)" but 2 points: What is the source of the long term? It certainly isn't imminent but what shows it isn't a medium term goal? Secondly the source is clear about it being operational costs only, shouldn;t we make that clear? C-randles (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
We don't need to overthink this. "Long term" implies that it's not immediate without specifying how long it will take to achieve. "Medium term" would imply SpaceX has longer-term plans for further cost reductions below $2 million per flight, and we have no citable evidence of that. I'd also rather not go into another rabbit hole about the overall cost, incremental cost, cost versus price, etc. We don't have the information to make those distinctions. And even in the similar debate over cost in the SLS article, where more numbers were available, I don't think we ever reached a consensus. Fcrary (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good. I also would not like to go into such a rabbit hole. I don't think we ever reached a consensus Eh... It isn't so bad as that, per WP:EDITCON and WP:SILENCE. :) Leijurv (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper) "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." You can't use some random dude on twitter, but Musk as CEO of SpaceX is the 'go to expert' on Starship. Perhaps could be an issue if it is "unduly self-serving or an exceptional claim".

For info: the 2016 video which was the source not long ago said they were working towards $140,000 per ton landed on Mars. I took that as rough support for the $2million figure based on 100 tons giving $14m and with 3-5 refuelling launches needed. However, this was 2016 when they were talking 450 ton payloads. That is all historic and not really relevant now.

Current link says "If you consider operational costs, maybe it'll be like $2 million". Operational costs are normally a lot less than price / unqualified "cost" because you want to recover the development costs which are huge and normally spread over not many launches. While if it is SpaceX's aim and lots of launches then there might unusually be only a small difference, but I think we need to make clear this operational cost qualifier to this estimate. C-randles (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

On https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:F.Alexsandr&oldid=prev&diff=1028194540#Starship_price we had a discussion on whether the $62 million price from 2016 presentation should be also included in the infobox. My opponent said that it shouldnt because of his highly questionable calculations (Original Research). Ultimately that number $62 milllion is outdated, but it at least has a presentation with calculations to back it up. while Musk basically said "maybe someday it will be 2 million dollars". His tweet barely qualifies as a source. I propose to remove price from the infobox completely, instead creating a new section in the article, or just leaving it be, scince Elon's musk's estimate is already mentioned in "Intended uses" section. F.Alexsandr (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
If you cannot accurately summarize my comments then please don't do so at all. That number shouldn't be included because it is for a mission to Mars, which includes multiple launches (as shown on the slide) and far less frequent reuse (as discussed in the presentation, too). It is not the cost per launch. And it is completely outdated, too. Tweets from Musk are statements from the CEO of SpaceX. Will they achieve that goal? Who knows. But it's fine to write that SpaceX has this goal, because they announced that goal publicly and secondary sources (such as the space.com article cited) have written articles about it. --mfb (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
So we all agree $62m is outdated and majority at least accepting it is for multiple launches. Back to the current text: The eventual makes it sound like it is some far off aim for an eventual larger successor launch vehicle or at least many iterations later. I propose text should be changed to "Aspiration of US$2 million for operational costs only". C-randles (talk) 09:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
From everything I've read, there is no reason to think that $2 million would be the initial, operational cost. It's mentioned in the context of high flight rates and easy, rapid turn-around times (i.e. little more work that refueling.) There is no chance that will happen starting with the first, operational flight. That cost may be achievable with substantial experience operating the vehicle, but not from day one. I'm not comfortable with text which creates the misimpression that it would be. Fcrary (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
instead creating a new section in the article I wrote a section like this at Space Launch System#Per launch costs. I don't think it would work as well here. The reason is that this is such an early stage venture, being run by a private company. Basically all cost numbers are guesses. They are under no obligation to share their finances with the world. Polar opposite of a long-running publicly funded government project with oversight boards putting out many reports over the years. I don't think there is enough substance on this topic, published, yet, to warrant a paragraph or section in the article. Maybe just a passing mention somewhere, a sentence or two, would work though. Leijurv (talk) 06:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
$2m is definitely too aspirational, rough first 10's of starship launches would cost close to $100m but still cheaper than using Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy while calculating for $/kg.
Anyways for this matter, only input for price we have now is the tweet by Elon / SpaceX about $2 m long term cost, until Starship gets operational in coming years I think we should stick with the $2 m long term cost per flight. Chandraprakash (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is really weird because it is really simple. The quote is "If you consider operational costs, maybe it'll be like $2 million". This is clearly only operational costs, i.e. it doesn't include anything for recovering development costs. To fairly represent what the source, Elon Musk, said we have to use the same operational cost qualifier. It seems sensible to also use a word like aspirational/aim/goal to imply (as it clearly is) that it is uncertain and not yet known. The source doesn't say anything about long term or eventual and we should avoid adding such synthesis which isn't supported by the source. I really cannot see any reason why lots of people here seem to want to add 'long term' and not the 'operational' cost qualifier. C-randles (talk) 10:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Cost per launch is not meant to include development cost, see essentially any other page that uses this rocket infobox. It is simply meant to be the cost of launching the rocket. Leijurv (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
The cited reference states that rapid reusability is essential to achieving that $2 million per launch cost. Fro m other references, which we can add if you like, it's clear that "rapid" in this case means launching the same rocket a weekly or daily basis, if not more rapidly. Starship will be "operational" long before that sort of turn-around time can be achieved. So saying "operational" cost isn't sufficient. That would imply the cost will be $2 million as soon as Starship is flying payloads to orbit. Fcrary (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Another WP:RSN Discussion

I have started a discussion at WP:RSN about Elon Musk's tweets. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - Wikipedia StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 14:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Starship is a system

Starship is a system, both in the sense of Starship/Super Heavy and in the sense of the many different configs and models of Starship second stages. This link illustrates, but I wouldn't intend it for the article, as its not a WP:RS; so just view it for the illustration.

The point is that Starship second stage has never been only three models (tanker, cargo, crew), or just what has been mostly publicly spoken about since (which might include the larger on-orbit accumulation tanker; or the lunar Starship for the Artemis NASA contract; or the deep-space version Musk has mentioned; or the Earth-to-Earth point-to-point that both Shotwell and Musk have mentioned). It is all of those, and more, and we've never had any sources since early concepts in the mid-2010s that said it would be only a small or limited extent of models/versions.

Yet, sometimes the article locutions sound a bit definitive, as if "this is the way it will be", rather than "SpaceX have publicly mentioned at least n different versions of Starship second stage that might be built." I think we editors need to watch our locutions in the prose. Descriptions more like the latter and less like the former are helpful for making the article better. SpaceX is always iterating and changing designs, and doing new versions, and halting work on old stuff they've previously spoken about. We just need to be cautious in how we word the encyclopedia prose to say no more that the sources tell us. N2e (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead Clutter

I can't shake the feeling that the lead is completely unhelpful to anyone looking for a quick bit of info on Starship. There's an entire paragraph on testing that gives me a stroke with how info-dense it is, and should be one or two sentences at most -- "Starship prototypes began testing in 2019 as part of SpaceX's iterative design process. Since then, the program has..." or something along those lines. There's also zero info on the actual purpose of Starship, which seems pretty important to me. I've made a few changes already, but I don't want to go crazy before getting some input here. Polymath03 (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Polymath03: I agree. How about something like this: "The Starship system is a fully reusable, two‑stage‑to‑orbit super heavy‑lift launch vehicle under development by SpaceX designed to take crew and cargo to the Moon, Mars, and Beyond. Starship prototypes began testing in 2019 as part of SpaceX's iterative design process. Since then, the program has had multiple tests and flights. SpaceX is planning to have Starship's first orbital flight later in 2021."
And that would be the whole lead section. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 14:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
I think it would be good to essentially entirely remove the second paragraph of what's currently the lead. Paragraphs 1 3 and 4 are reasonable but could be pared down. Leijurv (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Agreed!
 Done I have removed all the detailed test info from the lede, leaving only a summary of the test program. N2e (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Bit more info?

Can somone add a but more info on other starship pages Nasaspaceflight and starship wiki can be useful66.58.243.154 (talk) 06:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

If you have specific things in mind, be WP:BOLD and add them! Polymath03 (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC) I,m not that good at editing though... 66.58.243.154 (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

ok added it even though i didnt want too...66.58.243.154 (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Starship wiki is definitely not a reliable source. Also, verifiability policy is clear that all WP:TERTIARY sources are deprecated, and WP:SECONDARY sources are preferred, but that primary sources can be used to establish facts, just not notability of an article, etc. Ping 66.58.243.154 N2e (talk) 03:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Lede Image Photoshopped

Not a regular wiki editor, just dropping by to point out that the infobox image currently used is photoshopped to add a Falcon 1 rocket for scale (visible in the bottom left, alongside a C-5 Galaxy from the image shopped in)

May want to change this to an unmodified image.

2604:3D08:337D:4200:4984:E8F3:6BC9:3C44 (talk) 23:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, 2604:3D08:337D:4200:4984:E8F3:6BC9:3C44. That does seem to be the case. I'll remove it. N2e (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
This image is coming from reddit. The trees at the bottom are from the Falcon 1 image, too. This is not a SpaceX image. --mfb (talk) 02:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Kindly do not change the primary thrust unit

What we do here must be collectively useful for ever one to understand, Below are examples from CEO/CTO Elon himself, I hope you accept the primary unit accordingly.

Time and again Elon Musk posted unit of thrust in tonne-force (tf) rather than Newton.

Reason is, As you could take this below tweet as example,

With 1.5 Thrust/Weight ratio, you need like 150 tf of thrust to lift 100 t rocket, Just simple as that.

Even simpler example is 1N = 100 gram of force which not practical unit, thats why kgF & tF are used by Elon.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1300700639786340353 Chandraprakash (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

As noted on the identical discussion on the Falcon 9 talk page, SpaceX itself uses kN, not tonnes force. And we only rely on tweets when no other reliable sources are available. Fcrary (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Musk doesn't write Wikipedia's Manual of Style. ton-force is an obscure unit that shouldn't be used as primary unit in articles unless there is a really good reason for it. "Musk used it in a tweet" is not a reason. --mfb (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Weight-force units are convenient, which is why Musk probably uses them, but the equivalence is not as precisely 10:1 as Prakash above suggests. The convention in aerospace is to use metric force units, we should adhere to that. If the only source for something is a tweet in "ton force", we should use the {{convert}} template - as in something like 1,440,000 newtons (147 tonnes-force). Tarl N. (discuss) 04:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
My my, Musk doesn't write Wikipedia's manual of style,
But you are writing about his Rocket ;) Chandraprakash (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Also, Wikipedia's manual of style doesn't specifically say about not using t-f before N Chandraprakash (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
MOS:UNITS does call for using the SI unit before other units in scientific articles, which this would qualify as. Also, the infobox templates for rockets, rocket stages, etc., specifically call for thrust to be presented in kilonewtons. Carter (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Wow, Elon spoke what we exactly discussed here here two months back, kinda funny !!!
shorturl.at/fhkIJ Chandraprakash (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

After the usual fourteen days for discussion, I think it's clear that four editors out of five think kN is the appropriate unit. Putting "tonne-force" in parenthetically, with a conversion template would probably make sense. So I suggest changing the article to that. Except someone already has... But this involves a change to all, or almost all, articles regarding SpaceX launch vehicles. So I'm added a comment to that effect on the Spaceflight Project talk page. I'm also concerned that, in the back and forth editing, some of the numbers have become inaccurate. I.e. due to roundoff error when someone cuts and pastes while shifting the conversion template from one primary unit to another. So we probably need to recheck those numbers against the referenced source as well. Fcrary (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest that all source changes quote explicitly the units their source states. To maintain consistency for cases where the wrong units arrive from the source, the {{convert}} template should be used with order=flip. E.g., {{convert|147|tonne-force|N|order=flip|abbr=off}} produces 1,440,000 newtons (147 tonnes-force), where the source shows up second. This should make checking them painless. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Good point, But stick with {{Cvt}} template, abbr=on is standard across SI Units, so Cvt does that by default unlike Convert.
Eg: {{Cvt| 150 | t-f| MN| order=flip}} Chandraprakash (talk) 11:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Also we need to clean up some mess like using proper multipliers,
Eg: 5,000,000 kg to 5000 t
75,000,000 N to 75 MN
Else it becomes unreadable and serves no purpose. Chandraprakash (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
For now we could stick with thousands of tonnes,
Once future launch vehicle which would weight over 10,000 t, at that point we could probably move to 10 K t (kilo-tonne) etc Chandraprakash (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Article needs to be rewritten, reorganized, and possibly split

This article propagates the confusion that arose when SpaceX used the same name ("Starship") for both the system as a whole and the space vehicle. As a result, even the very first sentence in the lede is incorrect and misleading, and the reader cannot figure this out without reading the whole article. Even then, some things are missing or obscure, such as the design elements of the booster that are common with the vehicle. One way to solve this might be to split the article, possibly into three pieces:

  • SpaceX Starship (system)
  • SpaceX Starship (vehicle)
  • SpaceX Superheavy booster (I think we already have the start of this article.)

The existing article would serve as the basis of the system article. Proposed lede sentences:

The SpaceX Starship system consists of a superheavy booster, a family of vehicles, and a ground support infrastructure, all under development by SpaceX. When the booster is mated with a suitable vehicle as a second stage, the result is a fully reusable, two-stage-to-orbit super heavy-lift launch vehicle. Some members of the vehicle family can return to Earth for reuse, while others are intended to remain in space for other missions. Confusingly, the vehicles are also named "SpaceX Starship".

Thoughts? -Arch dude (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

It is complicated. Yes, Arch dude, this article is about the entire launch vehicle. And, you are correct that that names of the major vehicles and two-stage stack are confusing, especially since SpaceX has chosen to overload the term Starship. We, as Wikipedia editors definitely need a consistent, cross-article nomenclature for how we refer to the booster/"Super Heavy", and the second stage (also a spaceship)/"Starship", and the whole system for now, we've been mostly using "Starship system", but sometimes, confusingly, just "Starship". I very much support having this discussion.
It is a different topic--or at least I think it would be most productively discussed separately--having separate wiki articles for the ship and the booster. One reason is there was a messy and hard (and disheartening) smash together of separate articles which used to exist for the whole two-stage launch vehicle, and a different one for just the "Starship" second stage and spaceship. I was for retaining that; but in the end, the consensus went against my WP:!vote and the articles got remade into an article on the LV and another article on the super-detailed history of the development program. I really think that this should be discussed as a separate and different topic, 'cause it will go long and hard I suspect, and just getting names/descriptors for the three things would be a much easier first step. But, yeah, the second one is needed too. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
OK, I boldly changed the lede, because it very clearly did not reflect the subject of the article. I don't claim that my changes are "right", merely that I think the result is at least slightly less wrong than the prior version. Please revert if needed, or massively modify further, or comment here. -Arch dude (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

lunar cargo variant versus HLS

@C-randles: I think that these are technically two different things. SpaceX is participating in the Commercial Lunar Payload Services program to land cargos on moon. SpaceX is also now the (contested) contractor for the Starship HLS. two different contracts, two different missions, and probably two different variants, one crew-rated and one not. If we are going to glom then together as one variant, we should at least identify the two sub-variants and link to both articles. -Arch dude (talk) 01:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I believe it was :@Mfb: that merged them into one. I was also confused in my edits. If there are two different contracts then I think we should make that clear. One will have life support and the other may well not. Quite possibly different unloading methods as well. So 2 different variants does seem probable. However, if we don't have a RS ref for this such that it might just be deleted life support equip and otherwise similar, it may be better to group 'lunar landers' (Lunar‑surface‑to‑orbit transport: looks like transport from moon rather than to moon) into one section which makes clear there is one won but disputed contract and another potential contract? C-randles (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, concur. The Artemis HLS contract with SpaceX is an entirely different program than the (somewhat experimental) NASA program CLPS to try to attract private companies to bid services (without cost-plus contracts like old space gvmt contracting practices of the 1960s through, still today in some parts of US NASA contracts, including SLS and Orion). They are two very diff programs, whether or not the vehicles SpaceX may use for CLPS may have similarities to the one they design under HLS for NASA. N2e (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
After sleeping on it, I realized that we have no reason to believe that there is much in common at all between the variants, and making that assumption is a form of WP:SYNTH. I boldly changed back to treating the lunar cargo variant as a separate variant, even after a good effort by C-randles to try the sub-variant approach. Please check out my attempt and C-randles' attempt, and revert mine if the other is preferable. -Arch dude (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I think we can keep the current list (generic cargo, tanker, lunar uncrewed, lunar crewed, generic crew) for now, Earth return is possible for all variants apart from the two lunar ones. We'll learn more how to categorize things in the future. It's possible Starships going to Mars will add at least one more category. --mfb (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Agree. I'm speculate that there will be quite a few variants for space stations or parsd of space stations orbiting Earth, the Moon, Mars, and possible other planets, plus moonbase componemts, but we cannot add them until we have reliable sources. -Arch dude (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Standardized design and production?

SpaceX has standardized on stainless steel and a 9 m diameter design, as we note in the article. But this is really a much bigger deal, because it enabled them to standardize on an assembly approach and tooling. They build 9 m rings and then weld them together rather than building a bunch of different unique parts. There are also some unique parts, of course, and each ring is probably(?) a little different. In general I suspect a Starship (or booster, or storage tank) is a lot easier to build than a traditional space vehicle. However, I only see hints of this in the trade press, so I don't know how to add it to the article. Does anyone have a decent reference for me? -Arch dude (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, probably a bit late here, but I have just added manifacturing section for that. These information can be taken from either photogrpaphers, nasaspaceflight and a few news articles. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Payload to LEO?

We list the current guesstimates for payload mass to LEO (100 t - 150 t) for a fully reusable launch and the current guesstimate (250 t) for an expendable launch. But one of the things The launch system can do is place a Starship spacecraft into LEO that is never intended to return to Earth, to continue to be used in space. An example is Starship HLS. The dry mass of that spacecraft is about 120 t, and it can presumably launch with at least 100 t of cargo of its own, or more if the Super Heavy is expended. To be comparable other launch systems intended to put spacecraft into LEO, the Starship mass must be considered part of the payload in this case. Is this where the "250 t expended" came from? I know it's asking a lot, but is there a reference anywhere other than Elon's tweet? -Arch dude (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The 250 tonnes are still payload inside Starship. Generally payload doesn't contain the vehicle carrying it. See the Space Shuttle for comparison. The difference comes from not reserving landing fuel, skipping the heat shield and potentially some more changes. --mfb (talk) 05:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
When Starship is intended to return to Earth, it's not part of the payload: it's like the shuttle. When the intent of the launch is for the spacecraft to be used as a long-duration facility in LEO or beyond, then the spacecraft IS the payload. It's more like the components of the Gateway, or like Orion. Unless Elon's 250 t accounted for this, the press and/or space community will need to account for it and we will need to add it to the article when we have a reference. -Arch dude (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Your personal preference doesn't matter for the article. You'll have to convince the spaceflight industry to use your personal definition of payload first. --mfb (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Until a reliable source discusses this accounting discrepancy, we cannot mention it in our article. And by a "reliable source" I do not mean a blog post. -Arch dude (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Should the development history be deleted?

The develop history exists in here, and this section is very hard and long to navigate. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no opposition against this proposal. I will remove the "large" history section, and keep the smaller section. Changes can be reverted anyways. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the major improvements!

@CactiStaccingCrane: Thank you for your work. I did a tiny amount earlier and then gave up because the job was so big. Please continue your work. I intend to make a few minor tweaks to your work on the lede, but as with all Wikipedia edits, you should feel free to revert them if you disagree with them. In particular, the Starship system is not the booster+spacecraft stack. A fully-reusable 2-stage stack is one configuration of the system. A Starship HLS sitting on the lunar surface is another configuration of the system. A Starship HLS sitting on a booster is not fully reusable, etc. -Arch dude (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! I will rewrite and add these details as well, it is true that Starship is much more than just a booster+spacecraft. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

GA review

Extended content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:SpaceX Starship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 09:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. My name is Vami, and I will be your reviewer. During this review I may make small edits such as spelling corrections, but I will only suggest substantive content changes in comments here. For responding to my comments, please use  Done,  Fixed, plus Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or minus Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. As my comments are addressed or rebutted, I will cross them out, and only my comments.

