Talk:SpaceX Starship

Article needs to be rewritten, reorganized, and possibly split

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

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

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

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

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

It is complicated. Yes, Arch dude, this article is about the entire launch vehicle. And, you are correct that that names of the major vehicles and two-stage stack are confusing, especially since SpaceX has chosen to overload the term Starship. We, as Wikipedia editors definitely need a consistent, cross-article nomenclature for how we refer to the booster/"Super Heavy", and the second stage (also a spaceship)/"Starship", and the whole system for now, we've been mostly using "Starship system", but sometimes, confusingly, just "Starship". I very much support having this discussion.

It is a different topic--or at least I think it would be most productively discussed separately--having separate wiki articles for the ship and the booster. One reason is there was a messy and hard (and disheartening) smash together of separate articles which used to exist for the whole two-stage launch vehicle, and a different one for just the "Starship" second stage and spaceship. I was for retaining that; but in the end, the consensus went against my WP:!vote and the articles got remade into an article on the LV and another article on the super-detailed history of the development program. I really think that this should be discussed as a separate and different topic, 'cause it will go long and hard I suspect, and just getting names/descriptors for the three things would be a much easier first step. But, yeah, the second one is needed too. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, I boldly changed the lede, because it very clearly did not reflect the subject of the article. I don't claim that my changes are "right", merely that I think the result is at least slightly less wrong than the prior version. Please revert if needed, or massively modify further, or comment here. -Arch dude (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

lunar cargo variant versus HLS

@C-randles: I think that these are technically two different things. SpaceX is participating in the Commercial Lunar Payload Services program to land cargos on moon. SpaceX is also now the (contested) contractor for the Starship HLS. two different contracts, two different missions, and probably two different variants, one crew-rated and one not. If we are going to glom then together as one variant, we should at least identify the two sub-variants and link to both articles. -Arch dude (talk) 01:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe it was :@Mfb: that merged them into one. I was also confused in my edits. If there are two different contracts then I think we should make that clear. One will have life support and the other may well not. Quite possibly different unloading methods as well. So 2 different variants does seem probable. However, if we don't have a RS ref for this such that it might just be deleted life support equip and otherwise similar, it may be better to group 'lunar landers' (Lunar‑surface‑to‑orbit transport: looks like transport from moon rather than to moon) into one section which makes clear there is one won but disputed contract and another potential contract? C-randles (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, concur. The Artemis HLS contract with SpaceX is an entirely different program than the (somewhat experimental) NASA program CLPS to try to attract private companies to bid services (without cost-plus contracts like old space gvmt contracting practices of the 1960s through, still today in some parts of US NASA contracts, including SLS and Orion). They are two very diff programs, whether or not the vehicles SpaceX may use for CLPS may have similarities to the one they design under HLS for NASA. N2e (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

After sleeping on it, I realized that we have no reason to believe that there is much in common at all between the variants, and making that assumption is a form of WP:SYNTH. I boldly changed back to treating the lunar cargo variant as a separate variant, even after a good effort by C-randles to try the sub-variant approach. Please check out my attempt and C-randles' attempt, and revert mine if the other is preferable. -Arch dude (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I think we can keep the current list (generic cargo, tanker, lunar uncrewed, lunar crewed, generic crew) for now, Earth return is possible for all variants apart from the two lunar ones. We'll learn more how to categorize things in the future. It's possible Starships going to Mars will add at least one more category. --mfb (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree. I'm speculate that there will be quite a few variants for space stations or parsd of space stations orbiting Earth, the Moon, Mars, and possible other planets, plus moonbase componemts, but we cannot add them until we have reliable sources. -Arch dude (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Standardized design and production?

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

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

Payload to LEO?

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

The 250 tonnes are still payload inside Starship. Generally payload doesn't contain the vehicle carrying it. See the Space Shuttle for comparison. The difference comes from not reserving landing fuel, skipping the heat shield and potentially some more changes. --mfb (talk) 05:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

When Starship is intended to return to Earth, it's not part of the payload: it's like the shuttle. When the intent of the launch is for the spacecraft to be used as a long-duration facility in LEO or beyond, then the spacecraft IS the payload. It's more like the components of the Gateway, or like Orion. Unless Elon's 250 t accounted for this, the press and/or space community will need to account for it and we will need to add it to the article when we have a reference. -Arch dude (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Your personal preference doesn't matter for the article. You'll have to convince the spaceflight industry to use your personal definition of payload first. --mfb (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Until a reliable source discusses this accounting discrepancy, we cannot mention it in our article. And by a "reliable source" I do not mean a blog post. -Arch dude (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Should the development history be deleted?

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

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

Thanks for the major improvements!

