Talk:SpaceX Starship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by StarshipSLS (talk | contribs) at 22:28, 11 September 2022 (→‎Lead Section: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleSpaceX Starship was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 14, 2021Good article nomineeListed
September 24, 2021Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 11, 2021Peer reviewReviewed
October 12, 2021Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
October 21, 2021Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 21, 2021Good article reassessmentKept
December 2, 2021WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
January 24, 2022Peer reviewReviewed
March 12, 2022Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 17, 2022Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 6, 2022Peer reviewReviewed
June 16, 2022Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 9, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that SpaceX's reusable Starship launch vehicle has twice as much thrust as the Apollo program's Saturn V?
Current status: Delisted good article

Date format

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

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

GA Review

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

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

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

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


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)[reply]

Image licensing:

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

Source check:

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

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

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

Prose notes:

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

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)[reply]

Urve, I've added some citation needed tags for now, but I'd reckon that the text now matches up more with the sources. I will try to do some final cleanups in the weekend. Cheers, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Urve, I would like to withdraw the nomination. There are multiple aspects of the program that are under-developed, and technical information is sorely lacking. I think the article needs a bit more time to be complete than what GA allows. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CactiStaccingCrane: I understand. Please renominate whenever you feel as though the issues have been addressed to your satisfaction. I can't promise that I will have time to look when it's all done, but remind me and I can give it a go. I will close this as unsuccessful using the new closure script; if there are any errors with the close, please let me know. I appreciate your honesty and your work on the article. Urve (talk) 06:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Request for comment on date format

Should this article use either dmy or mdy date format? See § Date format for prior discussion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • mdy The article is written in American English, and although International English may sometimes be confused with American English, this is an article with a US focus, in which the mdy format should be used. AnneDant87 (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
YYYY-MM-DD. As per ISO 8601. Chillpadde (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CactiStaccingCrane , this Rfc should not have been closed by you (as is was on 29 June 2022: diff), since you initiated the discussion. Needs to be closed by a non-involved editor, per WP:NACRFC.

Please reopen and allow the full 30 days required for RfCs for comments and discussion. Please self-remove you premature closing. N2e (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, sorry for my premature close. I don't mean to be disruptive, I just found that the discussion has already taken 1+ month and the RfC won't likely to get more comments. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for quickly doing that! Your belief that "the RfC won't likely to get more comments." was (now) rather obviously not a correct estimation, as the RfC has had six additonal substantive comments in ~5 days. But that doesn't matter, as the early close, by you, was incorrect on two policy grounds. Let's let this run to full duration, and let some non-involved editor close it, in late July. N2e (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think I may have improperly opened the RfC somehow so that people don't get notifications at their talk page. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter, so let's stick with the status quo. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. waddie96 ★ (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When written in full it doesn't matter much if it is "7 June 2022" or "June 7 2022", both will be understood. So be consistent and stick to status quo (back to day one, if needed), there is little to no point in re-re-re-re-formatting one way then the other. If wriiten has numbers, then ISO would be best: we know which day is 2022-06-07, but we can't be sure about 06-07-2022 vs. 07-06-2022. - Nabla (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For your information, the article use dmy from the beginning. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Most spaceflight articles use that and topic is generally more important than country association. Keep dmy. --mfb (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the status quo of dmy dates. No need to change it, and the ties to US aren't super strong. From Wikipedia:Overview of date formatting guidelines: "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation" (emphasis added). SpaceX is a US company, sure, but this is their spacecraft and I don't see how it's strongly tied to the US, just as I don't see how Tesla Cybertruck is strongly tied to the US. Ovinus (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DMY, it is much better. --StellarNerd (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • DMY for spaceflight Leijurv (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DMY The article has been using DMY since its earliest days. Standard date policy is to keep it as it began. But also, as others have mentioned, it is a spaceflight-related article, many of which are global in extent. So the parochial country-by-country divergence of English Wikipedia date formats really makes no sense in this case. N2e (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How much criticism, and how deep?