If I have demonstrated incompetence or caused offense, please let me know. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 09:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead

  • referred to by SpaceX as Starbase, and also known as the Boca Chica launch site. I checked the Manual of Style to see if italicization like this is covered, and couldn't find it. Since these are names for a place rather than a book, I would therefore un-italicize them. This could also be condensed to "referred to by SpaceX as Starbase or the Boca Chica launch site."
 Done, SpaceX don't refer the launch site as "Boca Chica launch site", so I would clarify that it is other parties that named it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • During launch from Earth, "from Earth" is currently redundant, as Earth is presently the only thing we have to launch from.
 Done, no comment. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
I added that "from Earth" originally, because some spacecraft variants will also launch from the Moon and from Mars. This is fairly fundamental to the entire Starship concept. In particular, Starship HLS is already under development -Arch dude (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
@Arch dude: Ah, gotcha. It's a good thing this gets touched on in the article text. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • [...] the Starship spacecraft is a second stage of the system, Are there other second stages?
Starship functions a lot more than "just" being the second stage. For conventional rockets, their only function is to boost the payload. However, for Starship it would also stay in orbit (hence the word "spacecraft"), dock to other Starship, refuel, boost to other interplanetary locations, etc. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • The spacecraft after being refueled by one or more tanker Starships in orbit [...] Change the order here; "After being refueled [...]".
 Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Development history

  • [...] with a possible payload of 150 tonnes (170 tons) [...] add |link=on here; does the source use American tons or Metric tons?
 Doing..., finding sources. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)  Done, removed the source and the payload capabilities. It is not verifiable. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • The BFR has been referred to formally as the "Big Falcon Rocket", and informally by the media and internally at SpaceX as the "Big Fucking Rocket."[24][25] The second stage and spacecraft were referred to as the "Big Falcon Ship" or "Big Fucking Ship" and the booster as "Big Falcon Booster" or "Big Fucking Booster."[26][27] This can and should be reduced a bit; this joke is best told once. I suggest "The BFR has been referred to formally as the "Big Falcon Rocket", and informally by the media and internally at SpaceX as the "Big Fucking Rocket."[24][25] Similar names were given to the second stage craft and the booster."
 Done, changed to The second stage and spacecraft were referred to as the "Big Falcon Ship" and the booster as "Big Falcon Booster," with similar informal names given to them. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • In January 2019, Musk announced that the Starship's structure and tank would not be constructed out of carbon fiber and that stainless steel would be used instead, while the strength‑to‑mass ratio should be comparable to or better than the earlier SpaceX design alternative of carbon fiber composites, from the low temperatures of cryogenic propellants to the high temperatures of atmospheric reentry. Can this be broken up?
 Done, changed to In January 2019, Musk announced that the Starship's structure and tank would not be constructed out of carbon fiber and that stainless steel would be used instead. The strength‑to‑mass ratio of the new design should be comparable to or better than the earlier SpaceX design alternative of carbon fiber composites, from the low temperatures of cryogenic propellants to the high temperatures of atmospheric reentry. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • In October 2019, SpaceX changed the Starship spacecraft design back to using just six Raptor engines, [...] This is the first mention of the Starship's engines.
 Doing..., adding engines configurations for past designs.  Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • During that time, the spacecraft fins' design was changed to the current design, with a pair of aft fins at the bottom and forward fins at the top. Should be "the spacecraft's fins", if I'm reading this right. I also recommend changing out one of these "design"s with a synonym (configuration?), for variety.
 Done, changed from second design word to form. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • [...] the SpaceX South Texas launch site, referred by SpaceX as Starbase,[41] and also known as the Boca Chica launch site.[42] Ah. Referring to my comment in the lead, these names shouldn't be italicized. The "and" there should be removed.
 Done, no comment. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • The last paragraph of this section has a promotional tone.
 Doing..., currently rephrasing the paragraph. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)  Done, rephrased to SpaceX's iterative design philosophy is evident in the Starship development and testing program, as SpaceX is willing to regularly test prototypes to destruction, counting the data gathered as a successful part of the overall process, as well as an allowance for failures and fast cadence of prototype construction.
  • What's gimbal? Is there a link that can be made there?
Here's the link, source [14]. Gimbal in spaceflight basically means that the nozzle can turn. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
I meant a link to a Wikipedia article. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 Done, my mistake. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Starship spacecraft

  • The comparison to the Airbus is unnecessary.
 Done, removed CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • [...] form sections of from two to four rings. Nix "from".
 Done, removed CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • In the future, SpaceX would use its proprietary stainless steel alloy named 30X. Would you consider "In the future, SpaceX [will use / has stated its desire to use] a proprietary stainless steel alloy, 30X."?
 Done, rephrased CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • These COPVs Starship spacecraft autogenous pressurize the tanks [...] I can't parse out what this part is saying.
 Done, rephrased CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
    • and a "thrust dome" containing slosh baffles made up the bottom of a main liquid oxygen tank. Same here.
 Done, removed CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
    • The following four rings are informally known as the "mid liquid oxygen section" because they are the wall in the middle of that tank. Same here.
 Done, removed the name and shorten it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
    • the spacecraft being refueled rendezvous many tankers. Here too.
 Done, rephrased CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • [...] storing very high-pressure gas made from engines [...] made by the engines?
 Done, fixed CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • [...] alongside antennas, avionics system, batteries, etc. Should be "an/the avionics system"; I didn't make an edit here because I don't know how many a Starship might have.
 Done, changed avionic system to flight computer CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • Starship is announced to eventually be built in several operational variants. Consider: "SpaceX has announced that Starship will eventually [...]".
 Done, applied the change. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Super Heavy booster

  • Super Heavy uses the same stainless steel rings for the bulk of the construction as Starship spacecraft. Consider: "Super Heavy uses the same stainless steel rings for its construction as the Starship spacecraft."
 Done, no comment CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • The four-ring sections on top have each of the sections are four rings tall, which serve only for the wall for the liquid oxygen tank. Needs a reword.
 Done, rewrite to On top of the bottom rings are the four four-ring sections which serve as the liquid oxygen tank wall.

Launch tower

  • The launch tower also contains fuel, communication, [...] Communication equipment?
 Done, seperate the components names to The launch tower also contains fuel pipes, data cable, and power lines in the quick disconnect arm, [...]

Finance

  • In January 2016, the United States Air Force contracted with SpaceX [...] Do you mean "signed a contract with SpaceX"?
 Done, I am too dumb CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • By late 2019, SpaceX projected that, with company private investment funding, including contractual funds from Yusaku Maezawa who had contracted for a private lunar mission called dearMoon project, they had sufficient funds to advance the Earth‑orbit and lunar‑orbit extent of Starship flight operations, although they could choose to raise additional funds in order "to go to the Moon or landing on Mars." Can this be broken up?
 Doing..., wait a sec... CactiStaccingCrane (talk)  Done, change to In September 14, 2018, Yusaku Maezawa contracted SpaceX for a nine-crew private circumlunar lunar mission called the dearMoon project, in which Yusaku would give the remaining 8 seats to anyone around the world. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Criticism

  • [...] leading "environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club, the Friends of Wildlife Corridor, and concerned citizens" to argue that it damages the surrounding ecosystems. I don't think these quotation marks are necessary.
 Done, removed. Are you sure that it is not a quotation though? CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
Well, yes, it is, but a quote isn't needed there. There's no view being expressed there; it's just a plain statement of fact. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

GA progress

  • Pictures are all relevant and freely useable.
  • Article is stable.
  • Article is mostly clean, copyright-wise. There are these instances of close paraphrasing, though:
    • Source: Used to check for leaks, verify basic vehicle valve and plumbing performance, and ensure a basic level of structural integrity,
    • This article: [...] checks for leaks and verifies basic vehicle valve and plumbing performance, and ensures a basic level of structural integrity.
      • Suggested: "[...] checks for leaks and verifies basic plumbing performance and a basic level of structural integrity." –♠Vami_IV†♠ 09:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 Done, added the suggestion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
    • Source (ibid): While used similarly to verify structural integrity like an ambient pressure test, a ‘cryo proof’ adds the challenge of thermal stresses to ensure that Starship can safely load, hold, and offload supercool liquids.
    • This article: This also tests structural integrity but adds the challenge of thermal stresses to ensure that Starship can safely load, hold and offload supercool liquids.
      • Suggested: "This also tests whether the Starship can safely load, transport, and unload supercool liquids." –♠Vami_IV†♠ 09:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 Done, added the suggestion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

@User:Vami IV CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Article is now clean of any copyright concerns.

I am now pleased to pass this GAN. Congratulations, User:CactiStaccingCrane. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

(
)
Tile inspection on Starship
Tile inspection on Starship
  • ... that the flaps of SpaceX's Starship spacecraft do not generate lift but instead induce drag to control the spacecraft's descent? Source: "The vehicle therefore uses four steel landing flaps, positioned near the front and rear of the vehicle, to control its descent. This is much like a skydiver uses their arms and legs to control a free-fall. 'It's quite different from anything else ... we're doing a controlled fall,' Elon Musk said during a Starship update in 2019. 'You're trying to create drag rather than lift - it's really the opposite of an aircraft.'" [2]
    • ALT1:... that the design of launch towers' arms allows them to "catch" and recover (retrieve?) the Super Heavy booster of SpaceX's Starship system? Source 1: "[...] SpaceX’s first custom-built ‘launch tower’ is a sort of backbone or anchor point for several massive, mechanical arms that will accomplish the actual tasks of servicing – and, perhaps, catching – Starships and Super Heavy boosters." [3] Source 2: "One month after SpaceX stacked Starship’s South Texas ‘launch tower’ to its full height, the company has installed the first arm on what amounts to the backbone of 'Mechazilla.'" [4]
    • ALT2: ... that SpaceX's Starship rocket has twice the lift capacity of the Saturn V? If Starship then launched as an expendable, payload would be ~250 tons. What isn’t obvious from this chart is that Starship/Super Heavy is much denser than Saturn V. [5]

Improved to Good Article status by CactiStaccingCrane (talk). Self-nominated at 07:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC).

  • The hooks look interesting enough, though I will suggest slight paraphrasing for each.
    • ALT3: ... that the flaps of SpaceX's Starship spacecraft do not generate lift but instead induce drag to control the spacecraft's descent
    • ALT1b: ... that the design of launch towers' arms allows them to "catch" and recover (retrieve?) the Super Heavy booster of SpaceX's Starship system? 
No problems for ATL2.
Rectify these. Will leave to the promoters to decide which of the hooks are better.--ZKang123 (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Alt1 is a completely new design that has never been tested in any way and that is likely to change a lot in the future based on test results. I would avoid that for now. --mfb (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@ZKang123: I like that you suggested alts! I'm not seeing that a full review has been done, so I couldn't promote just yet. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Apologies. Was busy and missed out this review. Looks good to go I guess. --ZKang123 (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
@ZKang123: to be clear, the article is new enough, long enough, plagiarism free, etc.? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
It has just recently attainer GA when it was nominated at the time, so its passable.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • ZKang123, nominations for DYK have to meet a certain number of requirements before approval, and while you might have checked, I can't see that that's been verified in the nom page. You might want to reference the reviewing guide in taking a full review. Let me know when you've finished that (i also find it helpful to use the reviewer's template), and sorry for the holdup! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
a full review is needed for this nomination, unfortunately. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  • The ALTs seem a little in the weeds to me. The topic is naturally interesting because it's in the news, so I'd consider going with something simpler, like:
    ALT4 ... that SpaceX's reusable Starship launch vehicle has twice the thrust as the Apollo Program's Saturn V?
    ALT5 ...that SpaceX's reusable Starship launch vehicle will carry more than 10 million pounds (4.5 kt) of propellant?
Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
this might have gotten moved back for some reason theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Article is plenty long enough, was nominated within 7 days of promotion, is well cited and is neutral, lending due weight to the perspectives surrounding the spacecraft's environmental impact and safety. Fixed minor instance of close paraphrasing. @CactiStaccingCrane: The majority of the prose for "Criticism and controversies" section is duplicated from earlier sections in the article. This isn't a plagiarism concern AFAIK because it's within the same article, but it's a bit tacky and might cause the article to become inconsistent in case one section is updated without the other in turn. I recommend paring the specific critiques in each section down to a sentence or two and link to the "Criticism ..." section with {{Section link}}; for example: Some residents of Boca Chica Village, Brownsville, and environmental activists criticized the Starship development program for several reasons (see § Criticism and controversies for more details). If this is dealt with I approve of ALT4. DigitalIceAge (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Am fixing it right now. @DigitalIceAge: Done. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@CactiStaccingCrane: Looks good now, thanks! One more thing: I just realized the "twice that of a Saturn V rocket" bit isn't cited in the article. For the hook to be approved the corresponding sentence in the article has to have a citation at the end of it. I could add a citation to Elon's tweet linked above, but I think a secondary source would be more verifiable. Here's Astronomy magazine, the BBC, Business Insider, and The Conversation stating the same thing, if you wanna take a pick. DigitalIceAge (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@DigitalIceAge: I think that the BBC one is a bit more reliable than the bunch. I will add the source now :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, ALT4 should be good to go now! DigitalIceAge (talk) 06:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
ALT4 to T:DYK/P4

The system as a whole is NOT a two-stage rocket. The system as a whole is a lot more than that.

This article is not exclusively, or even mostly, about a two-stage rocket. It is incorrect to say that the system IS a two-stage rocket. It is closer to say that the Starship IS a spacecraft that uses a booster when it is launched from Earth. Instead, I modified the lede to say that booster+spacecraft form a two-stage rocket. Please discuss. -Arch dude (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

We go by reliable sources, not your personal preference. But I don't see the difference you want to make anyway. If something forms a two-stage rocket when assembled, isn't it a two-stage rocket? Sources generally call it a two-stage rocket: 1, 2, 3, ... --mfb (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, a booster with a spacecraft on top is a tow-stage rocket. But not all Starships are two-stage rockets. a Starship that has landed on Mars is not a tow-stage rocket, but is is still part of the "SpaceX Starship system". I did not change the lede to my personal preference (i.e., The spacecraft is the Starship). I simply replaced a counterfactual statement with a factual statement. -Arch dude (talk) 01:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Take a look at the headline of your first ref: "SpaceX stacks Starship atop massive booster for 1st time to make the world's tallest rocket". This is almost exactly what I said. They do not say "Starship is a two-stage rocket." -Arch dude (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

You seem to think that "Starship system" refers to the future array of ships and boosters, and supporting infrastructure. While I personally agree, and think that it would be more prudent to refer to the full stack as the "Starship rocket", this article very clearly means said stack by "Starship system". In other words, the Starship system is a two-stage rocket, as used on Wikipedia.

If you want to start a discussion about refactoring the article in those terms, that's a perfectly reasonable discussion to be had. That being said, it's important not to charge into these things thinking that yours is the only interpretation of an ill-defined term, as you seem to have. [[User:Sin]larities421]] (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I think two stage rocket is just short for 'two stage to orbit rocket'. While starship may operate as single stage for Earth to Earth rapid transport, it won't reach orbit and it is therefore ok to call it a two stage system. All rockets need "and various ground-based support infrastructure" so I think that is unnecessary in the first sentence. Yes Elon has talked of GSE as stage 0 but just because Elon has said something doesn't make it the standard of how stages are referred to. C-randles (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
The problem seems to me to be that SpaceX has overloaded the term "Starship": they use "Starship" BOTH for referring to the second-stage of the two-stage rocket that will launch from Earth AND they also use the term "Starship" to describe the entire two-stage-to-orbit stack. Both uses are a "rocket". When Starship (the second stage) takes off from the Moon, or Mars, it will be a rocket, but of course just a single-state-to-orbit rocket. Both uses are quite commonly used in a wide variety of media sources, and so we do have in Wikipedia quite a number of sources that use Starship both ways. As editors writing Wikipedia for a global readership, we still have to try to explain things in clear language, and not have articles be internally inconsistent on what the terms mean. SpaceX also use "Starship system" to describe the entire two-stage rocket, in a number of sources, and media articles have picked up on this usage as well.
Perhaps that was what Arch dude was attempting to bring up in the initial comment. Either way, its a bit of a mess and requires hard work by editors to make the prose clear. N2e (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
I have abandoned the effort to restructure within this article. Until a consensus arises, I'll restrict myself to updating details. If THIS article must be about the two-stage rocket, then I feel we need a different article about the entire Starship "program" or whatever you call it since you have preempted the use of the word "system", and we need another article about the Starship spacecraft and its variants. But someone other than me will have to do it. -Arch dude (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Starship Payload to LEO

Musk has said multiple times that the reusable payload will be 100-150 tons, not below 100. He has also said that Starship would be able to transport up to 250 tons in an expendable configuration. Recarion (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Yup, but the official source said otherwise (no expendable, 100+ ton reusable). I mean, relying on Elon's twitter for source is not the best idea, and many of the stats are calculated based on assuptions on the Raptor engines. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

You're right, my bad. However I do think it is reasonable to assume that the reusable payload is closer to 150 tons, and that the expendable payload will be 200+ tons(as the HLS Variant is likely to transport close to 200 tons from the Moon's orbit to the Lunar surface). However, until the rocket is fully functioning we can never truly know. Recarion (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Expert needed

Hello, this article need to be fact-checked by an "expert", more specfically, a person with reasonable knowledge at the topic. That could be a Starship enthusiast or even working in SpaceX. Some of the numbers are highly contested, such as LEO capacity, volume, etc. Please discuss these topics under this section. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's possible. Given the way SpaceX is developing this vehicle (through significant and frequent changes to the design, based on testing), I don't think they have a solid, final design. Everything they've said about its payload mass, fairing volume, etc. basically goals or targets. That gives a wide range and we (and SpaceX) have no way of knowing where in that range the eventual numbers will end up. It might be better to say that clearly in the article than try to hunt down the non-existent, "correct" numbers. Fcrary (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Fair, let's just use number in SpaceX webpage. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Fcrary has it exactly right. SpaceX uses an iterative design approach where, at any given time in the development process for the Starship system, the numbers are from high-level design and somewhat rough, and will only be dialed in (iterated in) as various parts of the design settle over a number of years. This is well illustrated by the various concept-design numbers that have been given for the number of engines (on either the ship or the booster), or for the number and use of aerosurfaces on the ship & booster, etc. N2e (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Peer review

This review is transcluded from Wikipedia:Peer review/SpaceX Starship/archive1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Extended content

SpaceX Starship

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

Hello, I want to have SpaceX Starship to be peer reviewed, because I am not sure how the article can be further improved. I have nominated the article to good article successfully and featured article unsuccessfully. The article has drastically changed, so these comments are irrelevant to the current version. Please, if you know how the article can be improved, tell me right now, and I will reply as soon as possible. If the peer review is comprehensive, I might nominate SpaceX Starship for featured article again.

@Osunpokeh: one of the main contributors; @StarshipSLS: WikiProject's coordinator; @CRS-20: an active SpaceX related contributor for peer review CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by User:FormalDude:

Lead section:
  • First sentence: change 'comprising a' → 'comprised of'
  • Second sentence: add oxford comma after 'heaviest'
History section:
  • Needs photos.
  • I wonder if a third "Present day" section should be created and some of the content moved there.
Description section:
  • Second sentence of first parargraph: 'Whilst' is british-speak, change to 'while'.
Starship subsection:
  • Third sentence of first paragraph: The first two commas are unnecessary. Change 'which' → 'that'.
  • Last sentence of first paragraph: add a comma after 'pressure' and before 'and' .
  • Second sentence of second paragraph: Reverse structure in order to avoid passive voice.
  • Fifth sentence of second paragraph: change to present tense. 'tiles that made up' → 'titles that make up'
  • Final sentence of second paragraph: the semicolon should be a comma.
Planned variants subsection:
  • The second sentence should be split into two sentences at the first comma.
  • I think the word 'most' in the third sentence is redundant.
  • Paragraph two: 'which SpaceX terms "Earth‑to‑Earth"' should be in parenthesis rather than em dashes.
Super Heavy subsection:
  • First sentence: 'Super Heavy' does not need em dashes or any punctuation surrounding it.
  • "Above sits the liquid oxygen and liquid methane propellant tank" is not a complete sentence, add that it is above the booster stage or combine with previous sentence.
  • Combine sentence four and five into one sentence: 'used to attach the upper-stage / and is equipped with'.

Here's my initial feedback, I'll add more as I get the chance. ––FormalDude talk 04:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Done, in Plaid speed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by User:Firefangledfeathers

Working from the bottom up:

Public response
  • The first sentence likely only needs one source.
  • Most uses of "Boca Chica" should replaced with "South Texas launch site" for consistency with the rest of the article, or vice versa.
  • Anything in the FAA report relevant to Starship should be summarized.
Operation
  • Prototype testing is undersourced. The space.com source mentions, but does not detail, just the static fire test. If the rest is not mentioned in RS, it likely doesn't need to be included.
  • "The Starship crewed Mars variant is ..." sentence could use some qualification. "is planned as..."? "is envisioned as..."?

Done for now. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedbacks! I added all of them to the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: A couple more from me in the Description section. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  • "The bottom of the booster houses up to 33" raptors but the source says 32.
The newer source [65] said 33. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
Looks like 66, but point taken! Good to go here. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  • "The inside of the skirt mounted composite overwrapped pressure vessels, which store gas to spin the engines' turbopumps." This sentence needs a copy edit but I lack a technical understanding of what it's trying to describe.
The composite overwrapped pressure vessels store gas to spin turbopumps. I had copyedited the sentence. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
Was the detail on the mounting location important? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion, very. I have added the position, which is inside of the section. You can see them as black tanks here: [6] CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
I mean the specific detail of their being mounted on the skirt, present in a prior version. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Not really then. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Comments by Akbermamps

From taking a quick look at the references section, the citation style used is a little inconsistent.

  • FN1 & 2, despite being from the same news source, use cite web and cite news. Cite news is usually used for this, so change that wherever appropriate in the article. CNBC is also listed as a publisher in FN2, which usually isn't used; either the website or the work parameters will be fine for where the publisher parameter is inappropriate.
  • FN6 & 9 are also from the same source, but Space.com is linked in FN6 and not linked in FN9. To remain consistent, either the website/publisher is linked or isn't linked. This also occurs with many other sources in the article.
  • FN30 isn't a dead link.
  • FN38 seems to be the only place where TechCrunch isn't capitalized in the article. It also doesn't use the "last name, first name" style for authors unlike the rest of the article.
  • FN49 & 50 doesn't use the "last name, first name" style for authors; the "April 2021" at the beginning of the references is unnecessary.
  • FN71 doesn't use the "last name, first name" style for authors.
  • FN72 is the only place where "NASASpaceFlight.com" doesn't have ".com" at the end.
  • FN95 isn't a dead link.
  • FN115 doesn't use the "last name, first name" style for authors.
  • FN120 doesn't need the "CNN" and the "CNN Business Photographs by Tamir Kalifa for." at the beginning; those can be seen later in the ref and in the news article itself. "Jackie Wattles" should also use the "last name, first name" format.

The captions in the gallery also have some minor issues.

  • "Top section of Mk1 Starship" should be changed to "Top section of Starship Mk1" since that's the naming convention used in the article and in sources.
  • "Starship SN7 repurposed as a test tank" should be changed to "Test tank SN7" since I remember SN7 only being reserved for test tanks and never being intended to be a full Starship. Elon Musk also doesn't mention SN7 being repurposed. "Prototype SN7 was never completed, but its tank was used for various tests." is mentioned earlier in the article, but the source did not mention SN7 being originally intended as a full Starship or its tank being repurposed.
  • "Starship SN5 is lifting" should be changed to "Starship SN5 being lifted"
  • "A steel dome belongs to a Starship prototype" should be changed to "A steel dome belonging to a Starship prototype"

That's all for now, but I do intend to try and check the rest of the article. Akbermamps 01:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! Fixing the ref rn CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
@Akbermamps: I addressed to all of your comments. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Starship SN20

  • The infobox needs some references
  • The lead section should also have more than 1 refernce
  • The timeline is not needed/in the right place
  • Very little to none about the ITS(Interplanetary Transportation System)
  • Refs 112 and 113 (and others) do not support support the the statement before them.
  • Too many categories

@CactiStaccingCrane: Starship SN20 (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Am addressing them rn CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from DanCherek

Reviewing this version.