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

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

GA review

Extended content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. GA Review This review is transcluded from Talk:SpaceX Starship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 09:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. My name is Vami, and I will be your reviewer. During this review I may make small edits such as spelling corrections, but I will only suggest substantive content changes in comments here. For responding to my comments, please use  Done,  Fixed,  Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or  Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. As my comments are addressed or rebutted, I will cross them out, and only my comments. If I have demonstrated incompetence or caused offense, please let me know. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 09:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Lead referred to by SpaceX as Starbase, and also known as the Boca Chica launch site. I checked the Manual of Style to see if italicization like this is covered, and couldn't find it. Since these are names for a place rather than a book, I would therefore un-italicize them. This could also be condensed to "referred to by SpaceX as Starbase or the Boca Chica launch site."  Done, SpaceX don't refer the launch site as "Boca Chica launch site", so I would clarify that it is other parties that named it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) During launch from Earth, "from Earth" is currently redundant, as Earth is presently the only thing we have to launch from.  Done, no comment. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) I added that "from Earth" originally, because some spacecraft variants will also launch from the Moon and from Mars. This is fairly fundamental to the entire Starship concept. In particular, Starship HLS is already under development -Arch dude (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC) @Arch dude: Ah, gotcha. It's a good thing this gets touched on in the article text. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC) [...] the Starship spacecraft is a second stage of the system, Are there other second stages? Starship functions a lot more than "just" being the second stage. For conventional rockets, their only function is to boost the payload. However, for Starship it would also stay in orbit (hence the word "spacecraft"), dock to other Starship, refuel, boost to other interplanetary locations, etc. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) The spacecraft after being refueled by one or more tanker Starships in orbit [...] Change the order here; "After being refueled [...]".  Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) Development history [...] with a possible payload of 150 tonnes (170 tons) [...] add |link=on here; does the source use American tons or Metric tons?  Doing..., finding sources. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)  Done, removed the source and the payload capabilities. It is not verifiable. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) The BFR has been referred to formally as the "Big Falcon Rocket", and informally by the media and internally at SpaceX as the "Big Fucking Rocket."[24][25] The second stage and spacecraft were referred to as the "Big Falcon Ship" or "Big Fucking Ship" and the booster as "Big Falcon Booster" or "Big Fucking Booster."[26][27] This can and should be reduced a bit; this joke is best told once. I suggest "The BFR has been referred to formally as the "Big Falcon Rocket", and informally by the media and internally at SpaceX as the "Big Fucking Rocket."[24][25] Similar names were given to the second stage craft and the booster."  Done, changed to The second stage and spacecraft were referred to as the "Big Falcon Ship" and the booster as "Big Falcon Booster," with similar informal names given to them. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) In January 2019, Musk announced that the Starship's structure and tank would not be constructed out of carbon fiber and that stainless steel would be used instead, while the strength‑to‑mass ratio should be comparable to or better than the earlier SpaceX design alternative of carbon fiber composites, from the low temperatures of cryogenic propellants to the high temperatures of atmospheric reentry. Can this be broken up?  Done, changed to In January 2019, Musk announced that the Starship's structure and tank would not be constructed out of carbon fiber and that stainless steel would be used instead. The strength‑to‑mass ratio of the new design should be comparable to or better than the earlier SpaceX design alternative of carbon fiber composites, from the low temperatures of cryogenic propellants to the high temperatures of atmospheric reentry. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) In October 2019, SpaceX changed the Starship spacecraft design back to using just six Raptor engines, [...] This is the first mention of the Starship's engines.  Doing..., adding engines configurations for past designs.  Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) During that time, the spacecraft fins' design was changed to the current design, with a pair of aft fins at the bottom and forward fins at the top. Should be "the spacecraft's fins", if I'm reading this right. I also recommend changing out one of these "design"s with a synonym (configuration?), for variety.  Done, changed from second design word to form. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) [...] the SpaceX South Texas launch site, referred by SpaceX as Starbase,[41] and also known as the Boca Chica launch site.[42] Ah. Referring to my comment in the lead, these names shouldn't be italicized. The "and" there should be removed.  Done, no comment. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) The last paragraph of this section has a promotional tone.  Doing..., currently rephrasing the paragraph. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)  Done, rephrased to SpaceX's iterative design philosophy is evident in the Starship development and testing program, as SpaceX is willing to regularly test prototypes to destruction, counting the data gathered as a successful part of the overall process, as well as an allowance for failures and fast cadence of prototype construction. What's gimbal? Is there a link that can be made there? Here's the link, source [14]. Gimbal in spaceflight basically means that the nozzle can turn. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) I meant a link to a Wikipedia article. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)  Done, my mistake. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) Starship spacecraft The comparison to the Airbus is unnecessary.  Done, removed CactiStaccingCrane (talk) [...] form sections of from two to four rings. Nix "from".  Done, removed CactiStaccingCrane (talk) In the future, SpaceX would use its proprietary stainless steel alloy named 30X. Would you consider "In the future, SpaceX [will use / has stated its desire to use] a proprietary stainless steel alloy, 30X."?  Done, rephrased CactiStaccingCrane (talk) These COPVs Starship spacecraft autogenous pressurize the tanks [...] I can't parse out what this part is saying.  Done, rephrased CactiStaccingCrane (talk) and a "thrust dome" containing slosh baffles made up the bottom of a main liquid oxygen tank. Same here.  Done, removed CactiStaccingCrane (talk) The following four rings are informally known as the "mid liquid oxygen section" because they are the wall in the middle of that tank. Same here.  Done, removed the name and shorten it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) the spacecraft being refueled rendezvous many tankers. Here too.  Done, rephrased CactiStaccingCrane (talk) [...] storing very high-pressure gas made from engines [...] made by the engines?  Done, fixed CactiStaccingCrane (talk) [...] alongside antennas, avionics system, batteries, etc. Should be "an/the avionics system"; I didn't make an edit here because I don't know how many a Starship might have.  Done, changed avionic system to flight computer CactiStaccingCrane (talk) Starship is announced to eventually be built in several operational variants. Consider: "SpaceX has announced that Starship will eventually [...]".  Done, applied the change. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) Super Heavy booster Super Heavy uses the same stainless steel rings for the bulk of the construction as Starship spacecraft. Consider: "Super Heavy uses the same stainless steel rings for its construction as the Starship spacecraft."  Done, no comment CactiStaccingCrane (talk) The four-ring sections on top have each of the sections are four rings tall, which serve only for the wall for the liquid oxygen tank. Needs a reword.  Done, rewrite to On top of the bottom rings are the four four-ring sections which serve as the liquid oxygen tank wall. Launch tower The launch tower also contains fuel, communication, [...] Communication equipment?  Done, seperate the components names to The launch tower also contains fuel pipes, data cable, and power lines in the quick disconnect arm, [...] Finance In January 2016, the United States Air Force contracted with SpaceX [...] Do you mean "signed a contract with SpaceX"?  Done, I am too dumb CactiStaccingCrane (talk) By late 2019, SpaceX projected that, with company private investment funding, including contractual funds from Yusaku Maezawa who had contracted for a private lunar mission called dearMoon project, they had sufficient funds to advance the Earth‑orbit and lunar‑orbit extent of Starship flight operations, although they could choose to raise additional funds in order "to go to the Moon or landing on Mars." Can this be broken up?  Doing..., wait a sec... CactiStaccingCrane (talk)  Done, change to In September 14, 2018, Yusaku Maezawa contracted SpaceX for a nine-crew private circumlunar lunar mission called the dearMoon project, in which Yusaku would give the remaining 8 seats to anyone around the world. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) Criticism [...] leading "environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club, the Friends of Wildlife Corridor, and concerned citizens" to argue that it damages the surrounding ecosystems. I don't think these quotation marks are necessary.  Done, removed. Are you sure that it is not a quotation though? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) Well, yes, it is, but a quote isn't needed there. There's no view being expressed there; it's just a plain statement of fact. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC) GA progress Pictures are all relevant and freely useable. Article is stable. Article is mostly clean, copyright-wise. There are these instances of close paraphrasing, though: Source: Used to check for leaks, verify basic vehicle valve and plumbing performance, and ensure a basic level of structural integrity, This article: [...] checks for leaks and verifies basic vehicle valve and plumbing performance, and ensures a basic level of structural integrity. Suggested: "[...] checks for leaks and verifies basic plumbing performance and a basic level of structural integrity." –♠Vami_IV†♠ 09:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)  Done, added the suggestion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) Source (ibid): While used similarly to verify structural integrity like an ambient pressure test, a ‘cryo proof’ adds the challenge of thermal stresses to ensure that Starship can safely load, hold, and offload supercool liquids. This article: This also tests structural integrity but adds the challenge of thermal stresses to ensure that Starship can safely load, hold and offload supercool liquids. Suggested: "This also tests whether the Starship can safely load, transport, and unload supercool liquids." –♠Vami_IV†♠ 09:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)  Done, added the suggestion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) @User:Vami IV CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Article is now clean of any copyright concerns. I am now pleased to pass this GAN. Congratulations, User:CactiStaccingCrane. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC) Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

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

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

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Tile inspection on Starship

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

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

• The hooks look interesting enough, though I will suggest slight paraphrasing for each.

• • ALT3: ... that the flaps of SpaceX's Starship spacecraft do not generate lift but instead induce drag to control the spacecraft's descent
  • ALT1b: ... that the design of launch towers' arms allows them to "catch" and recover (retrieve?) the Super Heavy booster of SpaceX's Starship system? 

