Talk:SpaceX Starship/GA1

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

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

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,  Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or  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.