  • "SpaceX has also used" → "SpaceX also used"
  • Two MOS:LQ fixes needed in Note [a]
  • Can de-link United States in infobox (major country that readers will likely be familiar with)
  • "Starship is capable of launching" → is or will be?
  • "latter" generally means "the second of two", so I would replace "latter three" with "last three"
  • "launch pad would be used" → "launch pad will be used"
  • wikilink Raptor in first paragraph of lead
  • wikilink to liquid oxygen rather than oxygen in first paragraph of lead
  • "by any prototypes" → "by any prototype"
  • It's strange to mention BFR at the start of the Design process section and then not define the acronym until the end of the second paragraph
    • The BFR in 2006 is very different than the BFR in 2018. Elon mentioned the 2006's BFR as-is, without the full name of the vehicle.
  • "have flew to residential" → "have flown to residential"
  • Testing campaign — re-introduce the Boca Chica site being the same as the South Texas launch site
  • "loading then unloading" → "loading, then unloading,"
  • You don't need to wikilink "broke ground"
  • Is the groundbreaking date of the Boca Chica site relevant to Starship?
    •  Done Probably not very significant, although the launch site is designed for Starship. In my opinion, it should be kept. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "hop to an altitude" → "hopped to an altitude"
  • "cryogenic test; Mk2" → "cryogenic test and Mk2"
  • If this is a generally American topic, I would recommend switching to MDY (and keep MOS:DATECOMMA in mind)
    • Fair, although I prefer DMY. Switching. Switched back to DMY. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
    • The article has been in dmy format since it first became an article (from a redirect) in March 2019. Per MOS:DATEFORMAT, it should stay in that format unless some strong reason to change it, and that consensus should be reached on the Talk page. I just checked the Talk page, and Talk archives, and no discussion where this should be changed has ever been proposed. N2e (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
  • "test on February 28" which year is this referring to?
  • "crumbled SN1" → "caused SN1 to crumble"
  • "header tank does not provide" → "header tank did not provide"
  • "explode at impact" → "explode on impact"
  • The "SN9 is built similar to SN8" sentence makes it sound like SN8 flew on 2 February but you're referring to SN9, right?
  • "On March 30, Starship" — need a space between this and the preceding ref
  • Why did they skip over SN12–14?
  • "it would never fly" → "it never flew"
    • I rephrased to This booster prototype though had never flew or hopped, and it was retired on August 2021. since BN3 had already been retired CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "hasn't" → "has not" per MOS:CONTRACTION
  • I would replace all instances of "would" with "is expected to" or a similar phrase in the paragraph starting with "On July 20..." if those things haven't happened yet
  • "Many residents of Boca Chica Village, Brownsville" I think this paragraph was previously its own section and you've merged it? It sticks out because it's not like the other paragraphs in the Development section and isn't really about development. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
    • I want to integrate it to the article. I moved it to a brand-new Starship development sub-section under Operation section. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "SpaceX is said to have harmed" — attribute, i.e. make it clear who said what
  • The reception paragraph could use expansion in general — what is the validity of the critics' claims? What were SpaceX's responses?
    • Thanks for pointing out this! I will expand it asap. @DanCherek:  Done I have strong opinions about this section, and may introduce bias. I want someone else to do this section instead. I have added some info with diligent care. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • Timeline is nice
  • You don't need to wikilink "Sun"
  • In general be careful with how you are describing capabilities of a system that is still in development and hasn't undergone certain tests of whether it can actually do those things. I'd say this is one of my major issues with the article.
    • I agree. I don't really have an article to based on, and this is my first time aiming for , so I might get things wrong sometimes. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "Workers inspection of Starship" → "Workers inspecting Starship"
  • "skirt also house" → "skirt also houses"
  • "rocket engine, measures" → "rocket engine and measures"
  • "liquid oxygen which create" → "liquid oxygen which creates"
  • "door would be closed" → "door will be closed"
  • "payload bay would house cabins" → "payload bay will house cabins"
  • "would dissipate" → "will dissipate"
  • In general, check your usage of "would" throughout the article, many instances of these are better replaced with another word. There are many more that I'm not pointing out here
  • "as well as caught" → "as well as to catch"
  • "These offshore platforms were named" — this sentence makes it sound like the moons of Mars, not the launch sites, were previously Valaris drilling rigs
    • Paraphrasing. This is a bit tricky. paraphrased to These offshore platforms were former oil drilling rigs owned by Valaris, and named Phobos and Deimos after the moons of Mars. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "rendezvous it in Earth orbit" — this verb is not in the correct tense
  • "a US$2.89 billion contract" — you didn't specify the currency with previous figures, what's different about this?
    • Changed the first figure to use US$, and later to $. All of them are American dollars CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "along with begin assessing" → "and began assessing"
  • Refs 88 and 93 has a cite error

I hope these are helpful. I also have a peer review open here for an article I'm working on, and any comments would be appreciated if you have the time; no worries if not. DanCherek (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@DanCherek: Thank you so, so, so much!!! Thank you for spending the time reviewing! I will definitely look at your peer review as well. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
All fixed now, except a few which is in progress. About the dmy thing, I would use mdy in text and dmy in source. Also, thanks once again for your extremely helpful comments, I would review your article tomorrow if I have time. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
@N2e: We are discussing using mdy or dmy here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I've added a comment inline where the reviewer's personal preference was initially expressed. N2e (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
That was just an off-the-cuff comment from me without having checked the talk page or anything else I will defer to those more familiar with the topic area. DanCherek (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks CactiStaccingCrane, and DanCherek for invite and comments on date format. I think we've got that in okay shape now.

But I have a meta-question. I just stumbled into this peer review and recent WP:GA push on the article, when I fixed the dmy thing on the article this morning. Did not even know peer review / GA push was underway. Is this still a live review? This page is titled "archive". N2e (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@N2e: Yep, still live; the "archive" title is standard and is just for organizational purposes (closed peer reviews will be marked with {{Closed peer review page}}). The purpose of this is just to seek comments from other editors to improve the article further after this version was promoted as a GA on 14 September. DanCherek (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Featured articles also use a similar naming scheme for candidate reviews, for example see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/This Dust Was Once the Man/archive1 which is 'archive' but is currently an open nomination. Zetana (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, appreciate it. I now see that the article already has been promoted to GA, and this page is about potential WP:Featured article status. I have concerns about that... at least with some seemingly major thing.
I will try to get back here (or whereever I should do it, if not here) and articulate that sometime this weekend. N2e (talk) 01:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for coming here! I remember that you are a main contributor of the article as well. I really want to have comments of any kind on the article, so I don't really mind if it is a bit harsh. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from RealKnockout

I will be reviewing this version for prose and other miscellaneous issues. Please let me know if you think any of my suggestions are incorrect. Thanks!

Lead

  • "consisting of a first-stage named Super Heavy and a second-stage named Starship" --> I don't think there is a hyphen in first stage and second stage. Also, perhaps add "rocket" or "booster" or whatever applies after "first stage" and "second stage".
Removed hyphen, but don't switch it to rocket and booster. It must be precise. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "The launch vehicle can produce 72 meganewtons (MN) or 17,000,000 pound-force (lbf) at lift-off, which would make it the world's most powerful rocket once operational." Instead of "at lift-off" you should probably say "during lift-off". Also I think the hyphen should go away from here too. Also, while "would" is not wrong, I don't really enjoy its usage throughout the article. Try to find synonyms which allow the sentences to flow better.
Changed to during lift off. Lift-off is wrong. I have tried to remove "would", but it is much harder than I expected. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "Starship is designed to launch 100 metric tons (220,000 lb) to low Earth orbit. If tanker Starships transferred propellant to the main spacecraft, the same amount of payload would be able to go to higher Earth orbits, the Moon, or Mars." I would like it if these 2 sentences were joined, as they talk about the same thing. Here is a suggestion on how they can be join (this is just an example, the best way to join them is up to you):

"Starship is designed to be able to launch 100 metric tons (220,000 lb) to low Earth orbit, and if it is refueled with propellant via tanker Starships, it will be capable of launching that payload to higher Earth orbits, the Moon, and even Mars."

Thanks a lot! Added. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • Referring to that sentence and to the article, I have this suggestion. Low Earth orbit is often referred to as LEO (from my basic space knowledge), so perhaps in the sentence discussed in the previous bullet, replace "low Earth orbit" with "low Earth orbit (LEO)" and then replace all instances of "low Earth orbit" with "LEO".
I tried to avoid using acronyms whenever I can, since not everyone is a space nerd. "LEO" and "low Earth orbit" meant the same thing, so the second term is more preferable. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "Starship might launch from a non-traditional launch pad". If this is a confirmed detail, replace it with "will" or something. If it is not confirmed but especially likely, use something like "will probably launch". If this is not confirmed or especially unlikely, the usage of might is fine.
Confirmed. Changed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "test article" This word is used throughout the article. While it is not wrong, I believe it would sound better if you used "test rocket" or "test booster" or "test spacecraft" rather than this work.
"Test article" is a defacto term in spaceflight. "Test ___" sounds a lot weirder. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "After changes to the vehicle's design" It would be nice if the changes were specified, i.e. After changes to the material and fuel of the vehicle". Something like that.
Being more specfic. Done. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  •  "performed the first successful hop". I think "hop" should be surrounded with quotations, as that would.... I don't really know how to explain it, but I think that will look better.
 In progress Need more concensus. This is one of the highly debated topic, whether hop is an official term or not. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "SN15 on 5 May 2021 became the first test article". Shouldn't the date come first? "On 5 May 2021, SN15 became the first test article".
Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • While we are on the topic of dates, I have a suggestion. Since this article should be written in American English, would it not be better to give dates with the month before the date, like is popularly done in the U.S.? An example would be January 1, 2021. The dd mm yy format (5 May 2021) might confuse American readers, or at the very least obscure clarity and ease of reading. Therefore, I suggest that date formats be changed to mm dd yy format.
Has been bought up in this peer review. The concensus is keep the DD mmm YYYY format. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "...SN20 and booster BN4 are planned for Starship's first orbital flight." I think that "to be used" or "will be used" should be added after the word "planned".
Done. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "Starship is projected to be used in upcoming and envisioned space missions" I think the word "expected" is a better pick rather than "projected"
"expected" sounds a bit iffy. Switched to "planned".

I will be expanding this list once all issues related to the lead are resolved. RealKnockout (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Am fixing right now @RealKnockout: Finished! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Reviewing this version, reviewing for prose, and reviewing the Super Heavy and Starship subsection.
Super Heavy and Starship subsection
  • "Starship's body are made from welded 9 m (30 ft) diameter rings." This is a pretty obvious grammar mistake, Starship's body is made from rings, not are made from rings.
 Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "...composed from SAE 304L stainless steel." Shouldn't it be composed of?
 Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "The Starship launch system consists of two stages: Super Heavy booster and Starship spacecraft." I think this should be a Super Heavy booster and the (or a) Starship spacecraft.
 Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "Both stages are equipped with complex full-flow staged combustion cycle Raptors engines" Raptors engines? This is a double plural and incorrect. Either make "engines" singular or remove the word "engines" entirely.
 Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "The Raptor engine works, firstly, liquid methane and oxygen flow into turbopumps." Totally incorrect. Rephrase it somehow.
 Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "The liquid are then pressurized" Either change "liquid" to "liquids" or replace "are" with "is".
 Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "and get mixed and heated" Remove get.
 Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "The high pressure and temperature cause the liquids to evaporate" Replace "cause" with "causes", I'm semi-sure on this one.
 Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "The hot methane and oxygen gas are then combusted at the combustion chamber." Replace "are" with "is".
 Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "This causes the resultant gas to move fast and the engine nozzle redirect it to produce the maximum amount of thrust." Rephrase like this:
    • "This causes the resulting gas to move rapidly and the engine nozzle to redirect it to produce the maximum amount of thrust:"
 Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "that produce 72 MN (16,000,000 lbf) of thrust at liftoff." Didn't we go over this already? Not at liftoff, during liftoff.
 Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "Four grid fins, installed above the booster, are designed to control its descent and be caught by the launch tower's pair of mechanical arms." And be caught? This makes it sound like the grid fins are going to be caught which doesn't sound normal to me. Can you explain and/or rephrase?
The booster would be caught by its grid fins. Fixed.  Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • " are designed to control its descent" This would be a good time to remind everyone that you are talking about the Super Heavy booster (or the spacecraft). Replace "its" with whatever applies.
 Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "The booster is topped by a stage adapter for attaching the Starship spacecraft." "topped with" not "topped by".
 Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "propellant capacity of 1,200 metric tons (1,200 long tons)". What are long tons? Is it necessary to state that here since it is equal to the amount of metric tons?
Seems like there's an error at cvt template.  Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "On top of tanks, the payload section houses a liquid oxygen header tank and payload." I think it should be "on top of the tanks".
 Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "For Starship cargo, a large clamshell door replaces conventional payload fairings, which can capture, store, and return payload to Earth." Can you wikilink "clamshell door", I'm not sure what it means.
 Done, will explain it in the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "The door will close during launch, open to release payload once in orbit, then close during reentry." I think you should insert "again" after "then close".
 Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "Starship actuates two pairs of flaps install perpendicular to its body." What does actuate mean in this context? Try to replace it with a simpler word.
Basically the flap moves. Changed to "moves".  Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • " A pair of larger aft flaps sit at the bottom of Starship and a smaller pair of forward flaps is placed on the nose cone." Either replace "sit" with "sits" or replace "is" with "are".
 Done, changed to plural. Singular for "a pair" bad CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "Simulations from SpaceX showed that 99.9% of Starship's kinetic energy can dissipate on reentry to Earth, but the thinner Mars atmosphere can dissipate 99% of its kinetic energy." Replacing "dissipate on reentry to Earth" with "dissipate upon reentry to Earth" is a good idea. Also, consider adding "only" before "dissipate 99% of kinetic energy".
 Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
That's it for today. I found more mistakes here than a few days ago, what happened? Also, somebody added a couple of sections to the page. Review those since you're the expert on this. Thanks and bye. RealKnockout (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Quick comments by Sdkb

Looking at the gallery, I'm not sure if it's justified existing in a separate section. I would consider moving the two rows to existing sections, and be prepared to justify why they meet WP:GALLERY. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Also, I wonder why the development section is placed above the description section. Wouldn't it help the development section read more smoothly if you first explained what the thing is that's being developed? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Urve

Since I leaned oppose on sourcing my comments are mostly going to be focused on that. Version reviewed

  • As of October 2021, SN20 and BN4[a] are expected to become the first test article to reach near orbital speed -- article says SN20 will be close to orbital speed but not that it is the first; BN4 is not mentioned as being near this speed
 Done Switched to SN20 and BN4 are expected to become the first test article to go to orbit. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • The Raptor engine works, firstly, liquid methane and oxygen flow into turbopumps... --> The Raptor engine operates by flowing liquid methane and oxygen into its turbopumps, which are then pressurize, mixed, and heated in two preburners, with one receiving more methane and the other more oxygen. Then, [next steps]
 Done Thanks a lot for the paraphrasing! It's pretty hard to explain what full-flow staged combustion cycle is for me. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • hence the adjective "full-flow staged" and the noun "cycle" -- unnecessary elaboration; the reader can probably connect the dots here
 Done Removed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • This causes the resultant gas to move fast... --> The resultant gas quickly moves, and the engine nozzle redirects it to produce thrust (some unnecessary words).
 Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • I won't comment more on prose, since I'm not very good at it and I'm sure others will have more useful explanations for why something may need corrected. But I will say that it would be helpful as an exercise to take a look through the article and ask: Is this information providing any extra information, or can it be tightened? As a quick example, is there any information or words here that are not necessary in context?: The booster is topped by a stage adapter for attaching the Starship spacecraft. Click "edit" (not visual edit) of this page to see what I have in mind in the following hidden comment:
 In progress I am looking into redundant phrasing, thanks a lot for pointing it out! CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • The Huzel and Huang reference is malformed (the link at the end can be in the template I imagine), but either way, the link is not operational. It also does not, based on the date (1974), actually deal with Starship, but presumably with the general mechanisms of spacecraft design for launch. Which is useful, but the prose indicates that there is a specific method for Starship - and we are then citing things that don't concern themselves with Starship, so it does not feel appropriate.
 In progress Changed The Raptor engine operates by flowing ... to Generally, a kind of full-flow staged combustion cycle engine operates .... Finding alternative, reliable sources. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • The "Reuters" reference is malformed - Reuters is the agency for {{cite news}}, not an author. Also, you should cite Reuters themselves rather than the NY Post, which according to RSP is questionable in most circumstances.
 Done, has been fixed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • The Ross Andersen reference is inconsistent; instead of |author you use |last and |first elsewhere (so it should be |last=Andersen |first=Ross). Also the title is truncated ... but I'm not sure if the title is correct; the archive seems to suggest "Exodus" is the title.
 Done, the title is seemingly wrong though. Have to take a look. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • The above point makes me wonder... do we ever say when Starship as a name was first devised? If the Andersen article is from 2014 and the name was not devised, can it support the previous sentence?
 Done BFR has the same capability to low Earth orbit, not derived. Fixed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • Foust reference (92) is from 2005 - but that can't support the claim that the idea was similar to Starship, because that is a novel conclusion not represented in the source
 Done It is true. Fixed on above reply CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • Reference 59 has author Pablo De La Rosa listed here
 Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • Usual disclaimer that I did not read everything or attempt verification for most things; just what popped out to me in the references section, and some care will be needed to do some source-text integrity verification

I have a peer review open here if you'd like to take a look and found my comments here and at FAC helpful. Thanks, Urve (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

File:We bring you Mars (9848295393).jpg contains an image of a two-dimensional creative work, which the photographer did not create. They took the photograph, but they (probably?) don't have the rights to reproduce or license the underlying art. I don't think this is usable, then. Urve (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done Removed, switched to a free image. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

@Urve: Thanks a lot on your previous and this review! They really brought insights onto what the article is lacking, as well as possible improvements. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Reality check

Do you think that SpaceX Starship is suitable for FAC now? I honestly not sure if the article has been good enough yet, please soak me in cold ice water if it doesn't. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cocoa Beach site had undue weight.

Please see [7]. The cocoa site was testing manufacturing techniques, and the only two test articles were never completed, much less "rolled out". The only things from Cocoa that might have been reused at Boca Chica were two stands. If Cocoa is to be mentioned at all, it should be as part of the description of the development of the manufacturing capability, not of the Starship itself, and it certainly should not be first sentence in the section. that is very WP:UNDUE. -Arch dude (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Should we integrate the section?

@Stonkaments: In my opinion, there is a sentence that basically talk about something positive. Shouldn't it be "Reception"? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I think "Criticism and controversies" is a fair section title, since essentially all the points mentioned are criticisms. "Reception" would be more appropriate if there were a more even mix of positive and negative opinions. But I'm concerned that the text of this section is not written in from a neutral point of view. "Residents of Boca Chica Village and Brownsville" implies that most, or at least a large number of, residents feel that way, which is not supported by the references. "littered with rocket debris after failed test launches" is also not consistent with the references. One test launch produced a small amount of debris. There are a few other examples as well. Also, I think a "Criticism and controversies" section is supposed to be about widely reported or debated issues, not just a catalogue of every negative thing anyone has ever said. I think the current section may be pushing the limits in that respect. Fcrary (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
I gonna revert Stonkaments's edit then. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with the introduction of the template as the above complaints are minor and the phrases in question can modified without changing the points made. In addition, "Public reception of Starship testing campaign" gives the wrong impression of the contents of the subsection as criticism comes not only from the public but also government employees. I am changing the title to Criticism and controversies once again. QRep2020 (talk) 05:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion, it might give undue weight to the critics as well. Also, there are a fanbase with Starship, which is unique in spaceflight. I might want to paraphrase the crticisms so that they are more consise, as well as adding a bit to the positive side. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
The rest of the entire article speaks to the details and accomplishments surrounding Starship. Surely three paragraphs in their own subsection is not extravagant. QRep2020 (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. I think this structure is fine then :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Can you stop changing the name of the subsection please? It is ~96% criticism. Also, it clearly does not belong under Development but, since I know there will be fight to give it its own section, at the very least let us have it at the end of the section. QRep2020 (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I think we need a 3rd opinion then. Looks like we cannot agree on where should the criticism should be placed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
What function does this section actually serve? Its basically reporting that there are reporters doing reporting. There's very little here beyond the angles that reporters are working for their papers' interests. Sequential Rotation (talk) 07:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I would like to point out that the above account has no edits beyond this Talk one and that they appear to be implying that the press are political agents, which would implicate an untold number of articles on Wikipedia. QRep2020 (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, ill offer a third opinion. What are the proposed placements and names of said section? Bonewah (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Many, such as "Criticism", "Criticism and controversy", "Reception", "Public reaction", etc. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, WP:CSECTION says that we should avoid criticism sections in general wherever possible and instead work the criticisms into the body of the article. That same essay warns that criticisms should be limited to those recieving substantial coverage devoted to those controversies or criticisms, see WP:CORG. Looking at the section in this article at a glance, id say that the environmental concerns could probably be incorporated into the "ground infrastructure" section, along with some of the other parts of the criticism section. Frankly, a lot of the material in that section looks pretty trivial and could be cut. The stuff about highway and beach closures, speculation that its environmental impact statement *might* violate some rules, etc. Again, criticism should be substantial, important to the understanding of the subject, not just existent. Bonewah (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! I will incorperating them now CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
These are essays, not policies. There are plenty of examples of entries with Criticism sections, entries that are even referenced in one of the essays. Please do not attempt to integrate them again until the discussion has ended. QRep2020 (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Sure, its an essay, but the point of those essays is to provide a common response to common concerns. If you feel that the essay is wrong, in this case or in general, then you should explain your thinking here. Bonewah (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
No, there is nothing to compel me to respond to a Wikipedia essay. That said, Wikipedia:Criticism states, "A section dedicated to negative material is sometimes appropriate, if the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole, and if readers would be better served by seeing all the negative material in one location." It is appropriate here and the content produced by Stonkaments et al treats the material as a whole in a concise and organized manner. In addition, here are articles that feature appropriate, well-written criticism or criticism-esque sections:
Besides, I argued to let it sit as a subsection, someone else moved it to section-level. QRep2020 (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
There is nothing to compel you to respond to an essay, but you do have to respond to talk page comments if you want your preferred changes to stick around. Simply saying that other stuff has a criticism section or that a criticism section is sometimes appropriate isnt really a response. Why should this article have a criticism section? What value does it add to the article? I can say why it think it shouldnt: the parts that are relevant are better placed elsewhere and the existance of a criticism section is obscuring the fact that, in my opinion, most of the content there is too trivial to include. This is exactly what the essay i cited says: "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Articles should present the prevailing viewpoints from reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and without bias, whether positive or negative." and i agree with that logic in this case. Bonewah (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
It should have a criticism section because there are several points of criticism pertaining to the subject that are featured in reliable relevant third-party publications. It is not undue attention because the criticism comes from respected academics and government officials. I am requesting a dispute resolution as clearly there is some fundamental disconnect about what information is valuable here and the constant editing is counterproductive. QRep2020 (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree. However, the criticism section should be for Starship itself, such as “Starship is way too complicated for moon landing”, not for the development itself. For that, it should be inside the SpaceX South Texas launch site and briefly mentioned here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Dispute resolution has been requested at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#SpaceX_Starship. Please refrain from making any major edits until we achieve consensus. Stonkaments (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Is it ok for me to integrate the section now? It has been 10 days. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Notifying @QRep2020 @Stonkaments. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
The RfC ended with no consensus to change, i.e. keep, so I do not know what you mean by integrate. QRep2020 (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
First of all, you (and Stonkaments) do not comment on the DRN, which meant to me that you are either disinterested in resolving the issue, or you are fine with integrating the article. How do I supposed to know the core reason why you guys are disagreeing? Plus, I really think you are missing the purpose of integrating criticism here, that is to give the criticism in full picture and not just a list of comments, which currently it is, albeit with some linking words. Unless the criticism portrays a full picture of the situation, it is better to integrate. My opinions is that having a section just for criticisms is justified with extremely controversal topics. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
There's no WP:CONSENSUS to go forward with your intended changes, and the DRN was clear about what should be the next steps to gain consensus: If there continues to be disagreement about where to put the criticisms, the editors may resume discussion on the article talk page, Talk:SpaceX Starship, or they may use one or more RFCs. If the editors want help in publishing an RFC, they can request help on my user talk page. If the editors decide that they do want moderated discussion and are willing to participate actively, a new thread can be filed. Continuing to push your proposed edits without gaining consensus first is not considered an appropriate option; continuing to do so may be seen as disruptive. Stonkaments (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, it's my fault. I won't do that again. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
No. The editor who closed the DRN discussion said: At this time, there is no consensus in support of change, so the criticisms can stay in the Criticisms section. Stonkaments (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Alright, it's time to tackle the problem again, notifying @Stonkaments and @QRep2020. Here's the policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article structure that said:

Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.

