![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
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.
... 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)
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)
(long-term goal)Leijurv ( talk) 07:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
goalexplains that it's, well, a goal. I don't think
aspirationaladds anything. Leijurv ( talk) 20:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't think we ever reached a consensusEh... 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)
instead creating a new section in the articleI 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)
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)
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, 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)
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)
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)
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)
Can somone add a but more info on other starship pages Nasaspaceflight and starship wiki can be useful 66.58.243.154 ( talk) 06:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
ok added it even though i didnt want too... 66.58.243.154 ( talk) 23:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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:
The existing article would serve as the basis of the system article. Proposed lede sentences:
Thoughts? - Arch dude ( talk) 19:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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 develop history exists in here, and this section is very hard and long to navigate. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 02:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
@ 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)
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
Reviewer: Vami IV ( talk · contribs) 09:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() If I have demonstrated incompetence or caused offense, please let me know. – ♠Vami _IV†♠ 09:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
|
Good Article review progress box
|
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk)
05:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by CactiStaccingCrane ( talk). Self-nominated at 07:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC).
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)
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)
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)
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)
This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below. |
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)
Extended content
| ||
---|---|---|
SpaceX StarshipThe 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. 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:
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:FirefangledfeathersWorking from the bottom up:
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)
Comments by AkbermampsFrom taking a quick look at the references section, the citation style used is a little inconsistent.
The captions in the gallery also have some minor issues.
That's all for now, but I do intend to try and check the rest of the article. Akber mamps 01:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Starship SN20
@ 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 DanCherekReviewing this version.
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)
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)
Comments from RealKnockoutI 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
"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."
I will be expanding this list once all issues related to the lead are resolved. RealKnockout ( talk) 13:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Quick comments by SdkbLooking 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)
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)
UrveSince I leaned oppose on sourcing my comments are mostly going to be focused on that. Version reviewed
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)
@ 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 checkDo 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.
|
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)
@ 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)
Ok, ill offer a third opinion. What are the proposed placements and names of said section? Bonewah ( talk) 20:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot ( talk) 21 October 2021 [8].
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)
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
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
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
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)
The booster is topped with a stage adapternot 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
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
composite overwrapped pressure vessels- not in fn 16
and three for the vacuum of space- paraphrasing of this sentence is too close to the source
three for vacuum operationCactiStaccingCrane ( talk)
Positioned above are... - don't see this description in fn 18
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
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
The windward side of the spacecraft is covered by a heat shield made from hexagon tiles- fn 10 just says these are being tested
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'
letting the booster's grid fins touch down on them- don't know what this means (what is "them" referring to?)
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)
@ 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. Noah Talk 03:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
The engine is cooled by circulating the fuel around the outside of the fuel chamber, which also preheats the mixture.
Verified test articles will launch in different flight paths, depending on their objectives.
CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 03:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
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)
@ 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)
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)
@ 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)
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
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)
Should the criticism and controversies section be integrated to the article? CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 17:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
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)
( talk) 00:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
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)
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 StarshipInstructions for nominators and reviewers
SpaceX Starship ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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)
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.
|
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)
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)
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)
No problem, happy to help! Nigos ( talk | contribs) 11:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
I will invite some people who have participated in the prior reviews CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 04:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
As requested by CactiStaccingCrane on my talk page, here are some comments on this page.
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)
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)
and has the potential to transform the space industryseems to have a promotional tone, I feel it should be removed for now Nigos ( talk | contribs) 15:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
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)
Should this use Wikidata data, or should it be inputted locally? Nigos ( talk | contribs) 07:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
This article is now pretty good, but I think more information in general is needed. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 04:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Musk has made many prediction about the development rate of Starship, which most are too optimistic.CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 17:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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.
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.
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:
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.
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 spaceportscited to this, which says August.
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.
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.)
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".
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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 speciescited 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)
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.
— Berrely • Talk∕ Contribs 15:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I feel like I have cover the subject comprehensively now. What do you think? CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 07:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This peer review discussion is closed. |
![]() | This peer review discussion is closed. |
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)
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 SpaceXI'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".
with the ultimate purpose of assisting Mars exploration and colonization"assisting" is definitely the wrong word, maybe "enabling" or "permitting"?
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?
all powered by Raptor rocket engines and burning liquid oxygen and liquid methane propellantI think "all" should be "both", and "and burning" should be something else, maybe "that use" or "that burn" or "using".
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.
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.
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.
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?
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"
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
In an interview with Tim Dodd, Elon Musk, SpaceX's CEO and chief engineer, stated thatRemove. The reader has no use for this information, and it doesn't make the article better, rather more confusing.
SpaceX will build many variantsSpaceX intends to build many variants
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
For attitude control at spaceFor attitude control in space
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.
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.
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."
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."
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."
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?