Per Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/SpaceX Starship/2, I think this article should have a consensus about how much and how deep the criticisms should be, or else this argument would erupt once again in FAC and GAR. Right now, there are a few sections for this, such as:

  • criticism of Starbase (Opponents of the plan said the company encourages ...),
  • environmental concerns (This would cause large greenhouse gas emissions ...), and
  • overpromises of Mars timeline (However, this goal is considered optimistic. In a 2019 report prepared ...)

What do you think? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying User:Compassionate727, closer of the review, could you tell me in more detail what can I do further to improve the neutrality of this article? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging everyone else involved in SpaceX Starship reassessment to solicit further feedback. User:Chidgk1, User:Urve, User:XFalcon2004x, User:StarshipSLS, User:Berrely, User:X-Editor, User:Theknightwho, User:Maxmmyron, User:Leijurv, User:Nigos, and User:Peacemaker67. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For User:QRep2020 and User:Stonkaments, they are also getting a talkback template because they are the original ones that raised concerns about the article's NPOV and bias. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would reference the Army Corps of Engineers' decline of SpaceX's plan to expand the launch site for one: https://www.tpr.org/environment/2022-04-07/army-corps-of-engineers-withdraws-spacex-expansion-application-citing-insufficient-conflicting-information . Likely belongs both here and on SpaceX Starbase. QRep2020 (talk) 08:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I am thinking where to add the information though, whether at "Facilities" or "Planned orbital launches". CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
QRep2020, fyi, I've mentioned it at "Testing and manufacturing", at one payload processing facility, one seven-acre solar farm, and other facilities. As of April 2022, the expansion plan's permit has been withdrawn ... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you leave this for twelve months and come back to it. By my count it in less than a year it has had three unsuccessful runs at FA, one unsuccessful A-Class review and its status at GA remains unstable, with a delist three months ago and another recent unsuccessful run. In a year's time the sources available will have improved and we will know more about the starship, its successes and failures. There is far too much "may", "will", "intended", "predicts" and "likely". The reality is that with an article on a subject that is developing rapidly, getting it to a good standard and keeping it there as things change and progress is incredibly difficult. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with peacemaker. I hate to say it but after periodically checking in on this article (and sometimes doing in-depth reviews), I'm not convinced the constant churn and turnover of your editing is making it better. You're putting in a ton of effort, thousands of edits, but it's just treading water, it seems to me. Sorry. It's not all your fault of course - the subject matter is a massive question mark, a moving target and a hypothetical. The criticisms leveled against the project are therefore similarly slippery. Leijurv (talk) 07:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67 and Leijurv, I do agree that the subject is prone to change by a lot, as you can see that most of the sources here only exist after the first half of 2021. However, I do think that it is unfair that article about recent topics must wait until they are able to be nominated at GA and FA. There is no criteria in both good and featured processes that says so, and most topic evolves over time anyways as our understanding or information about them grew (examples: Hubble Space Telescope, Renewable energy in Scotland, Buzz Aldrin, and Elon Musk). Since when I started developing this article in September 2021, I think now is the best time to bring them to FA status: early enough to inform a lot of readers, and late enough that the topic is just quite stable. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A stable topic that could withstand changes would be SpaceX Starship development. Any changes to Starship's design would require that this article—and all of its myriad hypotheticals and predictions—be rewritten, except its historical section. There's quite a difference between overview subjects (renewable energy in Scotland), biographies (Buzz Aldrin, Elon Musk), and existing technologies (Hubble Space Telescope) to emerging tech, where the bulk of those articles is purely historical or scientific, and the bulk of this one is hypothetical and changing. Urve (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think a good compromise here is to wait until a few months after Starship's first orbital flight test, i.e. doing something similar to the Falcon Heavy test flight. It would make rounds in news and we would have an ample of reliable sources to pick from. An alternative is when the Starship program is cancelled, though it is highly unlikely. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's possible for this article to get GA/FA, no need to cite WP:WIAGA/WP:WIAFA, I never said it was impossible. I stand by what I did say: I'm not convinced the constant churn and turnover of your editing is making it better Leijurv (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I should have slowed down and get others to contribute. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have not looked at this article for ages but if I remember right the controversy is local rather than national. In that people are complaining there are -ve local effects of the launches. So the controversy could be summarized in a short paragraph in this article with the details in an article about the launch site. Suggest nominate for GA immediately after orbital test launch whatever result of test. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t promise anything (and definitely not getting involved in FA) but ping me if you or anyone puts in for GA. I may or may not be able to review. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane: "stable" is one of the FA criteria. A review will be based on the current article state, if the article looks very different the next month then what did we actually feature? I have said that before - I think the subject changes too quickly for GA/FA. Not our fault. In a year the background/history section will be the only thing that still looks like today. --mfb (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article is not eligible for GA and FA right now because of stability. However, it is useful to polish the article up to standard and nominate it once the topic becomes more stable. Right now, my concern is the article's neutrality, as it hasn't been written by many people with different viewpoints and is mostly written by an enthusiast (me). Ignoring recent developments, what do you think that article need improvement on, and why? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For disclosure and prevent canvassing, I've also notified User:Ixtal who is the reviewer of SpaceX's GA. She has commented on the topic both on-wiki and off-wiki via Discord chat service. I think her feedback would help a lot on the article's NPOV. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know exactly what is needed from me here. I'm unable to dig through the article and topic now due to irl issues but good luck to you all :) — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 08:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you can provide a viewpoint to the article's NPOV, given that I don't have the best judgement to do so. Feel free to decline my request if you don't feel like doing it though. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Besides maybe a sentence of clause here and there, I don't think much criticism is due. RS haven't put out a lot of criticism on Starship. And much of what criticism has been published is tangential, aimed at Musk or Starbase rather than Starship. ~ HAL333 12:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with User:HAL333 and their rationale. Criticism of a large 24x7 busy/noisy/active rocket manufacturing facility (and only occasional launch facility) doesn't really belong in the article on Starship. More properly, all these details would go in the Starbase (SpaceX) article, with perhaps a summary sentence or two in this article, if at all. N2e (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is clear what you meant. Do you mean that the Reception section should either be eliminated, shortened to a paragraph, or integrated throughout the article? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy at lead