I won't implement it directly in the past, but I think this is a good starting point for why I think integrating is ok. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I also want to mention that while Stonk and QRep isn't a COI on SpaceX and Starship, it should be pointed out that they and me have some bias to the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I do not see any "back and forth" happening in the content itself. QRep2020 (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Featured article candidate translusion

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 21 October 2021 [8].

SpaceX Starship

Nominator(s): CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Plaid speed!!! - Spaceballs, probably

This article is about Starship, a fully reusable rocket which is in development by SpaceX. It describes technical, operational and cultural aspect of Starship, as well as many criticisms to the vehicle and development. This article also briefly mention Starship's development history as well. It has been expanded and reformed from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SpaceX Starship/archive1 with a much more comprehensive Operation section, as well as criticisms to the system, and has undergone a huge peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/SpaceX Starship/archive1. If you know how the article can be improved, please reply and I will resolve it as soon as possible. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Lean oppose by Urve

While there has been substantial movement toward high quality sourcing since the last nomination, I am still quite concerned about text-source integrity. So, unless this can be attended to (and it will take a good amount of effort), I oppose promotion on sourcing. Version reviewed, some comments may touch on prose but that's not something I can competently speak to in general

  • Neither fn 5 or fn 6 support the general claim that Starship is composed of 304L stainless steel; 5 makes no mention, 6 only makes the claim for SN8
Moved fn5 to the first sentence, change fn6 to [9] that mentions switching from 301 to 304L. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • The resultant gas quickly moves, and the engine nozzle redirects it to produce thrust. The Raptor Vacuum variant is equipped with a nozzle extension to increase its specfic impulse in the vacuum of space. - unsourced
Sourced! CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • Super Heavy booster's primary goal - not stated as a primary goal in either fn 9 or fn 10; this speed has a connotation of being a limitation (not a goal?) by Musk in fn 10
Fixed to When launch, Super Heavy booster accelerates ... Mach 9 speed is not a limitation, it is a boon for Super Heavy to land without shielding. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • I don't know what a "sea-level optimized Raptor" is at this point, but that description is not in fn 11 or 12; 11 says up to 32, 12 says up to 33, so that much is OK
  • ^ sea-level optimization is supported in a separate source so that much is fine, but what this means should be explained when the term is first introduced Urve (talk) 07:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Got it. Finding. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • The booster is topped with a stage adapter not in fn 13 or 14; doubt it matters from a prose level, though, since we can just say they are attached and avoid the unnecessary words
Changed to On top of the booster, the Starship spacecraft is attached. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • After separation, the Starship spacecraft will accelerate itself to orbit and perform mission tasks and objectives - not in fn 15
Added [10]. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • composite overwrapped pressure vessels - not in fn 16
Removed, no reliable source is found CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • and three for the vacuum of space - paraphrasing of this sentence is too close to the source
Changed to three for vacuum operation CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • Positioned above are... - don't see this description in fn 18
Added [11] CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • On top of the tanks is the payload section houses a liquid oxygen header tank and payload - fn 19 speaks to the header tank but the payload is not there
Added [12]. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • In the Starship crewed variant, the payload bay will house cabins and other facilities - not supported by fn 20, but the other sentences seem to be supported... interestingly, they also speak to using starship as a space debris cleaner, may be worthy of mention
Added the space debris thingy and [13]. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "aft" and "forward" are redundant because being at the top/front means aft in (space)ship terminology. unless I am missing something, which I may be. anyway, adequately supported in what I see
Should keep it there for people who don't know what is aft and forward. They are also terms coined by SpaceX. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • The windward side of the spacecraft is covered by a heat shield made from hexagon tiles - fn 10 just says these are being tested
Replaced with [14].
  • This brings me to a concern about article in general: Are we trying to describe the intended final version of Starship, or the several prototypes which have already launched and will continue to launch? We are mixing around descriptors -- some for the final one, some for the current one (for example, some ships have three raptors when launched, but the final design will have six, according to one of the sources) -- but there's no accompanying textual disclaimer about to which it applies
I describes the final version of Starship as of SpaceX plan in October 2021. SpaceX is ridiculously fast, so it is hard to know what is their final design. Added a sentence for disclaimer. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • I assume good faith on fn 22 because I don't want to watch it
Confirmed to be accurate. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • minor point: likely to be the first site to launch Starship to orbit - fn 28 says that it's the current plan. there may be a distinction between something being planned and something being likely (I dunno if that's the case or not); either way, suggest changing to 'planned'
It is planned. Changed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • fn 25 cannot support the "As of October 2021" claim because it is from January
Changed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • minor point: fn 34 says it has landed on drone ships, not that it might in the future - unless I miss something (didn't read it all)
It is planned, not have landed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • letting the booster's grid fins touch down on them - don't know what this means (what is "them" referring to?)
The catching arms catch the booster by letting the grid fins to touch down on them. Don't know how to phrase it though CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • didn't read "Future variants" section or beyond

I think these demonstrate the extent of my concerns, all only being in the first two subsections. I am separately concerned about criterion 1e being fulfilled with the major changes that regularly occur, often daily or several times a day. I can return later for more comments, but having to read dozens of articles and finding that many don't verify the accompanying text is difficult - it's harder to figure out what a source doesn't say than what it does. If my comments have been helpful, I have an open peer review here. Urve (talk) 07:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Urve: Thank you so much on reviewing the sources! It is really hard to know what is missing in the sources when you have +100 of them. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose from Hurricane Noah

@CactiStaccingCrane: Here's two more unsourced ones I thought I should point out. Just a tip as I saw your comment above about not knowing what the sources lack, it becomes easier to know more about your sources the longer you spend working with them. I have found it's better to work more slowly on something than to try and speed through it; there are fewer mistakes that way. I always let the sources write the article and it never does me wrong. Keep in mind that others will expect you to know everything inside and out since you are the nominator. NoahTalk 03:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks like I should get into habit of writing the source down then :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • The engine is cooled by circulating the fuel around the outside of the fuel chamber, which also preheats the mixture.
Source added CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • Verified test articles will launch in different flight paths, depending on their objectives.
Not unsourced, the list of test articles have flown in different path (hop, 10km flight), and this is not WP:SYNTHESIS. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
It still has to have a source at the end of the line backing it up. Regardless of what other supported text states, we can't leave other sentences unsupported. NoahTalk 12:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • The account uploading the video for FN25 is not that of a reputable expert/agency. NoahTalk 20:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • There's quite a bit of relevant scholarly sources out there that aren't included. For example, I saw one related to future landing sites on Mars. NoahTalk 20:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Given the relatively recent flurry of additions and large changes (unrelated to FAC), I would say this article is unstable and fails 1e. I also see there is an ongoing dispute resolution related to content in this article, which further emphasizes that. Considering there's only 5 books and journals here and there are quite a few more with relevant content, the article does not meet 1c either. I'm not convinced this article is well-researched with the amount of scholarly research out there. I feel I have no choice but to oppose this nomination given my above reasons. NoahTalk 20:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
@CactiStaccingCrane:@FAC coordinators: I am recommending this article be withdrawn until such time it is stable and there is a general consensus for what should be included in it. Considering there is currently a dispute resolution open regarding whether or not a section should exist within the article, this is far from stable. NoahTalk 23:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. The dispute resolution happened before this article is nominated for FAC, so I couldn't do very much at it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  • It seems clear that there is not a consensus to promote this article, so I am archiving the nomination to allow the areas identified to be worked on off-FAC. The usual two week hiatus will apply, but I look forward to seeing the article here again in an improved state. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Add dry mass?

@Mlindroo Hello, I think you are the person who add Starship's dry mass. I disagree, because it is just a prototype and far less than an actual number of a Starship in production. Furthermore, Musk's tweets are sometimes rather inaccurate, and it is far better to use a news source to cite the stats itself. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: As a compromise, I listed the anticipated dry mass target instead, as per Musk's twitter message. Starship remains in a state of preliminary development. To me, Wikipedia should track the current anticipated weight / size / performance etc. parameters while carefully noting the source. The alternative approach would be to scrub the infobox of virtually all information as even the payload capability might prove to be "inaccurate". Mlindroo (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mlindroo: Per WP:CRYSTALBALL, "Wikipedia should track the current anticipated weight" would be an incorrect policy. We report what is, not what might be. Tarl N. (discuss) 13:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Tarl N., I originally listed both! We have Elon Musk's claim re. dry mass for existing Starship Mk.I (approx. 200t) as well as his stated might be target for Mk.4/5. (130t). When Musk's reality changes, we change the Wikipedia article accordingly. Mlindroo (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
@Mlindroo You didn't read her message carefully. What she meant is that the "anticipated" specs shouldn't be added into the article. Look, I have another source [15] that said the final weight should be 100 tonnes. The prototype anticipated weight isn't the final product weight. Other specs of the article is taken in SpaceX's website, not in some random tweet. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
@CactiStaccingCrane: I see no reason for not listing (in one form or another) interesting statements such as Musk's statements about the Mk.I dry mass (and the Mk.4/5 120t figure) as well as the EveryDayAstronaut interview where Musk said the S20's final weight should hopefully not be be much more than 100t. Revisions and changes such as these are routinely tracked in other Wiki spacecraft articles, see e.g. Orion (spacecraft) for an example. As a good faith compromise proposal, I will leave your Rocket Infobox as-is while updating the article itself. Thank you. Mlindroo (talk) 10:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
You are not listening. This is not a compromise, this is a policy. I really don't understand why a prototype dry mass can be the final product dry mass, as you are comparing Starship with Orion here. They have nothing in common: Orion does not have prototypes and the design explicitly said that X is Orion's dry mass. Also, a reminder that this article isn't the place for prototype specs, it is for production Starship. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Orion is entirely incomparable as it is set in stone. It has a frozen design, after being in development for decades. It is already constructed. It is literally already on top of the rocket that will launch it in a few months. Leijurv (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: I have once again reverted your deletion of the Elon Musk provided dry mass. I will add that I have edited dozens of rocket and spacecraft articles over the years. These include proposed future spacecraft proposals, some of which eventually became operational while others fell by the wayside at an early stage. Nobody has ever purged this kind of info before, provided there is a clear inline information source (=no speculation or original research by the person editing Wikipedia). If Elon Musk himself(!) publicly states Starship Mk.I weighs about 200t while Mk.4/5 hopefully will have a dry mass of 130t, then that is the currently available information and it ought to be good enough for everyone, for the time being. If this is not okay, then please take this to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Mlindroo (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Above reply and your tenurship doesn't make things from wrong to right. Also, Elon's tweet is highly aspirational at times, such as "Mars 2024" thing, therefore we should take sources from somewhere else. Please don't revert my edit again or else WP:3RR will apply here, and stuff will suck for both of us. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
The Artemis 1 launch date has been shifted many times. Do you want to remove that, too? Why not just remove all launch dates beyond 2022? We have a statement from the CEO of SpaceX about a planned value for their spacecraft. We routinely report planned values in Wikipedia, well knowing that the final values might be different. I don't see why we should make an exception here. --mfb (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
After re-reading your arguments, I have actually come around to see your point of view with regards to the infobox. I now realize one crucial difference between Starship and other spacecraft concepts is Musk plans to churn out a huge number of ships which are continuously redefined. This in marked contrast to cancelled proposals for one-off space projects. I accept there is no reliable Starship dry mass figure to cite yet, but I think we should still list Musk's relevant statements about this topic in the body of the article itself, which is already the case for the booster article. So I put those quotes there instead. Mlindroo (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. I rephrase your information a bit, just to make sure it fits into the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, much appreciated. I respectfully maintain that the late 2019 Musk tweets about the initial (Mk.I) and late (Mk.4/5) operational Starship's weight goals should be listed for now, until we have a better source. SN20 is not intended to be reusable, it does not carry a payload and it does not go to orbit. Hence, Musk's dry mass goal for SN20 (already in the article) is interesting but it's arguably not more important than what he said about the operational vehicle. Mlindroo (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Used to log problematic statements (without sources) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC) Way too much synthesis going on, GA review at the bottom

Good article reassessment

SpaceX Starship

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Withdrawn (t · c) buidhe 10:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I am a major contributor to the article, and recently I found out that a lot of the information is being synthesized by me by adding a ton of information from the last GA assessment. Maybe that's because I know quite a bit about Starship before writing the article and I try to force it in, or maybe it's the organic growth that cause synthesis to grow. Either way, I would love to have the article to be assessed thoroughly to find more problems and being fixed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC) Nevermind, I just did a source review and cut down on those. The article still looks suprisingly good, so I withdrawn my reassessment. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Request for comments on criticism and controversies section

Should the criticism and controversies section be integrated to the article? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Background information: @Stonkaments and me have a pretty aggressive discussion about this. We are aware of Wikipedia:Criticism, and we would like input from other editors. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The content should be included. In general "criticism" sections should be avoided but other more neutral titles could be considered. Springee (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
    I think that it should be included as well, since it makes a ton more sense with context. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The section should be moved to the SpaceX South Texas launch site article and then very briefly summarized here. The criticisms are not directed against Starship. They are directed against the activities at the launch site. Within the launch site article, the section can be expanded if necessary. -Arch dude (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
That's actually a good point that I hadn't considered, thanks arch dude. Anything that doesn't relate specifically to the Starship rocket could go on the article about the launch site. However, we couldn't reasonably move the entire thing. Everything relating to the FAA is about actual starship launches done without authorization, not at all about the launch site. Highway closure is only the launch site. Methane production is a bit of in-between because it is ground infrastructure and not really part of the ship, but it only needs to happen because the ship runs on methane. Leijurv (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. This article discusses all aspects of Starship, including the launch site, development, planned operations, etc. As such, the criticism and controversies are clearly due for inclusion here. Stonkaments (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • We have a guideline, WP:CORG, that speaks directly to this situation: Many organizations and corporations are involved in well-documented controversies, or may be subject to significant criticism. If reliable sources – other than the critics themselves – provide substantial coverage devoted to the controversies or criticisms, then that may justify sections and sub-articles devoted to the controversies or criticism... It seems to me that per this guideline, the section should remain. Stonkaments (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
    But is Starship an org? I don't really think so, and I agree with arch dude more about this. CactiStaccingCrane

(talk) 00:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  • I mean, the criticisms would stay, but it would be summarized in a section here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
    We absolutely need the criticism section somewhere in some article or sub-article of the organization article per WP:CORG. The organization article is SpaceX. Since this particular set of criticisms is centered entirely around Boca Chica, I feel that the SpaceX South Texas launch site is the most appropriate article, and in particular the criticisms can be expanded as needed there. The Starship article should definitely have a small summary. The criticisms are not about Starship except peripherally. If Starship were to be launched somewhere else, There might be criticisms, but not these criticisms. This article does not discuss all aspects of Starship in detail, it summarizes and links to other articles, such as Starship HLS. -Arch dude (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
    Ok, let's see Stonkaments's thought on this. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
@Stonkaments: Why do you think WP:CORG speaks directly to this situation? It appears that this is not the same situation since this is not SpaceX. As a metaphor, if SpaceX McGregor were found to be... let's say... violating noise constraints and causing complaints, that criticism (if it were notable) should go on SpaceX McGregor and it would be strange to put it on SpaceX Raptor, even though the Raptor is what is making the noise. This might not be a great analogy but I think it makes sense. What do you say to criticism not directly of Starship being moved from the Starship page to SpaceX South Texas launch site? Leijurv (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I also think that a more appropriate place for this criticism would be the SpaceX South Texas launch site article. In this article, we could leave a summary of the criticism in the section about the launch site. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
    Alright, looks like many people agree that moving the criticisms to SpaceX South Texas launch site is a good idea, so I gonna do that now. SN8's criticism is notable, so I just put that to a section somewhere... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
    Alright, some criticism stays and are placed to appropriate sections and being represented at lede, as well as being copied to here. @Stonkaments, do you have any objections? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The section of the Boca Chica article with the criticisms should be wikilinked from the Ground Infrastructure section as a See Also. QRep2020 (talk) 09:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Done. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Where is it? QRep2020 (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Here: "have criticized Starship development, claiming that" CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

A-class review translusion

Extended content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Hog Farm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

SpaceX Starship

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

SpaceX Starship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Pointy end up, flamey end down - Tim Dodd

SpaceX Starship is a stainless-steel reusable rocket by SpaceX, which is related to the military because of Rocket Cargo program. This article when I pull it to FAC twice have spectacular failure, so now I just nominate this article for A-Class. (Hopefully), the article has met all but A2 A-class criteria, which is currently being discussed here, and I have vetted this article thoroughly for sourcing, and remove statements which has unreliable or not even stated in the resource. Comments, as always, are very welcome. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment As the article has only a single para on a military topic, I don't think that this is really in the project's scope. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, should I cancel the nomination then? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I would suggest so. You may want to try a peer review instead. Nick-D (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Alright, thanks! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Merging proposal

Oh boy, there's a lot of explaining needed for doing a RfC, A-class review and merging at the same time...

Alright, so I want SpaceX Starship development to be merged with SpaceX Starship. My main rationale here is fancruft. The amount of cruft here is so detailed, yet just get rid of them don't do the article's justice. However, I believe that many information there are extremely helpful to the article, and the information added can be minimal because of the amount of detail in history of Starship on this article is acceptable. That's why I don't think a delete discussion would do its justice, and a merging discussion would be more appropriate. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Infobox's units abbreviation

The unit names in the main infobox need to be abbreviated to match the rest of the article, Eg. "m" instead of "metre" "lb" instead of "pound" etc. But the problem is I can't figure out how... QualifiedKerbal (talk) 06:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@QualifiedKerbal I will try, but since the infobox fetches data from Wikidata, so abbreviating can be tricky. Also rapid unscheduled disassembly is a real thing here :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it is time for getting help

I think that having others to help would be optimal, considering that I have almost 85% authorship and being practically the most significant contributor. Because of that, I afraid that I might has missed something (and after a hard look, there is a lot that is missing!) There is just too much work to be done, and in my opinion collaboration would be optimal at this stage. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm willing to help find, add in and source more information. By the way, what do you mean by Post-processing? Is it what happens after the boosters land (refueling, maintenance, etc)? Nigos (talk c) 14:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I just get rid of the section. After more research, I cannot find a lot of info about Starship's mission profile, so I just merge them into a common header. Thanks for helping out though, your contributions are really valuable, as it gave me more insight about Starship in general. Team work FTW lol CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm trying to find references for Musk's tendency to over-hype his products, but the best I can find is an opinion piece from Bloomberg News. Perhaps you could find a better source than that? Nigos (talk | contribs) 13:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I will, I remember that there is a lot of stuff about him and SpaceX in general, and yeeting out very optimistic timelines. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 Done. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@Nigos: Well, I am starting to feel that Starship has a punch on being a featured article, compared to this. It feels more complete, I guess? What do you think is missing? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree, it's more complete compared to the previous version. I've compared it with the Space Shuttle article, and I guess the section of the mission profile could be expanded to include plans on how launches for Starship could be prepared? I'm not too sure if there's info on that yet but I'll search for it. Nigos (talk | contribs) 10:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! I am gradually completing proseline sections, as well as researching on future prototypes. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help! Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, if you need help on one of your active articles, I would be happy to help as well. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll let you know if I need help Nigos (talk | contribs) 13:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Right, so after I write and sourced everything, I would send it to WP:PR for editors to nuke problems from high orbit. BOOOM!!! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good. I have a question about the Legacy section though. Starship hasn't done an orbital launch yet, it's not really a predecessor to anything right now as it is still in development and is not being retired anytime soon. Nigos (talk | contribs) 10:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, it is more like influences to stuff, it just that writing "Influences" is pretty ambiguous. I will research on it later. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps "impacts" would be a more suitable word? Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, you are right. Let me change it real quick CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
What do you mean by The tank farm stores propellant and water, and only dispenses just before a launch.? I'm trying to find a source on this, does it refer to fueling up Starship just before it launches? Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Oh, it is the eight big white tanks, which the nerd termed it "Orbital Tank Farm". Some contain LOX, some contain CH4, some contain liquid N2, and one contains water. Pretty difficult to describe it in one sentence lol CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I meant "dispenses just before launch", is it the fuel being added to starship Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
The ladder. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I just requested a edit notice banner, so that people stop adding recent-y stuff and improving the article in general. Let's see how its goes. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Okay, so almost done! Will submit to peer review today. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I will invite some people who have participated in the prior reviews CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, time to yeet this thing to high orbit, the peer review. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
And hope it does not run into an unfortunate disassembly Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
That would be epic ngl CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Balon Greyjoy comments

As requested by CactiStaccingCrane on my talk page, here are some comments on this page.