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?
is expected tois 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)
Starship cargo variant will feature a large door replacing conventional payload fairings, which can capture, store, and return payloads to EarthConfused 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?
Another possibility is to mount the payload on to the inside of the payload bay's sidewallsI 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?
can be made to adapt for missionscan be adapted for missions
delta-v budget, or rangeI 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?
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
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.
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"
Starship may enable very large science payloads"may" -> "would" or "should"
One such example are theTo avoid the weird grammar of "one are", perhaps "For example, the" and then at the end "could be made possible by Starship"
terraformation of MarsThe article says "terraforming" and I think that is the more common word, perhaps use that here too
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 acknowledgedThere is no event to anchor the "had" to, so this doesn't make sense. Probably just "musk has acknowledged"
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?
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 residentsI'm not sure this makes sense to say, it seems obviously and necessarily true.
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?
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"
The vehicle may launch from one of two orbital launch complex there"complex" -> "complexes"
there, each consistsReplace comma with semicolon
eight tanks, threeReplace comma with colon
cover about the development programcover the development program
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".
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"
delta-v budget or rangeSame comment as above ^ for this "budget or range" phrase.
For destinations with a substantial atmosphere,Add "such as Earth, "
after atmospheric entry Starship's body faces windwardStarship'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 predictedSorry 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"
difficulties at pressurization"at" -> "with"
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.
to collect vast amountsRemove "vast", it borders on WP:PEACOCK
had led to many prototypes' explosionhaS led to many prototypeS exploDING
another space vehicleThe article uses "spacecraft" or "launch vehicle", I don't think "space vehicle" works that well.
launch vehicle, able to putI think this would read better as "launch vehicle that could put" or "launch vehicle capable of putting"
booster was going to haveAgain, reads a bit better as "booster would have". Same goes for "spacecraft was going to have nine"
other than getting from the governmentNot valid, perhaps just remove "getting"
sea level-optimizedJust 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.
Besides ferrying crewPerhaps "Besides" -> "Beyond" or "In addition to"
rather for getting moreMissing a phrase, perhaps "rather it was intended for getting more"
In September 2018, the dearMoon projectLink to dearmoon
and be paid for byAwkward, perhaps it could be just ", paid for by"
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'"
During the presentation, Musk revised theHe did not revise it during the presentation, so maybe instead "During the presentation, Musk detailed the revised"
Starhopper is the first prototype to"is" -> "was"
and hopped up to aboutMention 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).
presentation, where Musk is the main speakerAwkward, maybe just "presentation given by Musk"
unlike carbon composites ofunlike the carbon composites used in
The switch's rationales areThe 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 fastbut it crashed into the pad, still at high speed
performing almost identical flight pathperforming 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 havewhich would have
two sub-orbital launch padtwo 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"
authority power and potential abuse for evictionAdd commas: "authority, power, and potential abuse for eviction"
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?
with one possible cause is a rupture in propellant tank"is" -> "being"
the same maneuvers by prior prototypes"by" -> "as"
then in-construction"in" -> "under"
the first complete Starship launch vehicle"complete" isn't really correct, perhaps "full-scale" or "full height" or "stacked"
In a report sent by SpaceX to the Federal Communications CommissionSentence 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.
Hope this helps! :) Leijurv ( talk) 08:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
A few more by proxy (credit to SYNSG)
another SpaceX facility at FloridaSay where in Florida (Coca)
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"
After the Mark series, SpaceX named subsequent prototypes with the prefix "serial number" or "SN", followed by the serial numberawkward
Newer prototypes would feature minor improvements over the last versionif you're going to say "named" you can just say "featured"
No prototypes between SN1 and SN4 were flown, between February 2020awkward
SN1 bent and then burstbuckled then burst
SN2 was repurposed to be a test tank"to be" -> "as a"
and SN4 exploded after its fifth engine fire"fire" -> "firing"
the company started accelerating the construction of manufacturing and support infrastructure at Starbase, such as large tents, stations, and repurposed"started accelerating" -> "accelerated"
When linked together, these facilities effectively become a production lineunclear meaning
Leijurv ( talk) 10:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Starhopper is the first prototype to operate a full-flow staged combustion cycle rocket enginethe 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)
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)
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)
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 first complete Starship spacecraft prototype achieved flightappears 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.
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.
We can always use the Wikidata infobox on simplewiki and vnwiki Nigos ( talk | contribs) 06:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
First look at a source review. Version looked at.
Have to go now, will pick up at section "Variants" when I'm able to Urve ( talk) 14:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
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?).
There is a Good Article Review at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/SpaceX Starship/2. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 03:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
As of December 2021, the Kennedy Space Center considers having Starship launch pads at Launch Complex 39A and 49.
Parts on displaysection
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 |
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:
bold are problems (in my reading). maybe more later Urve ( talk) 01:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Prose notes:
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
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.