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

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

Prose stuff

Reception of Starship by local communities

N2e, why did you move two of these paragraphs (Reception to Starship development among local communities... and Opponents of the plan said the company encourages...) from Development to Facilities? I don't think that that place is suitable because they also talk more about Starship development as a whole. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: The reception of a community to a launch (and landing) facility in their region of the US is not about the "Development" of the technology and product (SpaceX Starship) which is the focus of the article. It is related to the facilities being built there, and operated there 24x7, with less frequent, but impactful, launches. So it properly would situate in the "Facilities" section. It might be about the "development" of the real estate, in the sense that unimproved property becomes "developed property", but that is not what development means in the usual course of articles on aerospace technology. Also, to be clear, I didn't edit the content of those paragraphs; left 'em as is. Just put them in the section that more deals with the facilities side of things. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Thanks for the explanation. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

N2e, although I think that most of your edits on the lead is an improvement, I feel that a few isn't as good as I've hoped. The first paragraph is fine, though I would like make a couple of minor adjustments to avoid repetition. It would look like this:

Starship is a fully-reusable, super-heavy-lift launch vehicle that is currently being developed by SpaceX, an American aerospace manufacturer. It is the tallest and most powerful launch vehicle ever built.[1] The launch vehicle is a two-stage-to-orbit rocket, consisting of the Super Heavy booster stage and the Starship second stage or spacecraft.
I'm not seeing the difference in what you are proposing. Seems to nearly match the current article prose as of now. Except 1) there is no need to link launch vehicle twice, 2) since BOTH stages are rockets, we avoid confusion with the reader of the encyclopedia by referring to the entire two-stage stack as a launch vehicle. However, if "launch vehicle" is previously used once or twice in a paragraph, it'd probably be okay to just refer to it as a "vehicle" a third time, but I'm not sure how much better that is. If I missed anything, maybe restate your changes. N2e (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first launch vehicle's link is unintentional (instead of the wikitext being [[super-heavy-lift launch vehicle|super-heavy-lift]] [[launch vehicle]], it should be linked more simply as [[super-heavy-lift launch vehicle]]). I do agree that it would be wrong to say "two-stage-to-orbit rocket" as you just said earlier, and it would be better to say "vehicle" instead. The final result would be:
Starship is a fully-reusable, super-heavy-lift launch vehicle that is currently being developed by SpaceX, an American aerospace manufacturer. It is the tallest and most powerful launch vehicle ever built.[1] The vehicle is a two-stage-to-orbit, consisting of the Super Heavy booster stage and the Starship second stage or spacecraft. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it should not be: [[super-heavy-lift launch vehicle]] because the hides the MAIN THING that the article is about. Starship, as explicated in this article, is indeed a "launch vehicle", a particular type of item of human technology common in orbital spaceflight. "super-heavy-lift" is simply a compound adjective saying the thing is big. So, [[super-heavy-lift launch vehicle|super-heavy-lift]] [[launch vehicle]] helps the reader of the encyclopedia, cause it let's them see in the first sentence the term, and link, to just exactly what Starship is. N2e (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:SOB advises against that, perhaps a different phrasing would have the links not directly next to each other? Leijurv (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if they want to find out about launch vehicle in general, they can take a look at the second link at "powerful launch vehicle ever built". Otherwise it's a bit misleading when a single block of colored text can lead to different places, depending on where you click on it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph is great in my opinion; it's just right. However, the third paragraph has an awkward sentence "Design characteristics and construction techniques were refined over the next dozen years, specifying methane fuel in 2012 and stainless-steel construction in 2019." You've said in the edit summary that the name changes does not need to be mentioned at the lead, but I think that it should be, because the MCT, ITS, and BFR is ultimately related to Starship. At the last paragraph, it is good enough, though I would like to mention the offshore platforms' names Phobos and Deimos. So, what do you think of my proposal? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence, that includes the name as being "refined" is just not correct. SpaceX is refining a design for a vehicle, and for the complex manufacturing processes to build the thing cost-effectively and efficiently. They didn't "refine" the name. They did change the name of the vehicle a few times. Musk is on record the second time they changed the public name to the internal short moniker (BFR) that (I'm paraphrasing from memory here; but the quote is easy to find.) "[We are still searching for the right name. ... ]" So it wasn't some sort of process of continual refinement; it was just a few name changes. So in my view, your proposed sentence doesn't quite work. Also, beyond that, I really don't believe the various name changes are a very lede-worthy topic. So to me, it's okay if it is just explicated in the article body. N2e (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we should just gonna keep these paragraph as it is then. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, not yet, I think that this phrase "Both Starship stages use liquid oxygen ... Both stages are designed for rapid reuse after a vertical landing." is a bit repetitive. I think that this Both Starship stages use liquid oxygen ... The rocket stages are designed for rapid recovery and reuse after a vertical landing. sounds better and still holds the same meaning. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think underplaying that BOTH stages are fully-reusable is a good idea. That fact about this technology development project should not be anything less than encyclopedically correct and crystal clear. THat is exactly what no other company, and no other government, has ever even attempted to do previously. It is the most unique and encyclopedically important thing about Starship. ... The article takes up a lot of prose space with mundane stuff that is not very important: like what happened with this or that particular prototype test vehicle, or on this or that particular test (all good for the other Starship Development article, of course). But that both stages are reusable is absolutely key to what we should say, and say clearly. N2e (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
N2e, agreed, so how about this: "Both Starship stages are designed for rapid reuse after a vertical landing. They use liquid oxygen plus liquid methane for propellant, and are powered by Raptor engines." I switch the order around a bit to emphasize what you've said. However, about the "Development" section, what do you think it should be improved on now? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I made an edit to include 90% of what you suggested, but also cleaned up some odd phrasing. N2e (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The lead looks really good now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane why is the lead all written in present tense? It very much undermines or de-emphasizes the beyond ambitious and aspirational nature of an "under development" launch vehicle. The lead mentions everything it's yet to demonstrate and even goes as far as to mention its 4 non-existent variants as such. Nandofan (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The same can be said with the Space Launch System. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