  • Much of the article reads in a promotional tone. Sentences like "Since SpaceX develops Starship via operational testing—flying prototypes directly instead of testing each component—its design can change rapidly." and "The launch vehicle can be used to launch almost any space payload, instead of being specialized for only one facet of spaceflight." come across as if Starship is superior to other launch vehicles. While it will presumably be a successful program, these statements are treated as definitive facts rather than SpaceX goals.
  • There are quite a few grammatical errors or inconsistencies in the article.
  • This article switches between treating future events as if they are already happening ("A single Starship launch can deliver more than 100 t (220,000 lb) of payload") and speculation ("The vehicle may facilitate point-to-point flights – coined 'Earth-to-Earth' by SpaceX.").
  • Overall, I think it is too early for this subject to have a Featured Article. While there won't be a definitive line for when the Starship program is mature enough to merit an FAC, I think that it is safe to assume that this page will change drastically if and when flights occur. This is an article about a program intended to fly throughout the solar system, but so far has had a handful of suborbital flights and one successful landing. Starship certainly meets notability criteria, but it is too early for an article about the entire program to be featured. I would instead focus on the article about its development, and later use that information in this article.

Hope that helps! I know it's probably not the most supportive and I don't mean to discourage your efforts. Let me know if you have follow up questions! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for these criticisms! It really does help to see what's wrong about the article, especially if you have worked on it for a while and being blinded from flaws. By the way, I adapted the style from your Space Shuttle, particularly on the mission profile bit. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I do have one question though: Do you feel that some aspect of Starship is missing from the article? If so, what is it? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
@Balon Greyjoy courtesy ping CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
To echo my last point, I think the Starship aspect missing from the article is more information about its operational history, which doesn't yet exist. I would liken it to the articles on the 2024 United States presidential election or the 2022 NFL season, in that information about them exists, but the article's subject has yet to accomplish what is is notable for. That's just my personal opinion and I understand other editors may disagree with me, but I think it's best to wait on trying to upgrade an article's status when it is almost certain that major content changes will happen due to future events. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I think that by making the article mode "modular", i.e. easier to add content, would be the best way to do so. Making it easier to add content would make it satisfy comprehensiveness better by editors. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

thing is, for an article to be featured it needs to be "stable", and when a lot of new information comes out and a lot of people come in to edit it its quality can degrade and it no longer remains stable Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: and has the potential to transform the space industry seems to have a promotional tone, I feel it should be removed for now Nigos (talk | contribs) 15:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, be bold and do it! I couldn't figure out a way to make it better. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I've removed it from the article for now. Nigos (talk | contribs) 15:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. I am currently request for comments on the article, so that we have a large "problem bucket" to sort out. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Just made a thread at NASASpaceFlight.com forum here: [16]. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, I mean, Barack Obama and John McCain are featured while running in office, so, that should never be an excuse. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
True, but that information could've been put into Presidency of Barack Obama and John McCain presidential campaign. Then again the new information could be put into SpaceX Starship development Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting... I don't oppose this to be honest, but that would mean more work. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't really want to do that though Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, same for me. In my opinion, its "easier to work on the main article, but still expend the same amount of work". He probably meant killing two birds with one stone. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
That is true, and as I said above, there's no line when suddenly a subject matter is "mature" enough to merit featured content. That being said, both Barack Obama and John McCain had established political careers prior to the 2008 presidency; I would say the analogue for Starship would have been putting those two articles up for FAC immediately after their first national election prior to them taking office. Don't let my words dissuade you if you want to nominate this article for FAC and let the greater English Wikipedia community decide; I am just voicing my preference that this article waits until the subject has some operational history. Whenever this has milestone launches it is bound to get a lot of attention, and subsequent edits, and change drastically. I think, should this article reach FA in the near future, there will be a lot of work for future editors to make sure it stays at FA-level to avoid a FAR. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
@Balon Greyjoy Spent some time thinking about it, and I think nominate the article after Starship's orbit launch would be the best. You are right about the article being a bit too soon to be nominated, but it's good to keep working on the article anyways. I am currently fighting against new editors that added WP:TOOSOON stuff, so ye, agree on what you're saying as well. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I think that is the correct decision. If Starship proves to be the revolutionary technology that it is promised to be, you can expect this article to grow and change quit a bit over the coming decades. You're definitely doing yourself and other editors a favor by keeping its quality high as events happen; it's much easier to update an article periodically rather than try and do massive update in the future. On a side note, I would advise you to stick away from terms like "fighting" and "new" when describing your interactions with other editors. While arguments can sometimes feel combative and I won't deny that it can take some time to learn the ropes with Wikipedia, it's important to remember that account age is just one small metric, and that other editors are trying to help improve Wikipedia as well. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder about biting other editors, I should be more lenient and helping them instead. About the article, I think that the plan now is to add more info from reliable sources, and figure what to do at the start of 2022, maybe a source review? Anyways, thanks a lot for helping us out on Starship, and I wish you a happy new year :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, since the FAA environmental assessment is going to take ages, with ETA of April or May 2022, I just gonna be bold and improve the article to featured. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments as requested

@CactiStaccingCrane Ok, a quick comment! Starship HLS is mentioned under variants, but is not reusable. Starship is fully reusable by definition, so it's a contradiction. Perhaps it's best to rename variants to something more generic like further developments. 4throck (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Clarified. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, more general stuff. The article mentions Super Heavy booster and Starship Spacecraft, but those names are informal. The user guide https://www.spacex.com/media/starship_users_guide_v1.pdf mentions Super Heavy and Starship. As for variants they use the term configuration, mentioning a cargo configuration and a crew configuration. So my constructive suggestion is to simply use the terms as they appear on the user guide: Super Heavy, Starship, configuration ;) 4throck (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Big brain :) However, variant is better, since multiple RS said so, and it is more commonly used in general. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
You need to follow the references. If SpaceX mentions configurations, then that's what it is :) There are similar problems with the article. For example: "The launch vehicle consists of a Super Heavy booster stage and a Starship spacecraft". But the user guide mentions the "Starship system" when dealing with the Booster + Starship. So it should be something like: "The Starship system consists of two elements, the Super Heavy booster stage and the Starship vehicle." All names and definitions need to be referenced and consistent to SpaceX documentation... 4throck (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Here's my list of reasons for opposing your idea: spaceflight is infamous referred stuff in a roundabout way; most people refer the launch vehicle "Starship", even Elon; and configurations and variants are synonyms. Let me know what you think. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Colonizing Mars! other languages

In the meantime, I will translate this article to Vietnamese and Simple English, so I wouldn't be active here that much (even more so with all of the end-of-year stuff). Hitch me if you need something. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I can help with 'translating' it into Simple English Nigos (talk | contribs) 08:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! I tried, but the article has substantially changed since then. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Just a heads-up, there might be a little kerfuffle in the Starship article on the simple English Wikipedia, please don't undo any edits by someone undoing mine, I'll take care of it. Nigos (talk | contribs) 06:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Ah, okay. So, I thinking that this article should be significantly shorter than English's version, since it needs to be simple. Prehaps only main headers would do it? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
By simple, it means the language needs to be simple. The article does not need to be short Nigos (talk | contribs) 06:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Simple also means short. The article here although pretty short, but still substantial and should be simplified. Most people who read at Simple English are kids or people who don't understand texts at English wiki. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Oh alright, then I guess we should leave it as that Nigos (talk | contribs) 06:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Nah, I think it needs to be work on. It needs updating and simplifying. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

{{Infobox rocket}}

Should this use Wikidata data, or should it be inputted locally? Nigos (talk | contribs) 07:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

My opinion is Wikidata, since it is standardized, easy to translate, edit and monitor. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Research needed

This article is now pretty good, but I think more information in general is needed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

[17]: Page 24 and onwards CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Missing information for Starship

The Wikidata page for Starship is missing information (Thrust, Mass/Dry Mass of the rocket itself [which appears on the page but not the wikidata profile]). It used to be alike the Wikidata page for Falcon Heavy. Would this change be due to the unknown parameters of the continuous changes of the Starship system? Dawson81702 (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be so, Starship changes rather quickly and the final prototype/design hasn't been implemented or revealed yet. Nigos (talk | contribs) 02:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Btw, can someone here make the lede longer? I don't really know how to write the lede so that it is proportional (giving due coverage) and sounds good. Any ideas? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I can try doing so once I have the time. Nigos (talk | contribs) 08:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
@Nigos  Done, I just rewrite it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Describing Musk's "predictions"

SpaceX's schedule for its Mars program has suffered many delays, invalidating Musk's optimistic predictions - I'm not too sure if "optimistic" is the best word here. Musk has a tendency to overhype his products. Bloomberg News describes it as such: "Start with wild promises, followed by product delays, production hell, shareholder anger, and finally, hopefully, redemption.". This is of course in Tesla's context, but he's also done something similar with SpaceX, claiming that the dearMoon mission (or something similar) would have had been in late 2018. Of course that hasn't happened and has been pushed back to... 2023. Five years off target. Nigos (talk | contribs) 13:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not too sure if "optimistic" is the best word here. Musk has a tendency to overhype his products. "optimistic" seems to me like a correct word for overhyping. It's just that "overhyping" doesn't sound WP:FORMAL :) Leijurv (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Actually, I think both words are problematic, since they imply a motive or belief we can't document. "Overhyping" implies someone knowing the stated goals are impossible and making them for rhetorical or propaganda purposes. "Optimistic" implies someone honestly but mistakenly believing everything will go right and that no problems will come up. In this case, we can't read Mr. Musk's mind, so we shouldn't use a word that implies something about what he's thinking. What we can say, based on his own statements, is that he thinks deadlines and short schedules push people to get things done more quickly, even if the deadlines and schedules probably aren't achievable. Can anyone think of a word to describe that? Fcrary (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
He has previously claimed that optimism fuels his unrealistic predictions and timelines: https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-says-he-sets-unrealistic-timelines-has-an-issue-with-time-2018-6. QRep2020 (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Related: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#SpaceX_Starship_NPOV_request CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Just keep in mind, people's opinion on Musk ranges from "he's a god" to "he's a villain", with almost no neutrality in between. It is extremely hard to get NPOV. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

His timelines have in the past certainly been optimistic, so I don't really have a problem with use of that word. However "invalidating Musk's optimistic predictions" does seem problematic to me: Past timelines suggested by Musk being over-optimistic doesn't mean he cannot learn from this and so current predictions are not necessarily over-optimistic timewise and we shouldn't predict continuance of optimism. Warning about past optimism seems a sensible warning. There is also a wider problem of whether *invalidating his predictions* is too wide in scope, is it just his timelines that have in the past been too optimistic rather than generality of his predictions. I would suggest his predictions of what will occur have been quite good (e.g reusable first stages, growth of electric cars) just the timings have been optimistic so to suggest all his predictions are invalidated is just not at all appropriate. I think I would prefer something more like: SpaceX's schedule for its Mars program has suffered many delays and other past Musk predictions have been too optimistic timewise. C-randles (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Should we add more of a warning re hype? That seems problematic: Do I think Musk hypes his (future) products? Yes I do, but don't all entrepreneurs? Is his hyping to a higher level than is warranted? Sounds difficult to judge but show me an unbiased source that reaches this conclusion from suitable evidence and maybe I will agree we should add something about overhyping. C-randles (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
@C-randles, I'm not sure how to write it. Perhaps Musk has made many prediction about the development rate of Starship, which most are too optimistic. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I would be quite happy with Musk has made many prediction about the development rate of Starship, most of them have been too optimistic. C-randles (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Added and thanks for raising this issue :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Right, I have a feeling that many people think that the article is not NPOV. What makes you feel that way and how can this be fixed? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
A poorly chosen example for a delay. The 2018 plan for dearMoon was a Dragon capsule. It was later upgraded to Starship, obviously with a new timeline. Looks like Dragon will never fly on a Falcon Heavy now, but the capsule did fly people in 2020 - two years after the initial dearMoon plan, and after the complex NASA certification that dearMoon wouldn't have needed. There are better examples for overly optimistic timelines, especially within the Starship project. --mfb (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

SpaceX Starship

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: The first thing I noticed when beginning this closure is that the article is still very unstable: there have been more than fifty edits in the past five days, some of them very substantial. This is problematic because it is impossible for editors to perform accurate assessments of an article's content when that content keeps changing. Some problems with sources remain unaddressed (e.g., the article continues to state that SpaceX acquired Valaris's rigs in January despite the source saying August) while others have been recently introduced (e.g., this edit today replaced three sources with one other source, leaving most of that paragraph's content unsupported, while this edit yesterday introduced outdated plans without clearly identifying them as such). Other concerns also remain unaddressed; for example, CactiStaccingCrane has yet to justify his or her opposition to the inclusion of critical opinion editorials, and despite his or her promise two months ago to stop POV railroading, there seems to be even less criticism of this project now than when this GAR began. (I can only find one sentence now, down from four.) In light of these and other problems, I am delisting this article. Furthermore, while I believe that some of the problems introduced by CactiStaccingCrane can be explained as good faith errors (it seems obvious to me from this discussion that he or she is not a native English speaker), it is clear, both from the evidence and by his or her own admission, that the overall trend of his or her editing is tendentious; I would remind CactiStaccingCrane that tendentious editing is considered disruptive and could lead to being blocked if it continues. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

This article has changed significantly since it became a GA, with content being culled/added, and I have a few concerns with this. My main being NPOV issues, with the repeated removal/moving/renaming of the criticism section and other general criticism in this article. Because of this, I believe the article now fails GA criterion #4, "Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each". Below, I have listed the multiple modifications/removals of the critism section, almost entirely by CactiStaccingCrane:

At this point, the article currently has minimal sections documenting criticism of the project, with a small section half way down the article called "Environmental impact", of which half is dedicated to criticism. Other than this I cannot see any major concerns in the article. Because of this clear NPOV issue, I believe this article should be delisted from GA status.

  • A dedicated criticism/controversy section is, more often than not, not the right way to present criticism of a topic. Personally, I would support discussing the criticism in the sections where it's relevant, for example, moving the content to environmental impact and safety sections. (t · c) buidhe 15:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree that a section named specifically "Criticism" is unnecessary. However, this article in its current state has about 4 sentences discussing negative reception of this plan (which is obvious there is). — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 18:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
It seems clear that CactiStaccingCrane's editing behaviour is intended to minimise the mention of criticism or controversies (given their expressed admiration for Musk and the project). Given they have indicated they wish to take this to FAC, comprehensive coverage of criticism and controversy related to the project will be required in this article IOT to meet FA criteria 1b. and 1d. Some editors consider that a separate section for such material isn't necessary or even desirable, however, often the controversies or criticism isn't obviously associated with any one aspect of the subject, and in those cases, grouping such material together can make sense. Either way, the material needs to be in the article both at GA (to continue to meet criteria 3a. (addresses main aspects of the topic) and 4. (NPOV) and FA. There is also a serious question mark over whether it meets criteria 5. (stable) if there is such to-ing and fro-ing about the inclusion of this material. Unless the attempts to minimise criticism and controversies ceases immediately, I would be recommending delisting. I strongly recommend discussion of how to incorporate this material is conducted on the talk page asap. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Berrely, Peacemaker67: About the criticisms that Stonkaments and I have, they are more about Starship development and Starbase. It has been copied to another section at SpaceX Starbase, and I'm trying to find criticisms about Starship itself. I found adding a dedicated section for criticism is not a great idea (evident by Musk's controversialness). I really want to get someone else to write the criticisms instead, as they would be a lot more neutral than I am. I'll disengage from the article now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I have tried to gather criticisms and other POV to the article, with little success. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#SpaceX_Starship_NPOV_request. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Ping QRep2020 and Stonkaments for discussion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I believe criticism of Starbase should be kept in the Starship article instead of being moved to the Starbase article in its entirety. I've found some articles online on criticism of Starship as well:
Can these be incorporated somehow? I can work on these later. Nigos (talk | contribs) 01:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I am doing it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
There was also some discussion of this here. Leijurv (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Throughout the many recent revisions, I believe that the tone of this article is not that of standard Wikipedia tone. Because of this, I believe it fails Criteria 1b, where an article must "[comply] with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation." I've attached a list of a few places I believe are tonally inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia:

  • Headers "Starhopper–SN6: Hops", "SN8–SN15: Flights", and "SN20–: Launches": usage of argot
    • What should I use instead? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Actually, it is quite difficult to use different terminology here since the three different phases of Starship testing thus far have all been different criteria. From what I've encountered amongst other Ring/Tank Watchers, the hops are anything below approximately 7 kilometers, the flights are anything that stayed inside the atmosphere, and the launches will occur with anything resembling an orbital or sub-orbital test flight. Hope that clears some of that up! XFalcon2004x (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • "Because of its success, SpaceX plans are usually met with widespread support with very little critical comments": blatantly breaks Criteria 4 and NPOV guidelines
  • "One potential use for Starship is space tourism, an example is the dearMoon project announced by Japanese entrepreneur Yusaku Maezawa"
  • "...as in December 2021 he has predicted a crewed Mars mission may happen at most five years"
  • "Unlike other companies at the time, SpaceX is more focused on other customers, so the company try to launch cost by producing parts itself"
  • I tried to describe vertical integration in an attempt to reduce cost. What should I say instead? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Provided are only a few examples of casual tone on the page. To put it bluntly (I don't mean to put anyone down here), a large potion of this article reads as if it was written by a child. I think a major rewrite is required in order to remove the extensive tone inconsistencies.

I tried to simplify the language here because this is a spaceflight article, which uses a lot of jargon and things. If tone is what you wanted, I do think more collaboration between editors is necessary and clean up the weeds. It's pretty difficult to be NPOV on something recent, especially when reliable sources is very polarized on what Starship is. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Berrely, I have a question though. Why do you do a GAR instead of suggesting on the article's peer review? I do feel this is pretty stressful to handle both of these at once. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
As per WP:PG, avoid dumbed-down language. Otherwise, the article may be more appropriate for Simple Wikipedia. Theknightwho (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I thought that the article is too technical... I will fix this after all NPOV issues are fixed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I would say that you shouldn't use jargon unnecessarily, but don't shy away from it when it's the most accurate way to describe a certain concept. Theknightwho (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I admit, I have done Wikipedia:POV railroad to Stonkaments and QRep. Utmost apology to them, and I will not do that in the future. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the above. As I've said before, there is departure between the cited sources and the actual text, and while it has improved, I don't think it's sufficient. For example, I scrolled randomly and picked this string of sentences:
  • In January 2020 SpaceX purchased two drilling rigs from Valaris plc for $3.5 million each during their bankruptcy proceedings, planning to repurpose them as offshore spaceports cited to this, which says August.
  • Next sentence, After the Mark series, SpaceX named subsequent prototypes with the prefix "SN"., has a footnote saying it's obvious; whether or not that's the case, I don't know, but also I have no clue what "Mark series" means.
  • Next sentence, No prototypes between SN1 and SN4 flew: SN1 along with SN3 collapsed during proof pressure test and SN4 exploded after its fifth engine firing., cited to this, which doesn't support anything about SN2, despite it apparently existing. (I say apparently because I have no familiarity with Starship.)
  • Next two sentences, During the interval, the company accelerated the construction of manufacturing and support infrastructure at Starbase, including large tents, stations, and repurposed intermodal containers. When linked together, these facilities act as a production line, making Starship construction quicker., cited to this. First sentence OK (though I don't know what an intermodal container is; that description is just lifted from the ArsTechnica piece, and I don't understand what a "tent" means without reading ArsTechnica). Second sentence is concerning, because as far as I'm reading the source, all of the information is aspirational - it's what Musk wants to achieve, but it's not necessarily saying that construction actually is quicker, or that being linked together makes construction quicker; both of those conclusions are problematic. But even if all of that is true, I'm not sure we should even be using Berger for that information (or stating it as incontrovertible fact); he seems to have some kind of interest in how we perceive SpaceX, given that he has "unparalleled journalistic access to the company’s inner workings".
Stability I've already made clear elsewhere is concerning to me. None of this is an attack on any maintainers of the article. I have zero interest in the subject of the article, and zero interest either way in how this GAR concludes. These are just some observations I have; sometimes the work is too big for us, and we lose sight. I think GA status should be something challenging to achieve; otherwise, why try? Urve (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Also, the similarity between files like File:Side Starship sketch.svg and probably copyrighted designs should be looked at. However I have no familiarity with the copyrightability of product designs and leave this for someone else. Urve (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I have edited the article to have more criticisms. Is the article due now, or need more improvement? It is worth noting that finding source that is negative about Starship is very difficult. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I just rewrote the article's lead again, should the lead language be more neutral? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Starship is a fully-reusable rocket made out of stainless steel, developing by SpaceX. Both of its stages – Super Heavy booster and Starship spacecraft – contains liquid oxygen and liquid methane. Starship would launch upright, with the booster's thirty-three Raptor engines operating in parallel. Super Heavy separates and the spacecraft fires three of its Raptor Vacuum engines, inserting itself to orbit. The booster then control its descent via grid fins and positions to the launch tower's arms. At the mission end, the Starship spacecraft enters the atmosphere, protected by a series of hexagon heat shield tiles. The spacecraft glides using its flaps, flips up, and fires three of its Raptor engine to land upright.