... 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)
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)
(long-term goal)Leijurv ( talk) 07:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
goalexplains that it's, well, a goal. I don't think
aspirationaladds anything. Leijurv ( talk) 20:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't think we ever reached a consensusEh... 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)
instead creating a new section in the articleI 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)
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)
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, 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)
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)
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)
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)
Can somone add a but more info on other starship pages Nasaspaceflight and starship wiki can be useful 66.58.243.154 ( talk) 06:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
ok added it even though i didnt want too... 66.58.243.154 ( talk) 23:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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:
The existing article would serve as the basis of the system article. Proposed lede sentences:
Thoughts? - Arch dude ( talk) 19:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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 develop history exists in here, and this section is very hard and long to navigate. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 02:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
@ 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)
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
Reviewer: Vami IV ( talk · contribs) 09:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() If I have demonstrated incompetence or caused offense, please let me know. – ♠Vami _IV†♠ 09:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
|
Good Article review progress box
|
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk)
05:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by CactiStaccingCrane ( talk). Self-nominated at 07:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC).
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)
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)
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)
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)
This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below. |
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)
Extended content
| ||
---|---|---|
SpaceX StarshipThe 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. 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:
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:FirefangledfeathersWorking from the bottom up:
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)
Comments by AkbermampsFrom taking a quick look at the references section, the citation style used is a little inconsistent.
The captions in the gallery also have some minor issues.
That's all for now, but I do intend to try and check the rest of the article. Akber mamps 01:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Starship SN20
@ 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 DanCherekReviewing this version.
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)
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)
Comments from RealKnockoutI 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
"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."
I will be expanding this list once all issues related to the lead are resolved. RealKnockout ( talk) 13:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Quick comments by SdkbLooking 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)
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)
UrveSince I leaned oppose on sourcing my comments are mostly going to be focused on that. Version reviewed
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)
@ 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 checkDo 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.
|
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)
@ 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)
Ok, ill offer a third opinion. What are the proposed placements and names of said section? Bonewah ( talk) 20:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot ( talk) 21 October 2021 [8].
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)
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
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
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
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)
The booster is topped with a stage adapternot 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
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
composite overwrapped pressure vessels- not in fn 16
and three for the vacuum of space- paraphrasing of this sentence is too close to the source
three for vacuum operationCactiStaccingCrane ( talk)
Positioned above are... - don't see this description in fn 18
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
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
The windward side of the spacecraft is covered by a heat shield made from hexagon tiles- fn 10 just says these are being tested
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'
letting the booster's grid fins touch down on them- don't know what this means (what is "them" referring to?)
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)
@ 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. Noah Talk 03:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
The engine is cooled by circulating the fuel around the outside of the fuel chamber, which also preheats the mixture.
Verified test articles will launch in different flight paths, depending on their objectives.
CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 03:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
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)
@ 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)
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)
@ 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)
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
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)
Should the criticism and controversies section be integrated to the article? CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 17:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
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)
( talk) 00:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
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)
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 StarshipInstructions for nominators and reviewers
SpaceX Starship ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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)
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.
|
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)
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)
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)
No problem, happy to help! Nigos ( talk | contribs) 11:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
I will invite some people who have participated in the prior reviews CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 04:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
As requested by CactiStaccingCrane on my talk page, here are some comments on this page.
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)
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)
and has the potential to transform the space industryseems to have a promotional tone, I feel it should be removed for now Nigos ( talk | contribs) 15:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
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)
Should this use Wikidata data, or should it be inputted locally? Nigos ( talk | contribs) 07:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
This article is now pretty good, but I think more information in general is needed. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 04:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Musk has made many prediction about the development rate of Starship, which most are too optimistic.CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 17:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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.
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.
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:
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.
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 spaceportscited to this, which says August.
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.
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.)
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".
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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 speciescited 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)
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.
— Berrely • Talk∕ Contribs 15:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I feel like I have cover the subject comprehensively now. What do you think? CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 07:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This peer review discussion is closed. |
![]() | This peer review discussion is closed. |
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)
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 SpaceXI'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".
with the ultimate purpose of assisting Mars exploration and colonization"assisting" is definitely the wrong word, maybe "enabling" or "permitting"?
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?
all powered by Raptor rocket engines and burning liquid oxygen and liquid methane propellantI think "all" should be "both", and "and burning" should be something else, maybe "that use" or "that burn" or "using".
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.
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.
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.
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?
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"
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
In an interview with Tim Dodd, Elon Musk, SpaceX's CEO and chief engineer, stated thatRemove. The reader has no use for this information, and it doesn't make the article better, rather more confusing.
SpaceX will build many variantsSpaceX intends to build many variants
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
For attitude control at spaceFor attitude control in space
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.
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.
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."
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."
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."
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?
