Talk:SpaceX Mars Colonization Program

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 March 2024. The result of the discussion was speedy keep by nominator.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SpaceX Mars Colonization Program article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 90 days

Spaceflight: SpaceX working group Mid‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by SpaceX working group.

Astronomy: Mars / Solar System Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Mars task force.
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Low-importance).

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

opposition to mars expeditions[edit]

Is there any serious opposition to mars expeditions? I am personally against any attempt to go to mars, not to speak to send humans, it seems to be such a really childish pursuit. Not particularly technically clever, just hugely expensive, an overgrown child dream like going to the moon or the space station. Plus the contamination issue. The most reveling justification is the one of the backup location for a specie which might be destroying the planet where it could live in harmony if it only would keep quiet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omblauman (talk • contribs) 17:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want to say with this Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we live on earth first. The great desserts of Australia would be a great place to live. Lots of space, air, a road,predictable weather. People have, Woomera. Make desserts habitable. See if we can do it here before infecting somewhere we have no right to. 2A00:23C6:F680:2C01:E574:709E:9B4:C0 (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with improving the page's content. If any opposition goes beyond your personal opinions and is widespread or authoritative enough to deserve a mention on Wikipedia, then it should probably go on Human mission to Mars. Daydreamers (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update needed[edit]

2021 is nearly over, but you would not know it from this article. The biggest issue is on the timeline to launch. Have they actually made the progress this year they projected late last year, or not? Has Covid-19 disrupted their planning and process at all?John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tone[edit]

"The tone here is probably too optimistic and confident on the goal" per User:CactiStaccingCrane per https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1084758038 Swliv (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the tone feels like that SpaceX will land people on Mars, it's just a matter of time. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to have the concern clearly identified for someone (else) wishing to attempt to improve the tone. My 2nd edit, now done, leads a reader here from the template on the article. That's what I'd wanted. Swliv (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For those who want to improve the article, cutting down on original research, primary sources, and weasel words (all the damn quotations) is a great place to start. Then more criticisms can be added (radiation shielding, infeasibility like other Mars plans in the past, etc.) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starship landing sites on Mars[edit]

Found an official document from the 2021 Lunar and Planetary Science Conference regarding SpaceX and JPL working together to select Starship landing sites on Mars: SpaceX Starship Landing Sites on Mars

Includes information on 22 potential sites and 4 primary sites. Anyone have thoughts on how best to incorporate this information into the article? Yiosie 2356 05:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prior launch vehicle proposals[edit]

I split that section in a section for SpaceX Red Dragon and a section for the SpaceX Starship design process. That way, this otherwise specific second section can be linked to in a much more versatile, clear, standard and explicit way. It also makes it consistent with the Space Shuttle equivalent "Space Shuttle design process". Similarly to the Space Shuttle's, Starship's design process could deserve its own page — albeit it would be redundant on SpaceX ambition of colonizing Mars. What is the solution here? I do think this article is trying to do too many things at once, but I would also agree that the Mars Colonial Transporter design concept is relevant here. @User:CactiStaccingCrane CodemWiki (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"SpaceX Mars propellant plant" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect SpaceX Mars propellant plant has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 18 § SpaceX Mars propellant plant until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 15:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]