Starship's main features are high capability and low operating cost. The rocket will launch at Starbase, Kennedy Space Center, and two offshore launch platforms. The spacecraft tanker variant can refuel spacecraft in space, increasing its 100 t (220,000 lb) transport range to the Moon and Mars. Other spacecraft variants can deploy satellites, serve space tourists, and explore the Moon. Starship's low cost might make SpaceX Mars ambition and make rocket travel on Earth possible.

The rocket is first outlined by SpaceX as early as 2005, with frequent designs and names changes later on. In July 2019, Starhopper, a prototype vehicle with extended fins, performed a 150 m (490 ft) low altitude test flight. In May 2021, Starship SN15 flew to 10 km (6 mi) and landed, after four failed attempts by previous prototypes. As of January 2022, the BN4 booster and SN20 spacecraft may launch near early 2022. Starship iterative and incremental development has unrealistic goals, harmed environment, and displaced residents.

There also used to be a Finance section that no longer exists in the current article. X-Editor (talk) 06:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I readded the finance and criticism sections, but there are some citation errors that need fixing. X-Editor (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Delist, seems like no one is interested to place the article back to standard, including me. I will renominate the article instead, keeping this GAR is a waste of time. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I want to reiterate my opinion here. The closurer was not able to defend their rationale, so this review is still kept open. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Close GAR?

@Berrely: I think that I have addressed your NPOV concerns, as there are now many paragraphs which details about Starship criticisms. Is it appropriate to close the GAR now? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

No, because it was entered as a community reassessment. The instructions for community reassessment say: "After discussion, consensus must decide if the article has improved enough to meet the good article criteria. Any uninvolved editor may close the discussion". There are still outstanding concerns above about sourcing and, probably, the images. Urve (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Apologies for being inactive here for a bit. The images are definitely copyright violations. Autotracing a copyrighted design in Inkscape and adding arrows does not give it a new copyright (especially if you claim own work). Also, as pointed out above by Urve, I wouldn't withdraw the nomination after the concerns have been addressed, an uninvolved editor will close it. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 07:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Per your copyright concerns, I removed them and nominate for deletion. I will try to spot check the articles, but it's gonna take some time. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@CactiStaccingCrane I think we need some guidelines on the article talk page for people editing so they know exactly what should be kept and to make sure all images are CC. Similar to the invisible notes in the article, but a list of notes on the talk page. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 19:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I did a spot check and fix references. May someone else spot-check again? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Also, about NPOV, I found very little source that is directly criticizing Starship, and a lot of them are op-eds. I don't think that NPOV is actionable here, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I feel that the GAR of SpaceX Starship is now becoming zombie-like, when I ask for comments multiple times and no one is responding. I also don't feel that the article is that bad that it needs a GAR, as a notice on the article talk page would do for me. So, I would close the assessment, but I am more than happy to reopen the reassessment if anyone wants to chip in, pinging @Berrely:, @Urve:, @Peacemaker67:. I won't add {{GAN/result}} for now, as an uninvolved editor would decide. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

What questions have you asked me "multiple times" without a response? I still don't see why Berger is a good source. Random things: What makes the Mabboux master's thesis reliable? How is an op-ed unreliable for statements of opinions, but Trevor Sesnic's interview with Elon Musk is reliable for statements of fact (such as At the bottom of Starship are six Raptor engines, with three operate in the atmosphere and the other three Raptor Vacuum may operate in space)? What makes this reliable for statements of fact? Is Elon Musk the same as SpaceX, such as when it's said that SpaceX has stated its goal is to colonize Mars for the long-term survival of the human species cited to this, which is just repeating what Musk says? And if that is the case, why is it not mentioned that Musk himself told nonprofit XPrize in April that some astronauts will “probably die” en route to Mars - an important detail about the sustainability and safety of the project? Etc. Urve (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Also, my questions above don't seem to be resolved? Urve (talk) 07:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning these, and I will fix it right now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Urve (talk · contribs) It takes me a while to answer these questions. Here you go:
  • Berger does has a board, and while I am not sure he has a conflict of interest (i.e. he has stake on SpaceX), I don't think that other sources are that reliable while giving in-depth information either.
  • Per WP:V and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (science), Mabboux thesis is unreliable and will be replaced soon.
  • Tim Dodd's interview (summarized by his editorial member Trevor Sesnic) do contain information that comes from the primary source, and the review is verifiable by his 2-hour video series. I don't cite the video itself, partly due to inaccessibility and unable to verify crucial information. This is the case that I think the primary source is better than secondary source.
  • [18]: This is a proposal for monitoring Starship's re-entry, and the claim "Starship is designed to be a fully-reusable orbital rocket, with the aim of reducing launch cost drastically" is best verify here. I can add other citations if you would like, but I afraid that they would be of lower quality than this material.
  • Elon Musk is the spokeperson of SpaceX, but I will try to find information target to the company itself. It is pretty funny that there is not a lot of info that mention SpaceX as a whole, but a ton targeting to Musk. Irony...
  • Yes, the sketchiness of SpaceX's Mars plan must be added, which I have spent the second paragraph on this section for, albeit with more focus at tangental projects.
  • I do understand your concerns about the sourcing, but it starts to get harder and harder to find more reliable information about the topic at this stage of article development. I would wait till after the next Starship presentation 2 days later as there would be more reliable source to reference at. Thank you for addressing these concerns, and sorry for being a bit aggressive earlier. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks, CactiStaccingCrane. Replies:
    • The January vs. August issue I highlighted earlier has not been dealt with. Some of the argot and implication issues I discussed before (like what intermodality and tents means, and whether they actually hasten production) are not resolved.
    • I note your thoughtful explanation of Berger's inclusion, but I do not find it persuasive.
    • Regarding this, I'm asking how it's reliable for factual statements because I have no clue what it is. By that, I mean: Is this some kind of undergrad research proposal, a conference presentation, some kind of press statement at an event, a NASA proposal? You don't need to answer; you know better than me, but that was my central issue. But looking at it now, I have quibbles: Starship's heat shield is designed to be used multiple times with no maintenance between flights - the source is talking about a thermal protection system doing that; I have no idea whether this is exactly the same as a "heat shield", or whether it includes other elements within and without the spacecraft (like perhaps whatever "reinforced carbon carbon" is), so I can't comment on whether that's accurate. each mounted and spaced to counteract expansion due to heat - I don't see that in the poster.
    • I note your other explanations and express no opinion.
    • I reiterate my confusion as to how primary sources, like interviews, are acceptable, but op-eds are not.
    Again, no ill will, and I don't want to tank your hard work -- I have no interest in this matter. Probably better for me to disengage from here. Urve (talk) 09:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

— Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 15:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy

As per Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/SpaceX Starship/2: how do we incorporate this into the article, there is very little information on the criticism and controversy of Starship and its development. Don't think it should be split off from the main article as per buidhe and Peacemaker67. Nigos (talk | contribs) 00:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe criticism of Starbase should be kept in the Starship article instead of being moved to the Starbase article in its entirety. I've found some :articles online on criticism of Starship as well:
Can these be incorporated somehow? Nigos (talk | contribs) 01:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Ok, wait a sec, let me add them in CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

NPOV and tone

After review of this article, as well as the current consensus on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/SpaceX Starship/2, I added the POV and TONE banners to the page.

A large portion of the article does not seem to follow the general tone of Wikipedia; many sentences and paragraphs are written in a more casual manner. I am actively working through this but might need a bit of help. Maxmmyron (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Maxmmyron, I will help. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Editing glitch

Whenever I make a change in visualeditor, it adds several duplicated infoboxes without my knowledge. I even clicked on the button that would show me the changes I made to the page, and it did not indicate the adding of any duplicated infoboxes. As such, I will abstain from using visualeditor until the problem is fixed. Sorry for any confusion this has caused. X-Editor (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@X-Editor: I think it's ok now. Thanks for adding the criticisms, I almost forget that it's there! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Raptor 2?

In the article, Raptor 2 is described as the next generation of the Raptor engine. However, since this version is the most likely to go into mass-production, should the Raptor v1 called "development version"? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

What do reliable sources call it? We shouldn't be extrapolating such terminology on our own. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@Ahecht It's pretty confusing. I would say wait for a bit till more info is available, which is pretty rare that the article you're working on has the subject which is in active development. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, Raptor v1 is still going to remain Raptor 1, while Raptor 2's increased capabilities are going to set it apart as something similar to the increments with the RS-25 family, so it may become Raptor-A and -B in the future or stay as Raptor-1 and -2, with future versions taking a higher number. However, since again most of that is speculation, I would say hold off on dubbing Raptor 1s the development version, especially since they have flown in the past! XFalcon2004x (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

What's missing?

I feel like I have cover the subject comprehensively now. What do you think? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Peer review

SpaceX Starship

This article is more-or-less done now and I want to nominate it at featured article candidate once everything is polished. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by User:Leijurv:

Edit: All my comments were as of this revision.

Speaking from the perspective of someone who has never read this article before, I'm going to read through it, pretending as if I've forgotten everything I know about Starship.

Starship is a fully reusable launch vehicle developed by American aerospace company SpaceX I'm not sure about "developed". It feels weird because while, so far, they have just done development, it is intended for more. Perhaps "designed and manufactured" like Falcon 9? Perhaps "operated" like Atlas V? Also okay might be "under development".
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. It is not mass-produced yet, so manufactured isn't quite right. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
@CactiStaccingCrane: I've used "under development" Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. Kudos on what you're doing right now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
with the ultimate purpose of assisting Mars exploration and colonization "assisting" is definitely the wrong word, maybe "enabling" or "permitting"?
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Upon its debut, Starship will be the largest and most powerful rocket ever constructed. I find this a little confusing. What exactly is a "debut"? How will we know when it has "debuted"? It has been constructed, unveiled, selected by NASA, part of it has flown, etc? Is it not already the largest rocket ever constructed?
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
all powered by Raptor rocket engines and burning liquid oxygen and liquid methane propellant I think "all" should be "both", and "and burning" should be something else, maybe "that use" or "that burn" or "using".
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
In July 2019, a test vehicle named Starhopper performed the first hop at SpaceX's Starbase facility. I think this fails to explain why this is important. What is a "hop"? Why does the name of the test vehicle matter? Perhaps instead something like "In July 2019, a prototype vehicle achieved stable flight and hovering with a Raptor engine, at the Starbase facility" would be better.
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
The first complete Starship spacecraft prototype was SN8, which crashed upon landing on 9 December 2020. Again I think this focuses on the wrong things. "SN8" doesn't matter. Somehow this only mentions that it crashed, without mentioning the important part which is that it flew! You can infer that it flew, but it isn't clear unless you already know how Starship works.
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
These developments sparked many concerns about SpaceX's treatment of surrounding residents and the environment. I think we (cacti and myself) already agree on this, so not much to say here. Regardless, this is worded clunkily and I'm not sure it belongs in the lede.
 Done, removed Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Little competition between launch providers emerged before private spaceflight became more established. Phrased awkwardly. Beginning with "little" is strange. I'm not sure I even understand what it's saying. Is it saying that there was no competition between... countries... before private spaceflight, or what?
 Done, reworded to show it is in the US context Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Specifically, within the United States, preference for existing contractors made competition even more difficult for companies. Replace "companies" with "new entrants" or something like that, maybe "startups"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Only in the early 2010s when the commercial sector grew when a substantial amount of competition begun. This is not valid grammar. Perhaps "Only in the early 2010s did a substantial amount of competition begin, alongside the growth of the commercial sector"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Since at least 2009, SpaceX recovered the first stages of several early Falcon 9 flights to develop its reusable first stage. Needs more explanation. What is the Falcon 9? Perhaps something like "SpaceX has been striving for reusability since at least 2009 with its previous launch vehicle, the Falcon 9, by attempting to recover and eventually reuse its first stage". Also link to Falcon 9.
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
The launch vehicle can be used to launch almost any space payload, instead of being specialized for only one facet of spaceflight. I think this needs a link, footnote, or some other kind of explanation for what it means to be "specialized" to one "facet" of spaceflight. What's a "facet"? Is this trying to say that other rockets have.... limited payload fairing sizes? limited orbital injection capabilities? limited number of stages? an inability to refuel in orbit? All those might be true, but I don't know which.
Not too sure about this either, CactiStaccingCrane any ideas? Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
@Nigos Hmm... what I'm trying to say is that Starship can virtually do anything, like lunar and Mars landing, space station, small sat + big sat launcher, etc. Not sure how to phrase it. Maybe "sector of space industry"? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 Done, finally. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Both the Starship spacecraft and the Super Heavy booster are powered by the Raptor rocket engine, burning liquid oxygen and liquid methane. I understand why, but this has now been said 3 times in a short timeframe. Perhaps that could be reduced to 2. I don't feel strongly though, it might only work this way.
 Done, removed the part about oxygen and methane Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Methane was chosen as Starship's propellant because it is cheaper, burns more cleanly, and can be produced on Mars via in-situ resource utilization. Perhaps throw in a "among other reasons" or "for reasons such as", because I don't think it's quite this simple. There's also ease of storing, volumetric density, and specific impulse.
 Done, added "among other reasons" Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
All Raptor engines should be able to fire many times, possibly up to a thousand each, late into manufacturing phase,[18] and have their engine nozzle regeneratively cooled. Perhaps rephrase "All Raptor engines have their engine nozzle regeneratively cooled and should be able to fire many times, possibly reaching a thousand firings as a long term goal"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
In an interview with Tim Dodd, Elon Musk, SpaceX's CEO and chief engineer, stated that Remove. The reader has no use for this information, and it doesn't make the article better, rather more confusing.
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
SpaceX will build many variants SpaceX intends to build many variants
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
The sea level-optimized engine has a throat to exit area of 1:34,[19] while the Raptor Vacuum variant is equipped with a nozzle extension, increasing its throat to exit area to 1:80. The sentence about specific impulse is okay because it links to specific impulse, and that's a standard metric by which to judge rocket engines. However, this sentence about throat to exit area, is probably too much detail. I might remove it, probably belongs on the Raptor page.
 Done, removed Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Each is fed either with a mixture containing mostly liquid oxygen or a mixture containing mostly liquid methane. Perhaps replace "One is fed with an oxygen-rich mixture, and the other is fed with a methane-rich mixture." And perhaps combine with the next sentence, connecting with a "therefore" or some such.
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Without propellant, Super Heavy's mass ranges from 160 t (350,000 lb) to 200 t (440,000 lb). Slightly confusing. The dry mass will not actually range, it will be an exact figure. There is only a range due to present day uncertainty. Perhaps rephrase "Super Heavy's dry mass (without propellant) is expected to be between" or something like that.
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Four grid fins are installed above Super Heavy and controlled by electric motors, powered by batteries. They are not above super heavy, they are on super heavy near its top. "above super heavy" makes me think they are on starship.
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Unlike the first stage of Falcon 9, the grid fins on Super Heavy can only rotate in one axis and cannot retract. Confusing to read. The F9 grid fins can retract and spin, these can just spin. It should be more clear that the "rotate on one axis" and "retract" actually refer to the same motion. Perhaps something like "the grid fins can only rotate, they cannot retract like those on the Falcon 9"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
For attitude control at space For attitude control in space
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Residents at nearby Brownsville may experience more than 60 dB A-weighted noise levels,[24] comparable to the loudness of a normal conversation. Add a comparison like this to the earlier 90db. Perhaps compare to the db of an airport.
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
The spacecraft can hold 1,200 t (2,600,000 lb) of propellant,[9] spliting into two main and two header tanks. Each tank in a type either holds liquid oxygen or liquid methane. Confusing. "tank in a type" is icky. Also "spliting" is missing a second "t". Perhaps: "Starship splits each variant of propellant into two tanks, a main tank and a header tank, for a total of four tanks to store its 1200 T of propellant". Meh. I don't really know how to make it sound great, but it's worth thinking about.
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
@Nigos Better: Each types of propellant have two dedicated main and header tanks, for a total of four tanks storing 1,200 t (2,600,000 lb) of propellant. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
These header tanks are used to store propellant for landing the spacecraft with its engines. Worth rephrasing to add an interesting tidbit, in my opinion. Perhaps "Header tanks are needed to store the last bit of fuel needed to flip the spacecraft and land vertically with its engines."
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Two are mounted at the nose cone and called forward flaps and the other two are mounted near the bottom and called aft flaps. Rephrase "Two forward flaps are mounted at the nose cone, and two aft flaps are mounted at the rear."
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Starship's heat shield is composed from many surface-mounted black tiles with some room to accommodate thermal expansion. They are mostly shaped into hexagons and mounted directly to the spacecraft, and should be able to withstand atmospheric entry multiple times. Rephrase "Starship's heat shield is composed of many hexagonal black tiles mounted directly to the spacecraft. The tiles are mounted with some room to accommodate thermal expansion, and should be able to withstand atmospheric entry multiple times."
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Starship is expected to have 1,100 m3 (39,000 cu ft) of storage volume, far larger than any spacecraft ever built. Might be worth mentioning the second place rocket, how much does it have, in comparison?
 Done @Leijurv: I would compare it to Apollo command and service module. Doing the math, that would be 180 times. However, in my opinion, this is pretty misleading, as it would imply that you can fit 500 people to Starship since the CSM can hold 3. I might try with something that's closer to Earth, let's say a typical commercial building elevator volume, which is now about 150 times. That would be easier to picture, and much easier to image imo. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
The spacecraft is expected to experience about 2 g of side and downward acceleration, and up to 6 g of upward acceleration during liftoff. Why is there both downward and upward acceleration for liftoff?
Source said so :) No really, look at the source, it really said so. Cannot argue that. Also,  1.75x amplified ultimate quack of ultimate destiny :D CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Well I can argue that it doesn't make sense as-written (and yes, I am also saying that the cited source doesn't make sense as-written). What does that actually mean and how could it be rephrased so that it makes sense to the average person? Leijurv (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
It is difficult... I really have no idea how. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 Not done because other alternatives sound way off. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Reading the source, and from my own experience in engineering, I believe is expected to is a false interpretation of the provided information and misleading in this context. First, the provided figures in the starship user manual are maximum limits - they are not necessarily nominal values, they are there so a payload designer knows the maximum possible loads their structures must withstand. Second, this information is in the context of vibration analysis - the ship's vibration may briefly cause transient downwards acceleration. I think the sentence as written is misleading; most readers probably just care about average accelerations over long timespans, if at all. I suggest striking this sentence as well as the following one about sound pressure inside the fairing. A fully contextualized set of numbers would be distracting and only useful to payload designers. Troy Trombone (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 Done, it makes sense as these figures can be misleading. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
@Troy Trombone, thanks for joining Wikipedia, it really does help to have people like you to rectify facts. I'm just an average spaceflight enthusiast :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Starship cargo variant will feature a large door replacing conventional payload fairings, which can capture, store, and return payloads to Earth Confused by this, isn't it more important to bring payloads to space, than capture and return them? Shouldn't that use case be mentioned first?
 Done Oops, fixed.
Another possibility is to mount the payload on to the inside of the payload bay's sidewalls I don't understand this. Given the previous sentence that this is "another possibility" to, it reads as if one option is to have a payload door, and another option is to have trunnions. That doesn't make sense, wouldn't you need a payload door in either case?
 Done, wording fixed Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
can be made to adapt for missions can be adapted for missions
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
delta-v budget, or range I understand the intent, which is to explain to the reader that delta v budget is like the range of a spacecraft, but I think it can be phrased better. Perhaps "delta-v budget, which is similar to an operating range" or something?
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
As of October 2020, the Rocket Cargo program is the only dedicated program that research this mode of transport, funded by the United States Transportation Command. research -> researches
 Done
A space analyst highlighted risks involved in point-to-point spacecraft travel such as conflict escalation due to misunderstanding. I have no idea what this means. Does it mean that it could be interpreted as a hostile attack? A nuclear strike? Or what?
Starship's reusability and stainless-steel construction has influenced the Terran R[44] and Project Jarvis.[45] Obviously you're meant to click on the links, but per WP:EASTEREGG we can make it a little easier on them, perhaps "has influenced other rockets such as Terran R and Project Jarvis" so the reader knows they're rockets.
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
The firm further explained that both projects are very intertwined, since improvements in launch capacity and cost will improve Starlink and vice versa. Maybe "since improvements in launch capacity and cost can be applied to Starlink satellite launches, and Starlink profits can be fed back into Starship development"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Starship may enable very large science payloads "may" -> "would" or "should"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
One such example are the To avoid the weird grammar of "one are", perhaps "For example, the" and then at the end "could be made possible by Starship"
terraformation of Mars The article says "terraforming" and I think that is the more common word, perhaps use that here too
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
He also often made many over-optimistic near-term development timelines and pressures his employees to achieve them. Change of tense, "has often made" is past tense but "pressures" is present tense. Change "pressures" to "pressured", or change "made" to "makes" (but not both, haha).
Nevertheless, Musk had acknowledged There is no event to anchor the "had" to, so this doesn't make sense. Probably just "musk has acknowledged"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
fuel Starships and sending the settlers back to Earth. Perhaps "fuel Starships to return the settlers to Earth." But perhaps "settlers" isn't right, because if you return you aren't a settler just a visitor, maybe?
 Done, changed to generic "people" Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
However, methane production via the Sabatier reaction is very energy inefficient, requires an extensive thermal management system, and the resultant methane must be purified before use. This feels like it needs a sentence after it, maybe like "For these reasons, the Sabatier process is not used on Earth for economic reasons, but it will be the only option on Mars"? Perhaps, I'm not sure.
with the workforce primarily made from nearby residents I'm not sure this makes sense to say, it seems obviously and necessarily true.
 Done, removed Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
The build site is Starship's production line, where many prototypes are built simultaneously at facilities. "at facilities" doesn't make sense, maybe just delete it?
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Most of the vehicles' raw materials are delivered as rolls of steel, where they are unravelled, cut, and welded into steel rings. The "where" doesn't make grammatical sense, perhaps instead use ", then unravelled"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
The vehicle may launch from one of two orbital launch complex there "complex" -> "complexes"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
there, each consists Replace comma with semicolon
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
eight tanks, three Replace comma with colon
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
cover about the development program cover the development program
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
However, some residents of Boca Chica Village and Brownsville have criticized Starship development claiming that SpaceX had conducted test flights along with infrastructure construction without explicit permission by government agencies,[67] the forced sale of houses, and noise pollution.[68] The last Oxford comma with the "and" doesn't make sense. "Claiming that SpaceX the forced sale of houses" doesn't work. Perhaps ", forced them to sell their houses, and caused noise pollution".
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Two tank farms holding liquid methane or liquid oxygen would be placed at launch complex's first and second corner, while its last corner would host a road, heading toward Starship's launch and landing site. Unclear what "first corner", "second corner", "last corner" means.
NASASpaceFlight.com, a space news website with a dedicated column for Starship, analyzed potential advantages of mitigating of sonic booms from residential areas and increasing launch frequency of the Starship tanker variant, vital for refilling spacecraft in orbit. This sentence is missing the "so what". What was the conclusion of the analysis? Are there advantages? Feels like this needs a ", and they concluded that the offshore platforms could be vital in making Starship rapidly reusable without causing unacceptable noise disruption to onshore communities" or some such.
cut off, just before the stages "just before" -> "then"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
delta-v budget or range Same comment as above ^ for this "budget or range" phrase.
 Done, removed as it was explained earlier in the article already Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
For destinations with a substantial atmosphere, Add "such as Earth, "
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
after atmospheric entry Starship's body faces windward Starship's body faces windward after atmospheric entry
thereby changing the amount of aerodynamic drag exerted and its terminal velocity. Probably worth saying the direction, not just "changing", it should say "increasing drag and decreasing terminal velocity". Maybe even go above and beyond and say why we want to do that, how the heat shield will reflect heat, etc
A thesis analyzed that the belly flop maneuver can reduce the g-force exerted to astronauts and spent propellant. Reduce it from what? What's the alternative? Are the G-forces comparable to landing in other kinds of spacecraft? Are they within human tolerances?
Minutes before touchdown, it is predicted Sorry to say it, but this entire paragraph looks like WP:PRIMARY/WP:OR to me. Do we have WP:RS saying that this analysis is valid? It looks like this is just directly cited to a primary source analysis paper.
propellant at the main tanks "at" -> "in"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
difficulties at pressurization "at" -> "with"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Starship development has been described as iterative and incremental and often contrasted against Blue Origin's New Glenn[77] and NASA's Space Launch System development.[78] Ehhhhhhhhhh, the "often" feels like WP:WEASEL. I don't know. Maybe it's fine. It feels a bit too... fanboy, I guess.
Removed "often" Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
to collect vast amounts Remove "vast", it borders on WP:PEACOCK
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
had led to many prototypes' explosion haS led to many prototypeS exploDING
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
another space vehicle The article uses "spacecraft" or "launch vehicle", I don't think "space vehicle" works that well.
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
launch vehicle, able to put I think this would read better as "launch vehicle that could put" or "launch vehicle capable of putting"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
booster was going to have Again, reads a bit better as "booster would have". Same goes for "spacecraft was going to have nine"
 Done, change to "would have had" Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
other than getting from the government Not valid, perhaps just remove "getting"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
sea level-optimized Just a random note, should this be sea-level-optimized? I know that's weird, but it feels a bit better since "level-optimized" feels like "one thing". Idk.
I'm not too sure about this Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Besides ferrying crew Perhaps "Besides" -> "Beyond" or "In addition to"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
rather for getting more Missing a phrase, perhaps "rather it was intended for getting more"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
In September 2018, the dearMoon project Link to dearmoon
 Not done, it was already linked earlier in the article (lede and the commercial section)
and be paid for by Awkward, perhaps it could be just ", paid for by"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
The spacecraft, containing Maezawa along six to eight artists, Missing a word, maybe "alongside" or "along with". Also "containing" should be maybe "bringing" or even "ferrying". Honestly maybe just reword the whole thing, something like "In September 2018, the dearMoon project was announced, to be funded by (descriptive phrase like "billionare" or something) Yusaku Maezawa. During a presentation to blah blah, a revised design of the Big Falcon Rocket was presented, that would have blah blah blah. Maezawa, along with six to eight other artists and SpaceX pilots, will fly a free-return trajectory around the moon, to 'create amazing works of blah blah next generation'"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
During the presentation, Musk revised the He did not revise it during the presentation, so maybe instead "During the presentation, Musk detailed the revised"
Seems to have been already done.
Starhopper is the first prototype to "is" -> "was"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
and hopped up to about Mention it was untethered this time. Are there any copyright-allowed photos that could be added too? Also it's worth explaining that by "hop" it means a controlled hover at low speed, otherwise it might make people think of a ballistic trajectory (which is much more normal for a rocket).
 Done, looking for photos Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
@Leijurv: Is it alright if I link to external media instead? Nigos (talk | contribs) 15:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Sure! Leijurv (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
presentation, where Musk is the main speaker Awkward, maybe just "presentation given by Musk"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
unlike carbon composites of unlike the carbon composites used in
The switch's rationales are The rationales for the switch are
The company in January 2020 purchased two oil drilling rigs from then-bankrupt Valaris plc for $3.5 million each, planning to repurpose them as offshore spaceports. Link to SpaceX Starship offshore platforms somewhere in here
Notably, its third engine fire test splashed the molten pad below. Does this mean "melted the pad below"? Or was it already molten from unrelated causes? :)
but it crashed to the pad while still moving downward fast but it crashed into the pad, still at high speed
performing almost identical flight path performing an almost identical flight path
as debris from the explosion make the surrounding area dangerous "make" -> "made". Or rephrase entirely, maybe "posed a danger to the surrounding area"
which it would have which would have
two sub-orbital launch pad two sub-orbital launch pads
tank farm storing propellant "tank farm for storing propellant" or "tank farm to store propellant" or "tank farm that stores propellant"
to a city named Starbase "to" -> "into"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
authority power and potential abuse for eviction Add commas: "authority, power, and potential abuse for eviction"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
although leaned by its crushed legs "by" -> "due to" Also explain more, that some legs got crushed on one side or whatever, maybe include a picture?
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
with one possible cause is a rupture in propellant tank "is" -> "being"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
the same maneuvers by prior prototypes "by" -> "as"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
then in-construction "in" -> "under"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
the first complete Starship launch vehicle "complete" isn't really correct, perhaps "full-scale" or "full height" or "stacked"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
In a report sent by SpaceX to the Federal Communications Commission Sentence is missing something like "SpaceX explained the planned trajectory of the first orbital flight of the Starship system in a report sent..."