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?
is expected tois 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)
Starship cargo variant will feature a large door replacing conventional payload fairings, which can capture, store, and return payloads to EarthConfused 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?
Another possibility is to mount the payload on to the inside of the payload bay's sidewallsI 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?
can be made to adapt for missionscan be adapted for missions
delta-v budget, or rangeI 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?
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
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.
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"
Starship may enable very large science payloads"may" -> "would" or "should"
One such example are theTo avoid the weird grammar of "one are", perhaps "For example, the" and then at the end "could be made possible by Starship"
terraformation of MarsThe article says "terraforming" and I think that is the more common word, perhaps use that here too
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 acknowledgedThere is no event to anchor the "had" to, so this doesn't make sense. Probably just "musk has acknowledged"
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?
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 residentsI'm not sure this makes sense to say, it seems obviously and necessarily true.
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?
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"
The vehicle may launch from one of two orbital launch complex there"complex" -> "complexes"
there, each consistsReplace comma with semicolon
eight tanks, threeReplace comma with colon
cover about the development programcover the development program
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".
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"
delta-v budget or rangeSame comment as above ^ for this "budget or range" phrase.
For destinations with a substantial atmosphere,Add "such as Earth, "
after atmospheric entry Starship's body faces windwardStarship'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 predictedSorry 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"
difficulties at pressurization"at" -> "with"
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.
to collect vast amountsRemove "vast", it borders on WP:PEACOCK
had led to many prototypes' explosionhaS led to many prototypeS exploDING
another space vehicleThe article uses "spacecraft" or "launch vehicle", I don't think "space vehicle" works that well.
launch vehicle, able to putI think this would read better as "launch vehicle that could put" or "launch vehicle capable of putting"
booster was going to haveAgain, reads a bit better as "booster would have". Same goes for "spacecraft was going to have nine"
other than getting from the governmentNot valid, perhaps just remove "getting"
sea level-optimizedJust 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.
Besides ferrying crewPerhaps "Besides" -> "Beyond" or "In addition to"
rather for getting moreMissing a phrase, perhaps "rather it was intended for getting more"
In September 2018, the dearMoon projectLink to dearmoon
and be paid for byAwkward, perhaps it could be just ", paid for by"
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'"
During the presentation, Musk revised theHe did not revise it during the presentation, so maybe instead "During the presentation, Musk detailed the revised"
Starhopper is the first prototype to"is" -> "was"
and hopped up to aboutMention 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).
presentation, where Musk is the main speakerAwkward, maybe just "presentation given by Musk"
unlike carbon composites ofunlike the carbon composites used in
The switch's rationales areThe 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 fastbut it crashed into the pad, still at high speed
performing almost identical flight pathperforming 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 havewhich would have
two sub-orbital launch padtwo 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"
authority power and potential abuse for evictionAdd commas: "authority, power, and potential abuse for eviction"
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?
with one possible cause is a rupture in propellant tank"is" -> "being"
the same maneuvers by prior prototypes"by" -> "as"
then in-construction"in" -> "under"
the first complete Starship launch vehicle"complete" isn't really correct, perhaps "full-scale" or "full height" or "stacked"
In a report sent by SpaceX to the Federal Communications CommissionSentence 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.
Hope this helps! :) Leijurv ( talk) 08:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
A few more by proxy (credit to SYNSG)
another SpaceX facility at FloridaSay where in Florida (Coca)
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"
After the Mark series, SpaceX named subsequent prototypes with the prefix "serial number" or "SN", followed by the serial numberawkward
Newer prototypes would feature minor improvements over the last versionif you're going to say "named" you can just say "featured"
No prototypes between SN1 and SN4 were flown, between February 2020awkward
SN1 bent and then burstbuckled then burst
SN2 was repurposed to be a test tank"to be" -> "as a"
and SN4 exploded after its fifth engine fire"fire" -> "firing"
the company started accelerating the construction of manufacturing and support infrastructure at Starbase, such as large tents, stations, and repurposed"started accelerating" -> "accelerated"
When linked together, these facilities effectively become a production lineunclear meaning
Leijurv ( talk) 10:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Starhopper is the first prototype to operate a full-flow staged combustion cycle rocket enginethe 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)
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)
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)
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 first complete Starship spacecraft prototype achieved flightappears 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.
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.
We can always use the Wikidata infobox on simplewiki and vnwiki Nigos ( talk | contribs) 06:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
First look at a source review. Version looked at.
Have to go now, will pick up at section "Variants" when I'm able to Urve ( talk) 14:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
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?).
There is a Good Article Review at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/SpaceX Starship/2. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 03:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
As of December 2021, the Kennedy Space Center considers having Starship launch pads at Launch Complex 39A and 49.
Parts on displaysection
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 |
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:
bold are problems (in my reading). maybe more later Urve ( talk) 01:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Prose notes:
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)
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)