N2e's reverts

I disagree with a lot of User:N2e reverts, though I do agree that I've made his job a lot harder by making a lot of excessive edit saves. Here's the rationale of my now-reverted edits: CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I changed from {{cite news}} to {{cite web}} partly because they are essentially the same. In Choosing between {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}}, the only two difference are: Cite news can be used for offline sources (we don't use any offline news sources here); Cite news allows for |issue= and |volume= (which we may never need because it is only used in offline sources). We can either choose to spend time changing news citations from {{cite web}} to {{cite news}}, or we can convert all the news citations from {{cite news}} to {{cite web}}. Since the {{cite web}} is considered to be the default citation template, I chose the latter.
  • the development program has achieved important milestones feels a bit redundant, but I do agree with your revert
  • Information about Raptor Boost and Super Heavy's cluster of engines should NOT be removed. They were good info. In the long term, SpaceX plans to make three variants of Raptor; sea-level-optimized engine with gimbaled thrust, sea-level-optimized engine without gimbaled thrust, and vacuum-optimized engine without gimbaled thrust is essentially in production now. It's called sea level-optimized Raptor 2, Raptor Boost, and vacuum-optimized Raptor 2. Therefore it's redundant, and there isn't a need for a source to explicitly say so.
  • In the edit that has the summary "citations were good", they weren't. SpaceX's homepage does not mention about two forward flaps and two aft flaps, and the NYT source are paywalled, so they should be marked as such.
  • I am strongly disagree with this revert. What do you mean by "explicating a complex and dynamic technology development effort for a global general readership", when you revert good links to Starship HLS and the Artemis program?
  • I agree with your addition of the CNBC source about the orbital flight. It was my fault, and I should've been more careful with my edits.
  • I don't think that this copyedit is a good addition, as "and in the longer term, will carry humans" and "elsewhere beyond-Earth orbit" is fairly redundant. The sentences are already implying that Starship will carry humans deep in the Solar System, and landing will take place outside of the Earth, so no need to say that explicitly.
  • In the same copyedit, you've also replaced the Ars Technica source with the NYT source. The NYT source does not mention SpaceX being iterative and incremental with its development, while the Ars Technica very explicitly says so.
CactiStaccingCrane, the section title you put on this is not correct. I did not merely revert your edits. You made 29 consecutive edits to the article on 3-6 July. It was quite challenging to review those edits, and to use wiki tools to do so given the widely-all-over-the-article extent of your edits. I reverted some of them, always with comments. I left many of your edits as they were. I also, in my 7 edits on 6 July, edited to make other changes to the article.
Thus, your revert of 100% of my edits on 7 July (diff), and then leaving the article that way for a day and a half, was not a very helpful move for collegial editing. Taking the article back to the state it was in immediately after your string 29 edits was essentially an WP:IDONTLIKEIT move, and smacks of WP:OWNERSHIP of the article.
Looking in to this article tonight (8 July, UTC), I see you have reverted your own edits of 7 July, to subsequently take the article back to where it was after my edits of 6 July. I sincerely appreciate that move. Moreover, I think it makes discussion of any and all content issues back where they can happen without getting into formal issues of editor behavior.
There may be some co-editing matters of process and helpful behavior to discuss later, but I'm happy to address each of your article content comments, as you made them. I'll get to the first one tonight, within an hour or so. N2e (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I've become emotionally attached to the article after working on it for nearly a year, and as such become more and more possessive of the content. I should do something else for some time, so that everyone else would be able to contribute and you to do the necessary fix-ups. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source stuff