No problems for ATL2.

Rectify these. Will leave to the promoters to decide which of the hooks are better.--ZKang123 (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Alt1 is a completely new design that has never been tested in any way and that is likely to change a lot in the future based on test results. I would avoid that for now. --mfb (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@ZKang123: I like that you suggested alts! I'm not seeing that a full review has been done, so I couldn't promote just yet. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Apologies. Was busy and missed out this review. Looks good to go I guess. --ZKang123 (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@ZKang123: to be clear, the article is new enough, long enough, plagiarism free, etc.? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

It has just recently attainer GA when it was nominated at the time, so its passable.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• ZKang123, nominations for DYK have to meet a certain number of requirements before approval, and while you might have checked, I can't see that that's been verified in the nom page. You might want to reference the reviewing guide in taking a full review. Let me know when you've finished that (i also find it helpful to use the reviewer's template), and sorry for the holdup! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

a full review is needed for this nomination, unfortunately. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• The ALTs seem a little in the weeds to me. The topic is naturally interesting because it's in the news, so I'd consider going with something simpler, like:

  ALT4 ... that SpaceX's reusable Starship launch vehicle has twice the thrust as the Apollo Program's Saturn V?

  ALT5 ...that SpaceX's reusable Starship launch vehicle will carry more than 10 million pounds (4.5 kt) of propellant?

Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

this might have gotten moved back for some reason theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Article is plenty long enough, was nominated within 7 days of promotion, is well cited and is neutral, lending due weight to the perspectives surrounding the spacecraft's environmental impact and safety. Fixed minor instance of close paraphrasing. @CactiStaccingCrane: The majority of the prose for "Criticism and controversies" section is duplicated from earlier sections in the article. This isn't a plagiarism concern AFAIK because it's within the same article, but it's a bit tacky and might cause the article to become inconsistent in case one section is updated without the other in turn. I recommend paring the specific critiques in each section down to a sentence or two and link to the "Criticism ..." section with {{Section link}}; for example: Some residents of Boca Chica Village, Brownsville, and environmental activists criticized the Starship development program for several reasons (see § Criticism and controversies for more details). If this is dealt with I approve of ALT4. DigitalIceAge (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Am fixing it right now. @DigitalIceAge: Done. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: Looks good now, thanks! One more thing: I just realized the "twice that of a Saturn V rocket" bit isn't cited in the article. For the hook to be approved the corresponding sentence in the article has to have a citation at the end of it. I could add a citation to Elon's tweet linked above, but I think a secondary source would be more verifiable. Here's Astronomy magazine, the BBC, Business Insider, and The Conversation stating the same thing, if you wanna take a pick. DigitalIceAge (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@DigitalIceAge: I think that the BBC one is a bit more reliable than the bunch. I will add the source now :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, ALT4 should be good to go now! DigitalIceAge (talk) 06:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

ALT4 to T:DYK/P4

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

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

We go by reliable sources, not your personal preference. But I don't see the difference you want to make anyway. If something forms a two-stage rocket when assembled, isn't it a two-stage rocket? Sources generally call it a two-stage rocket: 1, 2, 3, ... --mfb (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, a booster with a spacecraft on top is a tow-stage rocket. But not all Starships are two-stage rockets. a Starship that has landed on Mars is not a tow-stage rocket, but is is still part of the "SpaceX Starship system". I did not change the lede to my personal preference (i.e., The spacecraft is the Starship). I simply replaced a counterfactual statement with a factual statement. -Arch dude (talk) 01:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Take a look at the headline of your first ref: "SpaceX stacks Starship atop massive booster for 1st time to make the world's tallest rocket". This is almost exactly what I said. They do not say "Starship is a two-stage rocket." -Arch dude (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

I think two stage rocket is just short for 'two stage to orbit rocket'. While starship may operate as single stage for Earth to Earth rapid transport, it won't reach orbit and it is therefore ok to call it a two stage system. All rockets need "and various ground-based support infrastructure" so I think that is unnecessary in the first sentence. Yes Elon has talked of GSE as stage 0 but just because Elon has said something doesn't make it the standard of how stages are referred to. C-randles (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The problem seems to me to be that SpaceX has overloaded the term "Starship": they use "Starship" BOTH for referring to the second-stage of the two-stage rocket that will launch from Earth AND they also use the term "Starship" to describe the entire two-stage-to-orbit stack. Both uses are a "rocket". When Starship (the second stage) takes off from the Moon, or Mars, it will be a rocket, but of course just a single-state-to-orbit rocket. Both uses are quite commonly used in a wide variety of media sources, and so we do have in Wikipedia quite a number of sources that use Starship both ways. As editors writing Wikipedia for a global readership, we still have to try to explain things in clear language, and not have articles be internally inconsistent on what the terms mean. SpaceX also use "Starship system" to describe the entire two-stage rocket, in a number of sources, and media articles have picked up on this usage as well.

Perhaps that was what Arch dude was attempting to bring up in the initial comment. Either way, its a bit of a mess and requires hard work by editors to make the prose clear. N2e (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I have abandoned the effort to restructure within this article. Until a consensus arises, I'll restrict myself to updating details. If THIS article must be about the two-stage rocket, then I feel we need a different article about the entire Starship "program" or whatever you call it since you have preempted the use of the word "system", and we need another article about the Starship spacecraft and its variants. But someone other than me will have to do it. -Arch dude (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Starship Payload to LEO

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

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

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

Expert needed

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

I'm not sure if that's possible. Given the way SpaceX is developing this vehicle (through significant and frequent changes to the design, based on testing), I don't think they have a solid, final design. Everything they've said about its payload mass, fairing volume, etc. basically goals or targets. That gives a wide range and we (and SpaceX) have no way of knowing where in that range the eventual numbers will end up. It might be better to say that clearly in the article than try to hunt down the non-existent, "correct" numbers. Fcrary (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Fair, let's just use number in SpaceX webpage. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Fcrary has it exactly right. SpaceX uses an iterative design approach where, at any given time in the development process for the Starship system, the numbers are from high-level design and somewhat rough, and will only be dialed in (iterated in) as various parts of the design settle over a number of years. This is well illustrated by the various concept-design numbers that have been given for the number of engines (on either the ship or the booster), or for the number and use of aerosurfaces on the ship & booster, etc. N2e (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Peer review