And there's an nice, even, 100 bullet points.

 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Hope this helps! :) Leijurv (talk) 08:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll fix this once I'm able to do so Nigos (talk | contribs) 09:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

A few more by proxy (credit to SYNSG)

another SpaceX facility at Florida Say where in Florida (Coca)
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
The company in January 2020 purchased two oil drilling rigs from then-bankrupt Valaris plc for $3.5 million each "then-bankrupt" isn't great, maybe "during their bankruptcy proceedings"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
After the Mark series, SpaceX named subsequent prototypes with the prefix "serial number" or "SN", followed by the serial number awkward
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Newer prototypes would feature minor improvements over the last version if you're going to say "named" you can just say "featured"
No prototypes between SN1 and SN4 were flown, between February 2020 awkward
SN1 bent and then burst buckled then burst
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
SN2 was repurposed to be a test tank "to be" -> "as a"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
and SN4 exploded after its fifth engine fire "fire" -> "firing"
 Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
the company started accelerating the construction of manufacturing and support infrastructure at Starbase, such as large tents, stations, and repurposed "started accelerating" -> "accelerated"
Seems to be done.
When linked together, these facilities effectively become a production line unclear meaning
 Done, clarified (i hope) Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Leijurv (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done, addressed all issues. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments by User:SYNSG:

  • Starhopper is the first prototype to operate a full-flow staged combustion cycle rocket engine the source cited here doesn't actually mention this claim, only stating that "this was the first time a large rocket engine burning liquid-methane propellant made a significant flight", which is unrelated to the combustion cycle. roughly the same claim is made earlier in the article (The Raptor engine is the only operational full-flow staged combustion cycle) with an appropriate source, perhaps reuse that citation. also, saying it's the "first prototype to operate..." is a bit misleading, it's the first prototype to fly. as mentioned earlier in the article, FFSC engines have been tested on stands before.

SYNSG (talk) 11:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Will find source for the claim,  In progress. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Meta-comments by CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

This makes me a lot less confident for the article to pass FA. This does not mean that the reviewers are bad, not at all! It is just that there are so much stuff needing to be done. My prediction that an editor would not be enough is spot-on here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I also cannot contribute much anymore, since I am going to have a hectic schedule near Christmas. See you guys later, and hope that Wikiholism don't kick in :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Watchlisting this for the time being. I know someone off-wiki who is interested in SpaceX and who might have input on missing information etc. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for being involved here, feel free for them to fact check anything :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, folks. I haven't edited Wikipedia in ages but I am effectively the space blogger on TV Tropes. I can look over this and give my comments but bear with me since I'm not used to the markup. Fighteer (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
@Fighteer: Feel free! You can learn the markup here: Help:Wikitext. Once you get used to this, it becomes pretty easy to use. Do keep in mind the verifiability policy before adding or removing content, it is really important to sort out speculations! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
@Nigos: Wait a sec... A comment by @Hurricane Noah in the article's previous FAC said this: There's quite a bit of relevant scholarly sources out there that aren't included. For example, I saw one related to future landing sites on Mars. Should we include them? For Noah: What do you mean by that comment? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
We could include them in the mission section Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
[19] You will need to look through these and find any relevant ones that need to be added. NoahTalk 13:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 Done, to the best possible extent. I am poor and many resources being paywalled pretty heavily. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I have some concerns about the article's compliance of the WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Many of the sections presented have its own article and the featured article criteria has this counted, so this is important problem to solve. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
This is just my opinion and I tend towards more "comprehensive" in terms of information content, but I don't think the sections are unnecessarily long and detailed. Imma ping SandyGeorgia too for a different perspective, since they tend more towards "summary" than I. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't see anything of concern length-wise; the overall article length is fine, and the sections which have sub-articles are not excessive. Should the article grow considerably, tighter summaries may be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia I just gonna play safe and use the summary style instead of the inverted pyramid, as the topic is expected to grow a ton in the future. The summary style is not just "summarizing" in the guideline in my view; it makes sure that the reader can understand the topic when jump into sections, i.e. read Starship history first before design. I would think of this as writing the lede of a brand new articles, with some exceptions. Is my interpretation of the guideline correct though? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments by User:Fighteer (talk):

  • Are we discussing Starship and its Super Heavy booster in the present or future tense? Using the future tense implies that the statements will shift to present (and past where applicable) at some point. Using present tense implies that various claims and statements have already occurred. For example: It is the largest and most powerful rocket ever constructed. To me, an enthusiast, this implies that it is currently operational. It is also an absolute statement that would need to be revised should a larger and/or more powerful rocket be created. I wouldn't write it that way, but this may be in keeping with Wikipedia's general guidelines. Further, the grammar in this article is all over the place, with a confusing mix of past and present tenses.
  • The ambiguity between Starship (referring to the upper stage) and Starship (referring to the entire launch vehicle) presents a challenge for economical writing. I blame SpaceX for this, but c'est la vie. For example, The first complete Starship spacecraft prototype achieved flight appears to use "spacecraft" as a qualifier but this is nowhere in use in SpaceX's own public documents nor in media coverage. I see that the distinction is made in the Design section, which a reader would need to examine in order to clarify the introduction. I would prefer "upper stage", as that is the primary role of the vehicle, but I will cede the point if this has already been decided.
  • In the Background section: partly because of numerous technical and political challenges. "partly" and "numerous" make the language feel cluttered. I would remove "partly" and better enumerate the challenges.
  • by attempting to recover and eventually reuse the first stage of Falcon 9, its previous launch vehicle. Can be read to imply that Falcon 9 is no longer in service, an inaccurate claim.
  • I suggest adding a paragraph describing the philosophy behind Starship in terms of the economic value of a fully reusable launch vehicle. I'll draft it when I have the occasion.
  • The link to environmental impact statement in the Starbase section implies that the FAA has required an EIS for the site when in fact only an environmental assessment is being performed. Since the EA process is incorporated in the EIS article, a pothole might be used to avoid confusion.
  • Portions of this article are redundant with SpaceX Starship development, creating a risk that inaccuracies may be introduced if one of them is edited but not the other. Further, that latter article has tags for original research and excessive detail. We should either merge them and clean them up or shift the detail over to that article.
  • If I understand Wikipedia policy (MOS:TIES) properly, units and vocabulary in this article, including the Wikidata sidebar, should use American spellings since SpaceX is a US company and operates in America.
    • @Fighteer: Thank you for reviewing the article! About Wikidata, it is extremely difficult to change its spelling, because it is supposed to be unified and someone chose metre over meter for that. Otherwise, I will try to fix up all of the issues that you and Leijurv addressed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
      • @CactiStaccingCrane: You're welcome. I'm still making some more observations but need to get to sleep soon. A compromise on the Wikidata issue might be to use SI abbreviations for units, as I've seen in other articles, to avoid the spelling conflict. Fighteer (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
        I will try my best at that. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
        Actually, you should not have a wikidata infobox on any featured article. Why not? Wikidata is much more vulnerable to vandalism than Wikipedia is, apparently. Also, if the Wikidata is vandalized it won't show up in your watchlist so you may not notice. (t · c) buidhe 15:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
        I'll fix that tomorrow once I'm able to. Nigos (talk | contribs) 16:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
        I disagree. The wikidata infobox has references and vandalism can easily be fixed just as added. Changes can be seen and reverted by just clicking a few buttons and adjust its value. In my experience, it is not that often (3 during 3 months) as the vandal typically add either too-early-elon-announcement on Twitter or "69420" things. @Huntster quite often patrol the page so there should be no problem. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
        The reward here outweigh the risk of vandalising, and I don't really see a huge problem after wikidata is set up. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
        You'll hate me for this, but I'm going to vehemently disagree with this. Despite mostly working on Wikidata now, I strongly believe that using WD for Infoboxes should absolutely never be done for complex situations like what we have here. Wikidata items are not the end-all be-all. They are just as susceptible, if not more, to vandalism, and they are inflexible. As a knowledge storage device, WD is very useful; as a supporting service to other projects, it is not. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
        Well, it won't cut it when the article starts to translate to other languages, for example, Vietnamese or Simple English. IF left as is, the infobox would be soon out-of-date. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
     Done, addressed all issues. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

We can always use the Wikidata infobox on simplewiki and vnwiki Nigos (talk | contribs) 06:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Urve

First look at a source review. Version looked at.

  • General comment: Some FAC regulars believe that sources should all be standardised in terms of capitalization of titles; this doesn't matter to me, but it is a consideration. Compare citation 78 (title case) to 16 (sentence case). Make of this what you will.
  • Cite 14, not sure if faa.gov is relevant; it's just the technical hoster of the document. If you want to include FAA in the citation, maybe Federal Aviation Administration is better than just faa.gov.
  • Good - all of the pipes (|) have been removed from site titles
  • Spot check and specifics. Based on first instance of the sources only, did not check repeated uses.
    • Reference 2: Good
    • Reference 6: where is "Raptor Vacuum" in this? I don't see it being said that it's part of Starship
    • Reference 7: don't see "its design can change rapidly" supported
    • Reference 12: Good. Probably better to compare it to the Space Shuttle than "many". You can say that there are plans to have redundancy, and that the Moon and Mars wouldn't support an escape mechanism - that's why there's not one.
    • Reference 13: OK.
    • "On SpaceX's website"? You can say "According to SpaceX" instead. This reads weirdly and the precision (a website vs. a press release) isn't necessary
    • Reference 17: OK.
    • "like all conventional rockets": One concern people may have is editorializing. Why do we need to say this? It's obviously true, but the effect it has it it diminishes the complaints by saying they're to be expected. Which may or may not be true, but I don't think we should be giving that impression.
    • Reference 24: does not say black AFAICT
    • Reference 29: Don't see this information there
    • "It is formally defined by a whitepaper" - "in a whitepaper" is better, but I'm not sure it matters
    • Reference 33: There's too much information in the source that I don't understand to check for accuracy, please verify all details yourself
    • Reference 21: theses are not generally high-quality reliable sources unless the author has become a respected academic in that area of study
  • General comment: I dislike Space.com (mixed scores at RSN), but probably OK for this article.

Have to go now, will pick up at section "Variants" when I'm able to Urve (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I have less time than I thought, so if I can find some, I'll return to this. I will say that if this is nominated soon, I will either not comment or oppose on stability and probably sourcing. The spot checks I've done are concerning, because even though I'm not looking through every source, there are still problems with source-text integrity. I did some informal spot checks that I haven't written down, and several aren't supported by the citations.
I think after this peer review is done, we need to find a stable version of the article that does not have significant prose, sourcing, or layout issues. Then sit on it for a couple weeks. Then nominate it. The dozens/hundreds of edits a day are very hard to keep up with in a peer review, and especially a FAC, because the versions we review will quickly become outdated and we have to entirely start over with all of the additions/removals. My two cents. I'm disengaging from this for now. Urve (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments! I will self source check the article for all ref, since this ratio of bad ref is concerning. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments by User:Ahecht (talk):

I did some copyediting to the article, but it is nowhere near FA status. It needs to be VERY careful about differentiating between what Elon Musk claims the rocket will be able to do, and what the rocket actually can do. As I write this, the Starship portion can do nothing more than fly on three engines to 10km and land, and the booster has done nothing other than a fit check (and even then, while all the engines were installed, they weren't all plumbed in). Any claims of performance or size need to be qualified with the fact that a complete flyable rocket has not yet been built, and that Elon Musk has a long history of stating aspirational goals as facts. I fixed the sentence The rocket consists of a Super Heavy booster stage at the bottom and a Starship spacecraft at the top, making it the tallest and most powerful of all., but you have to be very careful of using statements like that without (a) qualifying them as planned, (b) dating them (as of when?), and (c) avoiding non-specific and non-encyclopedia language such as "most powerful of all" (all what?).

@Ahecht: It's pretty difficult to work on these stuffs, where everything changes everyday. I should have picked another article when joined Wikipedia... Anyways, thanks a lot for your comments, and I will try my best to improve the prose to the best of my ability. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@CactiStaccingCrane Yeah, this article is a great start, but it's hard to do a Featured Article on an unstable subject. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Ahecht  Done, hunted to the last facts. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments by User:StarshipSLS:

@CactiStaccingCrane The article is very well written. I made some edits for clarity. I also agree with the above statement from User:Ahecht that Elon Musk often puts aspirational goals as facts. I also reccommend avoiding using Elon Musk's tweets as references and instead using articles from NASASpaceflight and other similar news agencies. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 19:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
@StarshipSLS Thanks for the compliments. I have removed all space.com and Musk tweets from the article, and I will skim the article again for checking and rephrasing goals. Also, welcome back! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@CactiStaccingCrane Thanks for the welcome! The reason I haven't been editing lately is that I've been busy with my spaceflight website. Because of this website, I will likely be editing Wikipedia on and off, so I may not reply right away when you message me on Wikipedia, so the best way to reach me would be via Discord. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 01:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@StarshipSLS Ah, alright. Good luck at working at your website! I hope that the materials inside Starship's Wikipedia page would help you partially with that goal. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! @CactiStaccingCrane StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 01:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Related GAR

There is a Good Article Review at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/SpaceX Starship/2. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Let's set the lead sentence straight

I am hoping we can reach consensus on how the first lead sentence should be written. I initially modeled this first sentence after several other launch vehicle pages (see here, here, and here), however it keeps getting changed to something along the lines of "Starship is a fully-reusable rocket made out of stainless steel, in development by SpaceX".

Based on the precedence set by prior launch vehicle articles, it is more important to let readers know that Starship is a super-heavy lift launch vehicle than it is to let them know what material it is made out of. The fact that Starship is made out of stainless steel is useful, but just not in the first sentence.

While it is indeed novel that such a large rocket is being constructed out of stainless steel, including that in the first sentence means nothing to someone who doesn't know anything about why this is useful to know. Instead, it should be explained why stainless steel is an unusual and novel choice in the rocket industry. This could be done later in the lead, but it's probably best not in the first sentence. Maxmmyron (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with these statements. My attempt to improve the lead sentence a few days ago here was reverted with the justification that "super heavy-lift launch vehicle is not needed as more specific capability is stated later in the lead". I think that it is necessary for precisely that reason; the specific capabilities of the launch vehicle ought to continue from the general statement of its capacity, namely "super heavy-lift". My current preferred version of the lead sentence is:
Starship is a fully-reusable super heavy-lift launch vehicle in development by SpaceX.
Discussion of the stainless steel composition would follow later in the lead. Yiosie 2356 22:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@Yiosie2356: I disagree. For one thing, super heavy-lift launch vehicle is basically a capability classification, and the "100 tons" is more useful and specific to non-technical reader. It's like saying "A quark is a half-spin elementary particle". CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
The articles for Saturn V and Energiya both have "super-heavy lift" in their first sentence. I think it's fine, especially when "super heavy-lift launch vehicle" is linked. Polymath03 (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Added "super heavy-lift" per discussion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
@Maxmmyron: I agree that the article need more explanation about many decisions of the Starship program, but I am pretty burn-out after a few months straight of editing. We already has a very specific number of rocket capability, see my argument above. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Remove future tense?