Source assessment table: prepared by User:CactiStaccingCrane
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Sesnic, Trevor (11 August 2021). "Starbase Tour and Interview with Elon Musk". The Everyday Astronaut (Interview). Archived from the original on 12 August 2021. Retrieved 12 October 2021. ~ This article is made by an YouTube channel, which is somehwat biased toward SpaceX. However, there is no endorsement or sponsorship that the channel takes. ~ This is a primary source, which can get outdated over time and prone to PR. However, the interview do provide solid information which are conflicting, such as the rocket's stage dry mass. Yes This is an interview with Musk specifically about Starship. ~ Partial
"Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the SpaceX Starship/Super Heavy Launch Vehicle Program at the SpaceX Boca Chica Launch Site in Cameron County, Texas" (PDF). Federal Aviation Administration and SpaceX. June 2022. Archived (PDF) from the original on 14 June 2022. Retrieved 14 June 2022. Yes Portions of the document is made by SpaceX. However, it is subjected to thorough vetting by the FAA to provide accurate information. ~ Most of the document is made by subject experts, though information are known to be outdated (37 Raptors for Super Heavy). Yes This is an environmental assessment about the Starship and its development activities. ~ Partial
Weber, Ryan (31 October 2021). "Major elements of Starship Orbital Launch Pad in place as launch readiness draws nearer". NASASpaceFlight.com. Archived from the original on 5 December 2021. Retrieved 19 December 2021. ~ Though this is a website that has parts dedicated and somewhat biased to the Starship program, it has taken no endorsement from SpaceX. ~ Many of the information provided by NASASpaceFlight is speculation as lots of Starship activities are not announced by SpaceX. However, this is an article made in retrospective and synthesized from other sources written by established subject-matter experts. Yes This is a chronology of Starship program's events and prototypes. ~ Partial
Wattles, Jackie (10 December 2020). "Space X's Mars prototype rocket exploded yesterday. Here's what happened on the flight". CNN. Archived from the original on 10 December 2020. Retrieved 10 December 2020. Yes This is CNN, a national news channel. The author has little affiliation with SpaceX, though covers the spaceflight industry in general. Yes This is not an op-ed, nor it was written way too early. The author like I said above is a subject-matter expert, and the publisher is known for their reliability. Yes This is a description about Starship SN8's flight test. ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I've made this {{source assess table}} to keep track of sources easier, which I think would help other editors as well. Ignore the "Count source toward GNG?", all assumed to be yes. The main thing here is to keep track of is the prior three columns: "Independent?", "Reliable?", and "Significant coverage?". CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citation format

CactiStaccingCrane changed "all cite news to cite web for consistency, remove ISSN as the sources are online" in an edit on diff

I changed them back, so as not to lose the benefits of the 'cite news' format citations, and the work of previous editors who took the time to add full citations to many of those 'cite news' full citations.

Cacti asked (above) to discuss here on the talk page:

"changed from {{cite news}} to {{cite web}} partly because they are essentially the same. In Choosing between {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}}, the only two difference are: Cite news can be used for offline sources (we don't use any offline news sources here); Cite news allows for |issue= and |volume= (which we may never need because it is only used in offline sources). We can either choose to spend time changing news citations from {{cite web}} to {{cite news}}, or we can convert all the news citations from {{cite news}} to {{cite web}}. Since the {{cite web}} is considered to be the default citation template, I chose the latter."

I don't think it is a good idea to treat news sources, the kinds of sources the 'cite news' template was made for, as if they are mere websites, the sort of online sources that the 'cite web' template was made for. Also, I do not think it is a good idea to remove ISSN information in a citation; that essentially loses information that some other editor thought worthwhile when creating a source citation. We should not remove ISSNs sans wikipolicy to do it differently, or without a consensus to do so here on this talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, though it doesn't matter much. Help talk:Citation Style 1 § RfC: Should Citation bot use cite web, or cite magazine, or cite news? is an open discussion about this kind of change, FWIW. WP:CITEVAR counsels us against arbitrarily changing the citation style, which includes the choice of templates imo, without consensus or a strong reason; I don't see an actual reason to switch from {{cite news}} to {{cite web}}, especially because {{cite news}} is semantically useful when editing the page. {{cite web}} is not the default for anything. The rendered output should be identical, though - hence why I say it doesn't matter much - sans ISSN, which I see no utility in for most publishers. Urve (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Section

The lead section of this article is too long. A lead section should be a short summary of the article. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 23:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@StarshipSLS I'd add from elsewhere:
Why is the lead all written in present tense? It very much undermines or de-emphasizes the beyond ambitious and aspirational nature of an "under development" launch vehicle. The lead mentions everything it's yet to demonstrate and even goes as far as to mention its 4 non-existent variants as such. Nandofan (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC) Nandofan (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nandofan I rewrite the lead a bit to use future tenses (will, going to, etc.) Some sentences I kept it as-is for obvious reasons. What do you think about it now? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks really good. I made an edit that SpaceX intends for Starship to carry 100 t. @CactiStaccingCrane StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 22:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SpaceX_Starship&oldid=1109795035"