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

Extended content

SpaceX Starship The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Hello, I want to have SpaceX Starship to be peer reviewed, because I am not sure how the article can be further improved. I have nominated the article to good article successfully and featured article unsuccessfully. The article has drastically changed, so these comments are irrelevant to the current version. Please, if you know how the article can be improved, tell me right now, and I will reply as soon as possible. If the peer review is comprehensive, I might nominate SpaceX Starship for featured article again. @Osunpokeh: one of the main contributors; @StarshipSLS: WikiProject's coordinator; @CRS-20: an active SpaceX related contributor for peer review CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Thanks, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC) Comments by User:FormalDude: Lead section: First sentence: change 'comprising a' → 'comprised of' Second sentence: add oxford comma after 'heaviest' History section: Needs photos. I wonder if a third "Present day" section should be created and some of the content moved there. Description section: Second sentence of first parargraph: 'Whilst' is british-speak, change to 'while'. Starship subsection: Third sentence of first paragraph: The first two commas are unnecessary. Change 'which' → 'that'. Last sentence of first paragraph: add a comma after 'pressure' and before 'and' . Second sentence of second paragraph: Reverse structure in order to avoid passive voice. Fifth sentence of second paragraph: change to present tense. 'tiles that made up' → 'titles that make up' Final sentence of second paragraph: the semicolon should be a comma. Planned variants subsection: The second sentence should be split into two sentences at the first comma. I think the word 'most' in the third sentence is redundant. Paragraph two: 'which SpaceX terms "Earth‑to‑Earth"' should be in parenthesis rather than em dashes. Super Heavy subsection: First sentence: 'Super Heavy' does not need em dashes or any punctuation surrounding it. "Above sits the liquid oxygen and liquid methane propellant tank" is not a complete sentence, add that it is above the booster stage or combine with previous sentence. Combine sentence four and five into one sentence: 'used to attach the upper-stage / and is equipped with'. Here's my initial feedback, I'll add more as I get the chance. ––FormalDude talk 04:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC) Done, in Plaid speed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC) Comments by User:Firefangledfeathers Working from the bottom up: Public response The first sentence likely only needs one source. Most uses of "Boca Chica" should replaced with "South Texas launch site" for consistency with the rest of the article, or vice versa. Anything in the FAA report relevant to Starship should be summarized. Operation Prototype testing is undersourced. The space.com source mentions, but does not detail, just the static fire test. If the rest is not mentioned in RS, it likely doesn't need to be included. "The Starship crewed Mars variant is ..." sentence could use some qualification. "is planned as..."? "is envisioned as..."? Done for now. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC) Thanks for the feedbacks! I added all of them to the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC) @CactiStaccingCrane: A couple more from me in the Description section. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC) "The bottom of the booster houses up to 33" raptors but the source says 32. The newer source [65] said 33. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) Looks like 66, but point taken! Good to go here. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC) "The inside of the skirt mounted composite overwrapped pressure vessels, which store gas to spin the engines' turbopumps." This sentence needs a copy edit but I lack a technical understanding of what it's trying to describe. The composite overwrapped pressure vessels store gas to spin turbopumps. I had copyedited the sentence. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) Was the detail on the mounting location important? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC) In my opinion, very. I have added the position, which is inside of the section. You can see them as black tanks here: [5] CactiStaccingCrane (talk) I mean the specific detail of their being mounted on the skirt, present in a prior version. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC) Not really then. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) Comments by Akbermamps From taking a quick look at the references section, the citation style used is a little inconsistent. FN1 & 2, despite being from the same news source, use cite web and cite news. Cite news is usually used for this, so change that wherever appropriate in the article. CNBC is also listed as a publisher in FN2, which usually isn't used; either the website or the work parameters will be fine for where the publisher parameter is inappropriate. FN6 & 9 are also from the same source, but Space.com is linked in FN6 and not linked in FN9. To remain consistent, either the website/publisher is linked or isn't linked. This also occurs with many other sources in the article. FN30 isn't a dead link. FN38 seems to be the only place where TechCrunch isn't capitalized in the article. It also doesn't use the "last name, first name" style for authors unlike the rest of the article. FN49 & 50 doesn't use the "last name, first name" style for authors; the "April 2021" at the beginning of the references is unnecessary. FN71 doesn't use the "last name, first name" style for authors. FN72 is the only place where "NASASpaceFlight.com" doesn't have ".com" at the end. FN95 isn't a dead link. FN115 doesn't use the "last name, first name" style for authors. FN120 doesn't need the "CNN" and the "CNN Business Photographs by Tamir Kalifa for." at the beginning; those can be seen later in the ref and in the news article itself. "Jackie Wattles" should also use the "last name, first name" format. The captions in the gallery also have some minor issues. "Top section of Mk1 Starship" should be changed to "Top section of Starship Mk1" since that's the naming convention used in the article and in sources. "Starship SN7 repurposed as a test tank" should be changed to "Test tank SN7" since I remember SN7 only being reserved for test tanks and never being intended to be a full Starship. Elon Musk also doesn't mention SN7 being repurposed. "Prototype SN7 was never completed, but its tank was used for various tests." is mentioned earlier in the article, but the source did not mention SN7 being originally intended as a full Starship or its tank being repurposed. "Starship SN5 is lifting" should be changed to "Starship SN5 being lifted" "A steel dome belongs to a Starship prototype" should be changed to "A steel dome belonging to a Starship prototype" That's all for now, but I do intend to try and check the rest of the article. Akbermamps 01:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC) Thank you for your comments! Fixing the ref rn CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC) @Akbermamps: I addressed to all of your comments. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC) Comments by Starship SN20 The infobox needs some references Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) The lead section should also have more than 1 refernce Not really needed, usually only for controversial statements CactiStaccingCrane (talk) The timeline is not needed/in the right place Where should I put it? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) Very little to none about the ITS(Interplanetary Transportation System) The ITS has a very thorough coverage at the development section. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) Refs 112 and 113 (and others) do not support support the the statement before them. Fixed, added other citations CactiStaccingCrane (talk) Too many categories Fixed, removed parent categories CactiStaccingCrane (talk) @CactiStaccingCrane: Starship SN20 (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Thanks a lot! Am addressing them rn CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Comments from DanCherek Reviewing this version. "SpaceX has also used" → "SpaceX also used" Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) Two MOS:LQ fixes needed in Note [a] Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) Can de-link United States in infobox (major country that readers will likely be familiar with) Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "Starship is capable of launching" → is or will be? Will be. Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "latter" generally means "the second of two", so I would replace "latter three" with "last three" Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "launch pad would be used" → "launch pad will be used" Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) wikilink Raptor in first paragraph of lead Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) wikilink to liquid oxygen rather than oxygen in first paragraph of lead Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "by any prototypes" → "by any prototype" Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) It's strange to mention BFR at the start of the Design process section and then not define the acronym until the end of the second paragraph The BFR in 2006 is very different than the BFR in 2018. Elon mentioned the 2006's BFR as-is, without the full name of the vehicle. "have flew to residential" → "have flown to residential" Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) Testing campaign — re-introduce the Boca Chica site being the same as the South Texas launch site Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "loading then unloading" → "loading, then unloading," Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) You don't need to wikilink "broke ground" De-wikilinked. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) Is the groundbreaking date of the Boca Chica site relevant to Starship?  Done Probably not very significant, although the launch site is designed for Starship. In my opinion, it should be kept. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "hop to an altitude" → "hopped to an altitude" Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "cryogenic test; Mk2" → "cryogenic test and Mk2" Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) If this is a generally American topic, I would recommend switching to MDY (and keep MOS:DATECOMMA in mind) Fair, although I prefer DMY. Switching. Switched back to DMY. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) The article has been in dmy format since it first became an article (from a redirect) in March 2019. Per MOS:DATEFORMAT, it should stay in that format unless some strong reason to change it, and that consensus should be reached on the Talk page. I just checked the Talk page, and Talk archives, and no discussion where this should be changed has ever been proposed. N2e (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC) "test on February 28" which year is this referring to? 2021. Fixed CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "crumbled SN1" → "caused SN1 to crumble" Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "header tank does not provide" → "header tank did not provide" Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "explode at impact" → "explode on impact" Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) The "SN9 is built similar to SN8" sentence makes it sound like SN8 flew on 2 February but you're referring to SN9, right? Yup, changed it to SN9, which is built similar to SN8, flew 10km high on ... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "On March 30, Starship" — need a space between this and the preceding ref Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) Why did they skip over SN12–14? SpaceX considered them as obsolete and go straight to SN15. Added. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "it would never fly" → "it never flew" I rephrased to This booster prototype though had never flew or hopped, and it was retired on August 2021. since BN3 had already been retired CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "hasn't" → "has not" per MOS:CONTRACTION Done, also checked for other 't contractions. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) I would replace all instances of "would" with "is expected to" or a similar phrase in the paragraph starting with "On July 20..." if those things haven't happened yet Done, the first "would" is replaced with is planned to though CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "Many residents of Boca Chica Village, Brownsville" I think this paragraph was previously its own section and you've merged it? It sticks out because it's not like the other paragraphs in the Development section and isn't really about development. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) I want to integrate it to the article. I moved it to a brand-new Starship development sub-section under Operation section. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "SpaceX is said to have harmed" — attribute, i.e. make it clear who said what Done, changed to Residents and activists said SpaceX have harmed local wildlife ... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) The reception paragraph could use expansion in general — what is the validity of the critics' claims? What were SpaceX's responses? Thanks for pointing out this! I will expand it asap. @DanCherek:  Done I have strong opinions about this section, and may introduce bias. I want someone else to do this section instead. I have added some info with diligent care. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) Timeline is nice Thanks! I also use color-blind friendly colors as well CactiStaccingCrane (talk) You don't need to wikilink "Sun" Removed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) In general be careful with how you are describing capabilities of a system that is still in development and hasn't undergone certain tests of whether it can actually do those things. I'd say this is one of my major issues with the article. I agree. I don't really have an article to based on, and this is my first time aiming for , so I might get things wrong sometimes. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "Workers inspection of Starship" → "Workers inspecting Starship" Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "skirt also house" → "skirt also houses" Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "rocket engine, measures" → "rocket engine and measures" Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "liquid oxygen which create" → "liquid oxygen which creates" Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "door would be closed" → "door will be closed" Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "payload bay would house cabins" → "payload bay will house cabins" Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "would dissipate" → "will dissipate" Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) In general, check your usage of "would" throughout the article, many instances of these are better replaced with another word. There are many more that I'm not pointing out here Checking, shooting down "would" with a lazer gun Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "as well as caught" → "as well as to catch" Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "These offshore platforms were named" — this sentence makes it sound like the moons of Mars, not the launch sites, were previously Valaris drilling rigs Paraphrasing. This is a bit tricky. paraphrased to These offshore platforms were former oil drilling rigs owned by Valaris, and named Phobos and Deimos after the moons of Mars. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "rendezvous it in Earth orbit" — this verb is not in the correct tense Changed rendezvous to rendezvousing CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "a US$2.89 billion contract" — you didn't specify the currency with previous figures, what's different about this? Changed the first figure to use US$, and later to $. All of them are American dollars CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "along with begin assessing" → "and began assessing" Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) Refs 88 and 93 has a cite error Fixed CactiStaccingCrane (talk) I hope these are helpful. I also have a peer review open here for an article I'm working on, and any comments would be appreciated if you have the time; no worries if not. DanCherek (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC) @DanCherek: Thank you so, so, so much!!! Thank you for spending the time reviewing! I will definitely look at your peer review as well. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC) All fixed now, except a few which is in progress. About the dmy thing, I would use mdy in text and dmy in source. Also, thanks once again for your extremely helpful comments, I would review your article tomorrow if I have time. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) @N2e: We are discussing using mdy or dmy here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC) Thanks for the ping. I've added a comment inline where the reviewer's personal preference was initially expressed. N2e (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC) That was just an off-the-cuff comment from me without having checked the talk page or anything else I will defer to those more familiar with the topic area. DanCherek (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC) Thanks CactiStaccingCrane, and DanCherek for invite and comments on date format. I think we've got that in okay shape now. But I have a meta-question. I just stumbled into this peer review and recent WP:GA push on the article, when I fixed the dmy thing on the article this morning. Did not even know peer review / GA push was underway. Is this still a live review? This page is titled "archive". N2e (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC) @N2e: Yep, still live; the "archive" title is standard and is just for organizational purposes (closed peer reviews will be marked with {{Closed peer review page}}). The purpose of this is just to seek comments from other editors to improve the article further after this version was promoted as a GA on 14 September. DanCherek (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC) Featured articles also use a similar naming scheme for candidate reviews, for example see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/This Dust Was Once the Man/archive1 which is 'archive' but is currently an open nomination. Zetana (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC) Thanks everyone, appreciate it. I now see that the article already has been promoted to GA, and this page is about potential WP:Featured article status. I have concerns about that... at least with some seemingly major thing. I will try to get back here (or whereever I should do it, if not here) and articulate that sometime this weekend. N2e (talk) 01:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Thanks a lot for coming here! I remember that you are a main contributor of the article as well. I really want to have comments of any kind on the article, so I don't really mind if it is a bit harsh. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Comments from RealKnockout I will be reviewing this version for prose and other miscellaneous issues. Please let me know if you think any of my suggestions are incorrect. Thanks! Lead "consisting of a first-stage named Super Heavy and a second-stage named Starship" --> I don't think there is a hyphen in first stage and second stage. Also, perhaps add "rocket" or "booster" or whatever applies after "first stage" and "second stage". Removed hyphen, but don't switch it to rocket and booster. It must be precise. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "The launch vehicle can produce 72 meganewtons (MN) or 17,000,000 pound-force (lbf) at lift-off, which would make it the world's most powerful rocket once operational." Instead of "at lift-off" you should probably say "during lift-off". Also I think the hyphen should go away from here too. Also, while "would" is not wrong, I don't really enjoy its usage throughout the article. Try to find synonyms which allow the sentences to flow better. Changed to during lift off. Lift-off is wrong. I have tried to remove "would", but it is much harder than I expected. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "Starship is designed to launch 100 metric tons (220,000 lb) to low Earth orbit. If tanker Starships transferred propellant to the main spacecraft, the same amount of payload would be able to go to higher Earth orbits, the Moon, or Mars." I would like it if these 2 sentences were joined, as they talk about the same thing. Here is a suggestion on how they can be join (this is just an example, the best way to join them is up to you): "Starship is designed to be able to launch 100 metric tons (220,000 lb) to low Earth orbit, and if it is refueled with propellant via tanker Starships, it will be capable of launching that payload to higher Earth orbits, the Moon, and even Mars." Thanks a lot! Added. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) Referring to that sentence and to the article, I have this suggestion. Low Earth orbit is often referred to as LEO (from my basic space knowledge), so perhaps in the sentence discussed in the previous bullet, replace "low Earth orbit" with "low Earth orbit (LEO)" and then replace all instances of "low Earth orbit" with "LEO". I tried to avoid using acronyms whenever I can, since not everyone is a space nerd. "LEO" and "low Earth orbit" meant the same thing, so the second term is more preferable. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "Starship might launch from a non-traditional launch pad". If this is a confirmed detail, replace it with "will" or something. If it is not confirmed but especially likely, use something like "will probably launch". If this is not confirmed or especially unlikely, the usage of might is fine. Confirmed. Changed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "test article" This word is used throughout the article. While it is not wrong, I believe it would sound better if you used "test rocket" or "test booster" or "test spacecraft" rather than this work. "Test article" is a defacto term in spaceflight. "Test ___" sounds a lot weirder. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "After changes to the vehicle's design" It would be nice if the changes were specified, i.e. After changes to the material and fuel of the vehicle". Something like that. Being more specfic. Done. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)  "performed the first successful hop". I think "hop" should be surrounded with quotations, as that would.... I don't really know how to explain it, but I think that will look better.  In progress Need more concensus. This is one of the highly debated topic, whether hop is an official term or not. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "SN15 on 5 May 2021 became the first test article". Shouldn't the date come first? "On 5 May 2021, SN15 became the first test article". Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) While we are on the topic of dates, I have a suggestion. Since this article should be written in American English, would it not be better to give dates with the month before the date, like is popularly done in the U.S.? An example would be January 1, 2021. The dd mm yy format (5 May 2021) might confuse American readers, or at the very least obscure clarity and ease of reading. Therefore, I suggest that date formats be changed to mm dd yy format. Has been bought up in this peer review. The concensus is keep the DD mmm YYYY format. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "...SN20 and booster BN4 are planned for Starship's first orbital flight." I think that "to be used" or "will be used" should be added after the word "planned". Done. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "Starship is projected to be used in upcoming and envisioned space missions" I think the word "expected" is a better pick rather than "projected" "expected" sounds a bit iffy. Switched to "planned". I will be expanding this list once all issues related to the lead are resolved. RealKnockout (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Am fixing right now @RealKnockout: Finished! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC) Reviewing this version, reviewing for prose, and reviewing the Super Heavy and Starship subsection. Super Heavy and Starship subsection "Starship's body are made from welded 9 m (30 ft) diameter rings." This is a pretty obvious grammar mistake, Starship's body is made from rings, not are made from rings.  Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "...composed from SAE 304L stainless steel." Shouldn't it be composed of?  Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "The Starship launch system consists of two stages: Super Heavy booster and Starship spacecraft." I think this should be a Super Heavy booster and the (or a) Starship spacecraft.  Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "Both stages are equipped with complex full-flow staged combustion cycle Raptors engines" Raptors engines? This is a double plural and incorrect. Either make "engines" singular or remove the word "engines" entirely.  Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "The Raptor engine works, firstly, liquid methane and oxygen flow into turbopumps." Totally incorrect. Rephrase it somehow.  Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "The liquid are then pressurized" Either change "liquid" to "liquids" or replace "are" with "is".  Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "and get mixed and heated" Remove get.  Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "The high pressure and temperature cause the liquids to evaporate" Replace "cause" with "causes", I'm semi-sure on this one.  Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "The hot methane and oxygen gas are then combusted at the combustion chamber." Replace "are" with "is".  Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "This causes the resultant gas to move fast and the engine nozzle redirect it to produce the maximum amount of thrust." Rephrase like this: "This causes the resulting gas to move rapidly and the engine nozzle to redirect it to produce the maximum amount of thrust:"  Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "that produce 72 MN (16,000,000 lbf) of thrust at liftoff." Didn't we go over this already? Not at liftoff, during liftoff.  Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "Four grid fins, installed above the booster, are designed to control its descent and be caught by the launch tower's pair of mechanical arms." And be caught? This makes it sound like the grid fins are going to be caught which doesn't sound normal to me. Can you explain and/or rephrase? The booster would be caught by its grid fins. Fixed.  Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) " are designed to control its descent" This would be a good time to remind everyone that you are talking about the Super Heavy booster (or the spacecraft). Replace "its" with whatever applies.  Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "The booster is topped by a stage adapter for attaching the Starship spacecraft." "topped with" not "topped by".  Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "propellant capacity of 1,200 metric tons (1,200 long tons)". What are long tons? Is it necessary to state that here since it is equal to the amount of metric tons? Seems like there's an error at cvt template.  Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "On top of tanks, the payload section houses a liquid oxygen header tank and payload." I think it should be "on top of the tanks".  Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "For Starship cargo, a large clamshell door replaces conventional payload fairings, which can capture, store, and return payload to Earth." Can you wikilink "clamshell door", I'm not sure what it means.  Done, will explain it in the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "The door will close during launch, open to release payload once in orbit, then close during reentry." I think you should insert "again" after "then close".  Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "Starship actuates two pairs of flaps install perpendicular to its body." What does actuate mean in this context? Try to replace it with a simpler word. Basically the flap moves. Changed to "moves".  Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) " A pair of larger aft flaps sit at the bottom of Starship and a smaller pair of forward flaps is placed on the nose cone." Either replace "sit" with "sits" or replace "is" with "are".  Done, changed to plural. Singular for "a pair" bad CactiStaccingCrane (talk) "Simulations from SpaceX showed that 99.9% of Starship's kinetic energy can dissipate on reentry to Earth, but the thinner Mars atmosphere can dissipate 99% of its kinetic energy." Replacing "dissipate on reentry to Earth" with "dissipate upon reentry to Earth" is a good idea. Also, consider adding "only" before "dissipate 99% of kinetic energy".  Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) That's it for today. I found more mistakes here than a few days ago, what happened? Also, somebody added a couple of sections to the page. Review those since you're the expert on this. Thanks and bye. RealKnockout (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC) Thanks, I would check 'em out and wipe the erorrs. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC) @RealKnockout: Done! Thanks a lot for all of your peer reviews! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC) Quick comments by Sdkb Looking at the gallery, I'm not sure if it's justified existing in a separate section. I would consider moving the two rows to existing sections, and be prepared to justify why they meet WP:GALLERY. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC) Done. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) Also, I wonder why the development section is placed above the description section. Wouldn't it help the development section read more smoothly if you first explained what the thing is that's being developed? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC) Done. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) Urve Since I leaned oppose on sourcing my comments are mostly going to be focused on that. Version reviewed As of October 2021, SN20 and BN4[a] are expected to become the first test article to reach near orbital speed -- article says SN20 will be close to orbital speed but not that it is the first; BN4 is not mentioned as being near this speed  Done Switched to SN20 and BN4 are expected to become the first test article to go to orbit. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) The Raptor engine works, firstly, liquid methane and oxygen flow into turbopumps... --> The Raptor engine operates by flowing liquid methane and oxygen into its turbopumps, which are then pressurize, mixed, and heated in two preburners, with one receiving more methane and the other more oxygen. Then, [next steps]  Done Thanks a lot for the paraphrasing! It's pretty hard to explain what full-flow staged combustion cycle is for me. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) hence the adjective "full-flow staged" and the noun "cycle" -- unnecessary elaboration; the reader can probably connect the dots here  Done Removed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) This causes the resultant gas to move fast... --> The resultant gas quickly moves, and the engine nozzle redirects it to produce thrust (some unnecessary words).  Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) I won't comment more on prose, since I'm not very good at it and I'm sure others will have more useful explanations for why something may need corrected. But I will say that it would be helpful as an exercise to take a look through the article and ask: Is this information providing any extra information, or can it be tightened? As a quick example, is there any information or words here that are not necessary in context?: The booster is topped by a stage adapter for attaching the Starship spacecraft. Click "edit" (not visual edit) of this page to see what I have in mind in the following hidden comment:  In progress I am looking into redundant phrasing, thanks a lot for pointing it out! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) The Huzel and Huang reference is malformed (the link at the end can be in the template I imagine), but either way, the link is not operational. It also does not, based on the date (1974), actually deal with Starship, but presumably with the general mechanisms of spacecraft design for launch. Which is useful, but the prose indicates that there is a specific method for Starship - and we are then citing things that don't concern themselves with Starship, so it does not feel appropriate.  In progress Changed The Raptor engine operates by flowing ... to Generally, a kind of full-flow staged combustion cycle engine operates .... Finding alternative, reliable sources. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) The "Reuters" reference is malformed - Reuters is the agency for {{cite news}}, not an author. Also, you should cite Reuters themselves rather than the NY Post, which according to RSP is questionable in most circumstances.  Done, has been fixed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) The Ross Andersen reference is inconsistent; instead of |author you use |last and |first elsewhere (so it should be |last=Andersen |first=Ross). Also the title is truncated ... but I'm not sure if the title is correct; the archive seems to suggest "Exodus" is the title.  Done, the title is seemingly wrong though. Have to take a look. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) The above point makes me wonder... do we ever say when Starship as a name was first devised? If the Andersen article is from 2014 and the name was not devised, can it support the previous sentence?  Done BFR has the same capability to low Earth orbit, not derived. Fixed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) Foust reference (92) is from 2005 - but that can't support the claim that the idea was similar to Starship, because that is a novel conclusion not represented in the source  Done It is true. Fixed on above reply CactiStaccingCrane (talk) Reference 59 has author Pablo De La Rosa listed here  Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) Usual disclaimer that I did not read everything or attempt verification for most things; just what popped out to me in the references section, and some care will be needed to do some source-text integrity verification I have a peer review open here if you'd like to take a look and found my comments here and at FAC helpful. Thanks, Urve (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC) File:We bring you Mars (9848295393).jpg contains an image of a two-dimensional creative work, which the photographer did not create. They took the photograph, but they (probably?) don't have the rights to reproduce or license the underlying art. I don't think this is usable, then. Urve (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)  Done Removed, switched to a free image. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) @Urve: Thanks a lot on your previous and this review! They really brought insights onto what the article is lacking, as well as possible improvements. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC) Reality check Do you think that SpaceX Starship is suitable for FAC now? I honestly not sure if the article has been good enough yet, please soak me in cold ice water if it doesn't. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cocoa Beach site had undue weight.