Hard to source from the future. I would suggest that sentences like "Starship will launch at Starbase, Kennedy Space Center, and two offshore launch platforms" ought to be rephrased with somewhat less prophecy, e.g. "Starship is set to launch at..." or "Starship is expected to launch.." or "SpaceX plans to launch Starhip at ....", "If all goes well, Starship will..."

Similar comments apply to most other uses of the word "will" in the article.

On the other hand, "The rocket will consist of" can now move into the present tense :) -- Vonfraginoff (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing concerns

Urve, now that the good article review is closed, I think that the sourcing issue is best dealt here. I don't solve the issues you have mentioned before, primarily because there is just so much high-quality source out there in the past. Musk's update gives a lot of new, verifiable information to the public, and is one of the main sources of information I'm collecting. Sorry for the conflict in the past, I hope that we can set it aside and focus on making SpaceX Starship a high-quality article instead. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I legitimately do not know what this message is communicating, but based on what I understand: If you want to deal with sourcing, then I left examples of things that should be fixed. I don't think it's fair or appropriate to expect another long source review if the entire article will change with Musk's "new, verifiable information". (I don't know what this refers to.) Urve (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Alright, what I mean by that is that I have checked the sourcing, and the reason I'm idle at the GAR is because there is simply not enough reliable information. To put it another way, information in unreliable sources are now confirmed by Musk's presentation. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

National security?

Feel free to delete this if too much like a forum. But I was wondering if the environmental review goes against the current base could/would the US government overrule it on the grounds of national security? So that they have extra launch capacity for spy satellites just in case Russia decides to shoot some down. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is a real concern. Actually, let me find sources for that... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Change main image to full stack?

Now that the system has been fully stacked a few times and there are plenty of photos out there to use, should we switch the infobox to using a single photo of the full stack instead of separate photos of the Starship and Super Heavy stages? SpudNutimus (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

SpudNutimus: Unfortunately, these pictures are all copyrighted and cannot be used here. However, if you have obtained permission of these authors (albeit unlikely), please let me know. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I have obtained permission to use a photo. Link to the original upload of the photo: https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/t2unqg/my_son_took_this_shot_while_i_was_chillaxing/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 and proof of permission: https://i.imgur.com/JW8G02t.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpudNutimus (talk • contribs) 20:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
okay update: realizing I need photo editing permission and a license, sorry, reaching out to the photographer again but no guarantees, my bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpudNutimus (talk • contribs) 21:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
nope, couldn't get permission. oof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpudNutimus (talk • contribs) 21:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
double nevermind, the photographer just took a bit to respond. they're gonna come back with a flickr commons link — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpudNutimus (talk • contribs) 21:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
flickr link with cc attribution sharealike 2.0 license https://www.flickr.com/photos/195131646@N04/51912424446 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpudNutimus (talk • contribs) 22:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
SpudNutimus, you actually did it! Thanks a lot for your help, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
I kept the original image intact based on the author request and used separate cropped version instead, in case if he message you that. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

This image being used is rather low quality. Would be best if a higher quality image could be sources and licensed.

Also... The full stack caption saying it is in a launch position remains incorrect as the chopsticks, and other equipment are not in launch position. Aswx (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Go there and take a better picture. The professional photographers generally don't make their images available for Wikipedia. We use what we can get, and the existing image is still better than everything that doesn't show the full stack. --mfb (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Good tertiary sources

Jot down some here for future reference.

A lot of these won't be optimal to be used for reference directly, but they are a good overview of the program. It is also interesting that some facts are paraphrased from this article, such as this paragraph from the NYT:

The fully stacked rocket system would launch from Texas, with the Super Heavy booster splashing down in the Gulf of Mexico after delivering Starship to orbit — “a partial return” demonstration some 20 miles from the Texas shore. After reaching orbit, Starship will attempt to make a nearly full trip around the Earth before re-entering the atmosphere for a splashdown roughly 60 miles off the coast of Kauai, one of Hawaii’s northernmost islands.

compared to a paragraph at this article:

SpaceX explained the planned trajectory of the first orbital flight of the Starship system in a report sent to the Federal Communications Commission. The rocket is planned to launch from Starbase, then Super Heavy will separate and perform a soft water landing around 30 km (20 mi) from the Texan shoreline. The spacecraft will continue flying with its ground track passing through the Straits of Florida, and then softly land in the Pacific Ocean around 100 km (60 mi) northwest of Kauai in the Hawaiian Islands. The whole spaceflight will last ninety minutes.

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Use of images

As a reader, I want to congratulate the editor(s) who made such efficient use of images and layout in this article. It really works well, and I wish more articles used images like this. Thanks for your work. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Viriditas, yeah, but the prose though, ewwww! Yes, I am a main editor of the article and I've managed to screw up coherency by a large margin :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I am available to help with the prose. Just ask. Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your help! I will try to add more information criticize the program, as it is the main reason the article is delisted. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Viriditas, what do you think the article is still missing? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
I would have to review any open tasks, past and present discussions, and the article itself to even begin to answer that question. It could take me a few days. Viriditas (talk) 08:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your dedication! I will try to help you as much as you want, just tell me if you need something. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
I should point out that the idea expressed in the GAR that a criticism section is required or necessary is a common misunderstanding. It is routinely championed by some of our most experienced editors who never bothered to read the MOS. I myself recently ran into a similar group of editors making the same erroneous claims in a biography, where they insisted that politically motivated think tanks who were paid to publish criticism of a book by the subject should be allowed! Unfortunately, with that kind of ignorance, it is almost impossible to counter, so I had to temporarily leave the article. Regardless of the state of this article, it looks like you are experiencing similar issues. I’m not saying you have to leave, but you will probably need to change your strategy. The easiest thing to do is to start addressing the problems separately. We don’t need a criticism section, but we do need to have the most notable critiques addressed in their respective sections, if necessary. As for copyediting, while I am certainly available to help, the first thing you want to do is make a special request for help with that task over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Once you have enough people with eyes on this article coming at it from different angles to address different problems, your job will become easier and you will start to make progress. Viriditas (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Hmm... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Prose questions

  • As of December 2021, the Kennedy Space Center considers having Starship launch pads at Launch Complex 39A and 49.
    • I’m not sure what "considers" is intended to mean here. Are the launch pads in place yet? Viriditas (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
    Not yet, but they are in the plan. Adjusted. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Parts on display section
    • This small section would work better as a footnote. Consider creating a separate footnote section. Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
    I merged it to facilities section. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Implicit decisions made

Since many decisions here are made in edits only, I thought that explicitly state their rationale here would help a lot of future editors. Feel free to disagree/change the decisions at any time. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  • The first sentence is used to define the topic, with three subsequent paragraphs describe Starship's capabilities, functions, uses; Starship's launch; and Starship's development.
  • {{Multiple image}} is used instead of placing pictures next to each other because the sections are too short and may violate MOS:SANDWICH in large screen sizes.
  • All units are abbreviated, with "metric (imperial)" format
  • Wikidata is integrated on the article's infobox. This has been controversial to many editors.
  • All prototypes that has flown are mentioned, but not every single one of them. Notable examples includes SN16, SN21, etc. Reliable sources and a notable event are needed to be listed here, else the prototype could be mentioned at SpaceX Starship development.
  • Falcon X and Falcon XX (see edit history) are not mentioned, as the only source that could be found is a post from NASASpaceFlight.com.
  • Mk3, an alternative name of SN1, is not mentioned primarily to prevent confusion. Also, the sources are shaky on this fact.
  • Some pictures are still missing from the article due to a lack of free license, such as the Raptor Vacuum and Super Heavy only.
  • Some primary sources are used, such as the environmental assessment draft, FCC filing, and ENSCO manual. Some editors have highlighted concerns about Ars Technica's and NASASpaceFlight.com's source independence and reliability.

Point of view issue

The recent good article review cited POV as the reason for delisting. Thus, I created this section for solving this issue. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems correct to have moved the criticism of one of Spaceship's launch sites to the article of the launch site rather than keep it here. I say remove the tag, doubtful that the next good article reviewer will be miffed about the lack of criticism. Wojacks (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Let's see that other editors agree like you. If so, after forming a consensus, only then will I remove the tag. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
It would help to use this section to "write for the enemy". That is to say, steelman the POV arguments of your opponents in list form, and allow editors to poke holes in it. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, though I want to stay away from this article for a while. There is too much stress from good article review already. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Viriditas, let me try to outline some of the common criticism about the rocket and program:
  • Environmental harm (explosions and such)
  • Gentrification, financial inequality, etc.
  • Lofty plans (Mars 2024!)
  • Unproven technologies
That's it basically for me. Other criticisms are more focused on controversies around Elon Musk and Tesla, Inc.. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Viriditas, alright, I have just tried to bring the best of each of the criticisms listed above. Do you think that this is satisfactory now? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I’m going to need a diff to see the changes. I’m concerned that the article has gotten worse since the GAR, not better. Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Space Launch System & Starship

Alright, I found that there are many articles that compare both of these rockets together, from simple specs to complicated development methodology. I don't think that the article would complete without at least mentioning that (though I am aware of false balance and such), and also, having a person with an opposing viewpoint would be great for making this article more neutral. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking back, I don't think that adding the comparison would be appropriate due to inevitable recentism bias. Better be late than never. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Poorly written intro

The first sentence of this article, and even the whole first paragraph, is really shoddy and does not live up to standards. By comparison read the beginning of one of the Falcon articles:

> Falcon 9 Full Thrust (also known as Falcon 9 v1.2, with variants Block 1 to Block 5) is a partially reusable medium-lift launch vehicle, designed and manufactured by SpaceX. Designed in 2014–2015, Falcon 9 Full Thrust began launch operations in December 2015. As of 1 April 2022, Falcon 9 Full Thrust had performed 126 launches without any failures.

This defines what it is, who made it, when it was made, and summarizes its launch history. By comparison, this crappy intro starts off "Starship is the tallest and heaviest rocket that has been built" which reads like a line from a children's book. C'mon people do better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.60.215.239 (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

So fix it. Yeeno (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't have the relevant technical insight. 73.60.215.239 (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Yeeno, I will fix it if you want. The problem, however, is that Starship has made 0 launches and have not entered operation. IP, I'm not sure what exactly do you want from the lead more. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
@CactiStaccingCrane: I don't really have a problem with it, I just wanted to encourage the IP to fix it if they felt it was worth bringing up. They probably want you to adhere to the traditional lead format, though I can see how that can be difficult here. Not sure what the prior consensus is here, but maybe you can describe what type of rocket it is in the opening sentence, while emphasizing that it's never been launched before. Yeeno (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Alright, let me try to do so. Best, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I’m not sure what’s going on here. The lead section has seriously degraded since the last GAR. I don’t understand how that could happen when the opposite is supposed to be happening. Might be best to restore the old lead section at this point moving forward and allow other editors to contribute. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Viriditas, I copied the lead of the old GAR to the article, feel free to mess around and such with it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to "Applications" Section

Last night I made some largish edits to the "applications" section. Many of the edits were revised, and I agree with some of these revisions. However, there were some larger structural bits that were reverted, and I'd like to discuss them here before making further changes.

1. I believe it is appropriate to include a "Military uses" section - the military has already contracted Starship, Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy both have an extensive history of flying military payloads, and military applications do not fit cleanly under "Commercial space uses." A decent source for the proposed section can be found here: [20].

2. The final paragraph of "Space exploration" and the final paragraph of "Space colonization" need to be shortened or cut. The former contains specific details of highly speculative missions that have received no funding and do not exist outside of a CAD model. The latter is a detailed description of the Sabatier reaction, which is an unnecessary tangent (linking the page about the reaction, giving a one-sentence mention, and citing the source is fine imo).

I'll help work on the weasel words when I get the time. BagelRabbit (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

BagelRabbit, hey, I am the guy who revised that section. Don't take the {{weasel}} too personally – I don't intend to shame your work. I still don't find having a section for "Military uses" useful, and besides SpaceX technically sell the launches to the military, so placing them to "Commercial uses" kinda makes sense. However, I agree that the paragraphs at "Space colonization" and "Space exploration" need to be sorted out. Regards, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Cacti, might I recommend experimenting with accepting BagelRabbit’s proposed edits? Let them sit in the article for a few days to a week. If after that time you feel strongly that they don’t work, then revisit the issue. I feel that your response indicates a somewhat knee-jerk reaction bordering on ownership, and it’s a feeling I know well. Remember, this article needs to move forward for improvement, and that means taking different approaches and perspectives into consideration. Viriditas (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Alright, I will not edit the article for a whole month then. I also do strongly feel that I have owned the article, probably due to me working alone the whole time. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Added the edits by BagelRabbit. Let's see how the ball rolls. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Draft

Just a head up, I will rewrite the article to be detached from recent sources (like breaking news or stuff obtained by snooping at Starbase) in Draft:SpaceX Starship. Come in and add some info to the draft! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Propose merge from Starship HLS

Starship HLS contains a lot of original research and poorly sourced information, so much so that if it is merged and trimmed for duplicate content, it only needs one paragraph at the "Variant" section to be comprehensive. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  • OPPOSE — The HLS contract with SpaceX is an approx. US$3 billion contract as initially signed by the US government in 2021. It has a massive amount of special US government/NASA requirements and contracting specifics that will make every Starship second stage to be used for HLS landing of NASA astronauts on the Moon be very different, in many ways, than a basic Starship. It is notable. All of this will remain very newsworthy/notable, and a vast amount of HLS-specific news stories will continue for years as this ship completes design, is built, tested, and may or may not ever actually fly with NASA astronauts on board from the Lunar Gateway to the surface of the Moon. The encyclopedic summary of this material is now, and will continue to be, so large that covering it in the main Starship article would make the article too long, or need to delete important detail. The Starship HLS article should thus not be merged into this article, that already covers the Super Heavy Booster PLUS the first-ever fully-reusable second stage rocket PLUS has (only) a high-level summary of the variant models of the second stage. N2e (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE — The HLS variant is very different from the more generic variants, which are different from each other. Each variant will eventually get its own article as that variant becomes separately notable, just as we have articles on different aircraft of nominally the same type. The base article SpaceX Starship is already quite large and was needed to be split, which was where Starship HLS came from in the first place. If you think Starship HLS has problems, then identify them or fix them. -Arch dude (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Criticism

I just wanted to get the community's feedback regarding statements like this: "critics have noted its potential damage to the natural and social environment around the sites." It seems to me that there should be citations to the specific criticisms. I have added the "citation needed" markup, but others have deleted it. B1db2 (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

There is already a ref for that in the development section. The lead section only summerices the rest and needs no refs for itself. Gial Ackbar (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Date format

This article uses US English but has dmy dates. Based on strong ties to the US, and not being linked to the US military, I believe the format should be mdy, which is more usual for US-linked articles. Should this be changed to mdy, per MOS:DATETIES? Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

It's a spaceflight article where dmy is more common ("In topics where a date format that differs from the usual national one is in customary usage"). We use metric units first here for the same reason . --mfb (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for replying, I was about to start changing it over, so thanks for explaining. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
There was a discussion on this topic from a few months ago here that end without a conclusion. Specific to the Starship mission, most of the sources still use a MDY format, including the Starship page. To echo my opinion from the discussion linked above, I don't think there is evidence of the sources for Starship/NASA using a different date format than the US standard of MDY. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Balon Greyjoy, I think the article should be kept as DMY as it is now being used. However, I'm not against using MDY either. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Article has been using MDY since earliest days. Standard date policy is to keep it as it began. But also, as a spaceflight article, many of which are global in extent, and when in space, always global by definition, it also just plain makes sense. N2e (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm in favor of a Wikipedia-wide date format, but assuming the current guidelines remain to use a national standard, I still think that SpaceX related articles meet the definition of an article with a US focus. Pages for companies like Google, McDonalds, and Walmart all use US date formats, despite having operations that extend globally. I would assume that SpaceX, as a US-based company, would fit the same criteria. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Balon Greyjoy, should we do an RfC? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The previous discussion didn't come to a conclusion; I don't really feel like repeating my arguments from before. But go for it if you want! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Sure thing, I will create a subsection for it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

Unsuccessful Urve (talk) 06:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:SpaceX Starship/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Urve (talk · contribs) 22:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


Hi, I'll take a look. I haven't substantially edited the article; if you object to me looking this over, I'll {{db-g7}} the review. Thanks, Urve (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Image licensing:

Images are good Urve (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Source check:

  • Used a random number generator to perform 10 spot checks of this version
  • 15: ok - could also say it had approval from port authorities
  • 17: ok - also says it previously used the "Mars Colonial Transporter" name, but our article just makes a reference to this ("the company revisited the plan in the form of the Mars Colonial Transporter concept"), could be a bit more clear there
  • 29: "and was shorter than the final spacecraft design" not in source, "hopped without a tether to 20–30 m" is not exactly in the source (Berger demonstrates more skepticism, says maybe 20 to 30). it would be three months, not two, right?
  • 30: this one does say about 65 feet for the previous hop, so the previous is ok; does not say the distance of the landing pad, but does say its size
  • 40: two instances of this used. first: does not say the test was complete, just that it was scheduled (probably ok). second: good
  • 46: paywall, assume ok, please check
  • 58: two instances used. first: don't see the "first time" language used here. second: ok, but doesn't say Phobos and Deimos will specifically be from where most launches will launch in the future, just generic seaports
  • 61: two uses. first: ok, but spacex should be the author. second: don't see this
  • 67: five uses. first use: ok. second: ok. third: ok. fourth: ok. fifth: unsure. source 76 says "With this description of the global flow field generated by the Super Heavy, it is likely that the exhaust plume length is 3-4 times longer than predicted for a single engine (645-860 ft)", so unsure on the math.
  • 87: two uses. first: unsure if the airlocks are "near the top" in the source. second: ok.

bold are problems (in my reading). maybe more later Urve (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Random number generator again for five checks, this version
  • 23: paywall, please check
  • 25: ok
  • 52: ok, worth expanding the background (they expected two contracts, not one) and result (blue origin lost)
  • 90: ok
  • 119: I am assuming that this is reliable, though I'm not familiar with the publication. Text checks out

Prose notes:

  • It may be helpful to separate the explanatory notes into a dedicated notes section. People will assume that these footnotes are for references, not for further explanation, and can overlook them and their important info. See {{efn}} for how do to this. Refs 68, 77, 79 of this version are primarily explanatory.
  • For "In September 2016, a day before the 67th International Astronautical Congress, the Raptor engine was fired for the first time", date may be helpful.
  • more later Urve (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for reviewing the article so early. For images you are currently assuming good, I tried to provide sources at Wikimedia Commons just to be sure. Else, I will fix them in the coming days. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
The assuming good are just assuming good faith that the uploader took the picture and didn't take it from elsewhere. I'll have more comments later Urve (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I know, but it's good to be extra sure :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Yup, I found a suspect copyvio image. I nominated File:SpaceX Starship SN8 launch as viewed from South Padre Island (crop 2).jpg for deletion and remove it from the article for now, as it only contribute slightly to the article's quality. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

CactiStaccingCrane: Clearly, the sourcing is considerably better. But out of 15 checks, there are still a few problems. I'm not sure how comfortable I would be promoting this. I could do more spot checks, but if there are more than a couple of minor issues in what I've already done, I can kind of imagine how it'd go. Let me be clear: The prose seems very nice, you've clearly had a competent copyeditor go over it, and prose was never that big of a deal. And above, you've helped with the image licensing issues that you yourself discovered. The article seems more or less balanced -- I'll just state again that I have my misgivings about Berger, but won't press the point -- which is appreciably better than before. Article content is pretty much at or near GA level, but the sourcing is not. I suppose I'll ask, do you think a GAN is the space to fix up these source-text integrity issues? I'm comfortable waiting, like, a week, and then returning and doing a spot check, and if there's still problems I'll fail it then (GAN is not for extended editing but to push close articles over the finish line) - but if there's no appetite to edit under a time-crunch, I'm not comfortable with where this stands. Urve (talk) 05:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Urve, I've added some citation needed tags for now, but I'd reckon that the text now matches up more with the sources. I will try to do some final cleanups in the weekend. Cheers, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Urve, I would like to withdraw the nomination. There are multiple aspects of the program that are under-developed, and technical information is sorely lacking. I think the article needs a bit more time to be complete than what GA allows. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
CactiStaccingCrane: I understand. Please renominate whenever you feel as though the issues have been addressed to your satisfaction. I can't promise that I will have time to look when it's all done, but remind me and I can give it a go. I will close this as unsuccessful using the new closure script; if there are any errors with the close, please let me know. I appreciate your honesty and your work on the article. Urve (talk) 06:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Redundancy at lead

I think that Construction techniques and design characteristics were refined over the next dozen years, with methalox propellant specified in 2012 and stainless steel construction in late 2018. Names for the large vehicle likewise went through multiple versions. is a bit overlong. Prehaps a better phrasing would be Over many years, the rocket's design and name were frequently changed. The first concept that uses methane was conceived in 2012 and employs stainless-steel construction was conceived in 2019. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

N2e, notify CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, I prefer the current wording in the article. SpaceX did very very little on BFR/ITS/Starship until 2018 or so. The early 2005 mention of a big rocket is not much more than every rocket company has powerpoint slides for bigger stuff later on, so we should not imply that much about this rocket was designed very much prior to 2018, except for the propulsion/Raptor development, which had serious engineering time and money spent on it after the 2012 methalox decision.
As to your proposal, I especially don't care for the unencyclopedic phrase: "Over many years, the rocket's design and name were frequently changed." That implies anything at SpaceX is ever somehow a complete "design". At SpaceX, there is a broad set of objectives (full & rapid reuse; 100 tonne payload, or more; support a multiplanetary future for humans from Earth; be able to pay for the complex multiyear development program and not go bankrupt), but nearly everything else is just iterative design changes in myriad ways to (try to) achieve those several meta objectives. N2e (talk) 03:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I understand. I changed "methalox" to methane to avoid jargon and do a slight rephrasing to make the sentences more fluent. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SpaceX_Starship/Archive_2&oldid=1112413674"