Please see [6]. The cocoa site was testing manufacturing techniques, and the only two test articles were never completed, much less "rolled out". The only things from Cocoa that might have been reused at Boca Chica were two stands. If Cocoa is to be mentioned at all, it should be as part of the description of the development of the manufacturing capability, not of the Starship itself, and it certainly should not be first sentence in the section. that is very WP:UNDUE. -Arch dude (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Should we integrate the section?

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

I think "Criticism and controversies" is a fair section title, since essentially all the points mentioned are criticisms. "Reception" would be more appropriate if there were a more even mix of positive and negative opinions. But I'm concerned that the text of this section is not written in from a neutral point of view. "Residents of Boca Chica Village and Brownsville" implies that most, or at least a large number of, residents feel that way, which is not supported by the references. "littered with rocket debris after failed test launches" is also not consistent with the references. One test launch produced a small amount of debris. There are a few other examples as well. Also, I think a "Criticism and controversies" section is supposed to be about widely reported or debated issues, not just a catalogue of every negative thing anyone has ever said. I think the current section may be pushing the limits in that respect. Fcrary (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I gonna revert Stonkaments's edit then. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the introduction of the template as the above complaints are minor and the phrases in question can modified without changing the points made. In addition, "Public reception of Starship testing campaign" gives the wrong impression of the contents of the subsection as criticism comes not only from the public but also government employees. I am changing the title to Criticism and controversies once again. QRep2020 (talk) 05:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, it might give undue weight to the critics as well. Also, there are a fanbase with Starship, which is unique in spaceflight. I might want to paraphrase the crticisms so that they are more consise, as well as adding a bit to the positive side. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The rest of the entire article speaks to the details and accomplishments surrounding Starship. Surely three paragraphs in their own subsection is not extravagant. QRep2020 (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I think this structure is fine then :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you stop changing the name of the subsection please? It is ~96% criticism. Also, it clearly does not belong under Development but, since I know there will be fight to give it its own section, at the very least let us have it at the end of the section. QRep2020 (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we need a 3rd opinion then. Looks like we cannot agree on where should the criticism should be placed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

What function does this section actually serve? Its basically reporting that there are reporters doing reporting. There's very little here beyond the angles that reporters are working for their papers' interests. Sequential Rotation (talk) 07:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the above account has no edits beyond this Talk one and that they appear to be implying that the press are political agents, which would implicate an untold number of articles on Wikipedia. QRep2020 (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Many, such as "Criticism", "Criticism and controversy", "Reception", "Public reaction", etc. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, WP:CSECTION says that we should avoid criticism sections in general wherever possible and instead work the criticisms into the body of the article. That same essay warns that criticisms should be limited to those recieving substantial coverage devoted to those controversies or criticisms, see WP:CORG. Looking at the section in this article at a glance, id say that the environmental concerns could probably be incorporated into the "ground infrastructure" section, along with some of the other parts of the criticism section. Frankly, a lot of the material in that section looks pretty trivial and could be cut. The stuff about highway and beach closures, speculation that its environmental impact statement *might* violate some rules, etc. Again, criticism should be substantial, important to the understanding of the subject, not just existent. Bonewah (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I will incorperating them now CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

These are essays, not policies. There are plenty of examples of entries with Criticism sections, entries that are even referenced in one of the essays. Please do not attempt to integrate them again until the discussion has ended. QRep2020 (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure, its an essay, but the point of those essays is to provide a common response to common concerns. If you feel that the essay is wrong, in this case or in general, then you should explain your thinking here. Bonewah (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

No, there is nothing to compel me to respond to a Wikipedia essay. That said, Wikipedia:Criticism states, "A section dedicated to negative material is sometimes appropriate, if the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole, and if readers would be better served by seeing all the negative material in one location." It is appropriate here and the content produced by Stonkaments et al treats the material as a whole in a concise and organized manner. In addition, here are articles that feature appropriate, well-written criticism or criticism-esque sections:

• Shareholder value
• Organizational culture
• ICANN
• Yelp - Good Article
• Tesla, Inc. - Good Article

Besides, I argued to let it sit as a subsection, someone else moved it to section-level. QRep2020 (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing to compel you to respond to an essay, but you do have to respond to talk page comments if you want your preferred changes to stick around. Simply saying that other stuff has a criticism section or that a criticism section is sometimes appropriate isnt really a response. Why should this article have a criticism section? What value does it add to the article? I can say why it think it shouldnt: the parts that are relevant are better placed elsewhere and the existance of a criticism section is obscuring the fact that, in my opinion, most of the content there is too trivial to include. This is exactly what the essay i cited says: "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Articles should present the prevailing viewpoints from reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and without bias, whether positive or negative." and i agree with that logic in this case. Bonewah (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It should have a criticism section because there are several points of criticism pertaining to the subject that are featured in reliable relevant third-party publications. It is not undue attention because the criticism comes from respected academics and government officials. I am requesting a dispute resolution as clearly there is some fundamental disconnect about what information is valuable here and the constant editing is counterproductive. QRep2020 (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. However, the criticism section should be for Starship itself, such as “Starship is way too complicated for moon landing”, not for the development itself. For that, it should be inside the SpaceX South Texas launch site and briefly mentioned here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Featured article candidate translusion

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 21 October 2021 [7].

---

SpaceX Starship

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

Plaid speed!!! - Spaceballs, probably

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

Lean oppose by Urve

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

• Neither fn 5 or fn 6 support the general claim that Starship is composed of 304L stainless steel; 5 makes no mention, 6 only makes the claim for SN8

Moved fn5 to the first sentence, change fn6 to [8] that mentions switching from 301 to 304L. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• The resultant gas quickly moves, and the engine nozzle redirects it to produce thrust. The Raptor Vacuum variant is equipped with a nozzle extension to increase its specfic impulse in the vacuum of space. - unsourced

Sourced! CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• Super Heavy booster's primary goal - not stated as a primary goal in either fn 9 or fn 10; this speed has a connotation of being a limitation (not a goal?) by Musk in fn 10

Fixed to When launch, Super Heavy booster accelerates ... Mach 9 speed is not a limitation, it is a boon for Super Heavy to land without shielding. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• I don't know what a "sea-level optimized Raptor" is at this point, but that description is not in fn 11 or 12; 11 says up to 32, 12 says up to 33, so that much is OK

• ^ sea-level optimization is supported in a separate source so that much is fine, but what this means should be explained when the term is first introduced Urve (talk) 07:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Got it. Finding. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• The booster is topped with a stage adapter not in fn 13 or 14; doubt it matters from a prose level, though, since we can just say they are attached and avoid the unnecessary words

Changed to On top of the booster, the Starship spacecraft is attached. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• After separation, the Starship spacecraft will accelerate itself to orbit and perform mission tasks and objectives - not in fn 15

Added [9]. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• composite overwrapped pressure vessels - not in fn 16

Removed, no reliable source is found CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• and three for the vacuum of space - paraphrasing of this sentence is too close to the source

Changed to three for vacuum operation CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• Positioned above are... - don't see this description in fn 18

Added [10] CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• On top of the tanks is the payload section houses a liquid oxygen header tank and payload - fn 19 speaks to the header tank but the payload is not there

Added [11]. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• In the Starship crewed variant, the payload bay will house cabins and other facilities - not supported by fn 20, but the other sentences seem to be supported... interestingly, they also speak to using starship as a space debris cleaner, may be worthy of mention

Added the space debris thingy and [12]. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "aft" and "forward" are redundant because being at the top/front means aft in (space)ship terminology. unless I am missing something, which I may be. anyway, adequately supported in what I see

Should keep it there for people who don't know what is aft and forward. They are also terms coined by SpaceX. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• The windward side of the spacecraft is covered by a heat shield made from hexagon tiles - fn 10 just says these are being tested

Replaced with [13].

• This brings me to a concern about article in general: Are we trying to describe the intended final version of Starship, or the several prototypes which have already launched and will continue to launch? We are mixing around descriptors -- some for the final one, some for the current one (for example, some ships have three raptors when launched, but the final design will have six, according to one of the sources) -- but there's no accompanying textual disclaimer about to which it applies

I describes the final version of Starship as of SpaceX plan in October 2021. SpaceX is ridiculously fast, so it is hard to know what is their final design. Added a sentence for disclaimer. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• I assume good faith on fn 22 because I don't want to watch it

Confirmed to be accurate. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• minor point: likely to be the first site to launch Starship to orbit - fn 28 says that it's the current plan. there may be a distinction between something being planned and something being likely (I dunno if that's the case or not); either way, suggest changing to 'planned'

It is planned. Changed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• fn 25 cannot support the "As of October 2021" claim because it is from January

Changed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• minor point: fn 34 says it has landed on drone ships, not that it might in the future - unless I miss something (didn't read it all)

It is planned, not have landed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• letting the booster's grid fins touch down on them - don't know what this means (what is "them" referring to?)

The catching arms catch the booster by letting the grid fins to touch down on them. Don't know how to phrase it though CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• didn't read "Future variants" section or beyond

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

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

Oppose from Hurricane Noah

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

Looks like I should get into habit of writing the source down then :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• The engine is cooled by circulating the fuel around the outside of the fuel chamber, which also preheats the mixture.

Source added CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• Verified test articles will launch in different flight paths, depending on their objectives.

Not unsourced, the list of test articles have flown in different path (hop, 10km flight), and this is not WP:SYNTHESIS. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

It still has to have a source at the end of the line backing it up. Regardless of what other supported text states, we can't leave other sentences unsupported. Noah^Talk 12:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• The account uploading the video for FN25 is not that of a reputable expert/agency. Noah^Talk 20:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• There's quite a bit of relevant scholarly sources out there that aren't included. For example, I saw one related to future landing sites on Mars. Noah^Talk 20:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• Given the relatively recent flurry of additions and large changes (unrelated to FAC), I would say this article is unstable and fails 1e. I also see there is an ongoing dispute resolution related to content in this article, which further emphasizes that. Considering there's only 5 books and journals here and there are quite a few more with relevant content, the article does not meet 1c either. I'm not convinced this article is well-researched with the amount of scholarly research out there. I feel I have no choice but to oppose this nomination given my above reasons. Noah^Talk 20:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane:@FAC coordinators: I am recommending this article be withdrawn until such time it is stable and there is a general consensus for what should be included in it. Considering there is currently a dispute resolution open regarding whether or not a section should exist within the article, this is far from stable. Noah^Talk 23:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The dispute resolution happened before this article is nominated for FAC, so I couldn't do very much at it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• It seems clear that there is not a consensus to promote this article, so I am archiving the nomination to allow the areas identified to be worked on off-FAC. The usual two week hiatus will apply, but I look forward to seeing the article here again in an improved state. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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