Talk:SpaceX Starship/Archive 2

Price discussion
There seems to be some controversy over listing "$2 million (aspirational and eventual)" in the infobox. To get the discussion going, what's the source? Musk's tweets are not WP:RS, he not only doesn't have an editorial board, he doesn't have a filter. A basic analysis of the costs involved in a super-heavy launch suggests that even "aspirational" is optimistic (the fuel costs alone will approach $2 million, not counting depreciation and refurbishing costs), while "eventual" implies a certainty which I feel is absent. A more accurate statement would be to say "unknown", because SpaceX, as a private corporation, does not publish their costs. Comments? Tarl N. ( discuss ) 04:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If/how/when Musk tweets can be cited is a question as old as time. My understanding is that, obviously, it isn't a WP:RS in any sense. But it can be a WP:SELFSOURCE... (an aside: I just now learned that WP:TWITTER is the same redirect as WP:ABOUTSELF, which makes me think this applies).
 * The question is, can it be a source on SpaceX or Tesla's plans. Of course, we could write in the article Musk has stated he anticipates a Starship launch eventually costing as low as $2 million[citation to his twitter]. That is a clear application of WP:SELFSOURCE. But could we write SpaceX anticipates Starship launches eventually costing as low as $2 million[citation to musk's twitter]? As the CEO, are his statements citable as "company positions" in such contexts? For example, this has been a question in the past: if Musk tweets "we will try to launch SNwhatever tomorrow", can the article say "SpaceX plans to launch this tomorrow" or does it have to say "Musk said on twitter that SpaceX plans to launch this tomorrow"? I'd love if someone could direct me to a past discussion, or if there isn't such discussion, maybe we should start a RfC or something.
 * Also, I am generally highly skeptical of some editing frenzies (that I've seen in the past) where people tear through an article and replace every citation to Musk's twitter with a citation to a highly questionable source (that is nevertheless green on WP:RSPSRC) that literally just reprints Musk's tweet and adds no additional substance other than a SEO optimized "guys click this article". Per WP:LINKSINACHAIN this is no better than the original tweet. The journalists in these cases evidently don't have any additional knowledge beyond "Musk tweeted this". I think that kind of "source laundering" is a net negative. Leijurv (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I wrote up a whole thing about how if we cited instead of a more direct source, it would make the article worse. Then I looked at the article and we do cite that techcrunch link in the body, and the direct source in the infobox. Oh well. I went off on the assumption that the $2 million figure came from a Musk tweet, based on your original message ... To get the discussion going, what's the source? Musk's tweets ... But it looks like it's something he said in an interview, not something he tweeted. So now I've gone on that whole tirade about tweets when it isn't even involved in this $2 million number, ah well, my bad. Leijurv (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, my bad. I should have distinguished between the issue of the source and the issue of whether it's a commitment. Musk's tweets and Musk's off-the-cuff comments in an interview, while official company positions, are not commitments. So the "eventual" implying any kind of certainty for achieving that result is what I think is problematic. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 06:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was the one who added "eventual." There is a common misconception that the cost will be $2 million as soon as Starship becomes operational, or very shortly thereafter. So I thought some word was needed to note it may take a significant amount of time to achieve that (if SpaceX ever does.) "Eventually" definitely wasn't intended to imply any kind of certainty. If someone could suggest an alternative, I'd appreciate it. Fcrary (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen that misconception, but if it's out there, I'm with you. "$2 million (long-term goal)" perhaps? Polymath03 (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if we need either certainty, or commitment, in order to put that number up. We just need a best guess. And if it's a particularly sketchy / implausible guess, it shouldn't be in the infobox, but rather explained in the article body. Then, once we get to a lot of reliable sources all saying about the same thing for cost then it could be put in the infobox. In this case, there are a number of sources republishing Musk's claim. Is it reasonable to put that up in the infobox? I'm not so sure. It seems like.... free advertising for a statement of dubious plausibility. Like Wikipedia lending its credence to the self-promoting claim? Just a feeling. Leijurv (talk) 06:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing the cost from the infobox entirely, since it is a pretty sketchy claim. But it we do leave that $2 million figure in the infobox, I'd be much more comfortable with the suggested "(long-term goal)" phrasing suggested by Polymath03. It's definitely a better description than the "eventual" I added. Fcrary (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 👍 on (long-term goal) Leijurv (talk) 07:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "(aspirational long-term goal)" maybe? Stgpcm (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think goal explains that it's, well, a goal. I don't think aspirational adds anything. Leijurv (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "(Long term goal)" is better than "(aspirational and eventual)" but 2 points: What is the source of the long term? It certainly isn't imminent but what shows it isn't a medium term goal? Secondly the source is clear about it being operational costs only, shouldn;t we make that clear? C-randles (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't need to overthink this. "Long term" implies that it's not immediate without specifying how long it will take to achieve. "Medium term" would imply SpaceX has longer-term plans for further cost reductions below $2 million per flight, and we have no citable evidence of that. I'd also rather not go into another rabbit hole about the overall cost, incremental cost, cost versus price, etc. We don't have the information to make those distinctions. And even in the similar debate over cost in the SLS article, where more numbers were available, I don't think we ever reached a consensus. Fcrary (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I also would not like to go into such a rabbit hole. I don't think we ever reached a consensus Eh... It isn't so bad as that, per WP:EDITCON and WP:SILENCE. :) Leijurv (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

From Reliable_sources "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." You can't use some random dude on twitter, but Musk as CEO of SpaceX is the 'go to expert' on Starship. Perhaps could be an issue if it is "unduly self-serving or an exceptional claim".

For info: the 2016 video which was the source not long ago said they were working towards $140,000 per ton landed on Mars. I took that as rough support for the $2million figure based on 100 tons giving $14m and with 3-5 refuelling launches needed. However, this was 2016 when they were talking 450 ton payloads. That is all historic and not really relevant now.

Current link says "If you consider operational costs, maybe it'll be like $2 million". Operational costs are normally a lot less than price / unqualified "cost" because you want to recover the development costs which are huge and normally spread over not many launches. While if it is SpaceX's aim and lots of launches then there might unusually be only a small difference, but I think we need to make clear this operational cost qualifier to this estimate. C-randles (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * On https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:F.Alexsandr&oldid=prev&diff=1028194540#Starship_price we had a discussion on whether the $62 million price from 2016 presentation should be also included in the infobox. My opponent said that it shouldnt because of his highly questionable calculations (Original Research). Ultimately that number $62 milllion is outdated, but it at least has a presentation with calculations to back it up. while Musk basically said "maybe someday it will be 2 million dollars". His tweet barely qualifies as a source. I propose to remove price from the infobox completely, instead creating a new section in the article, or just leaving it be, scince Elon's musk's estimate is already mentioned in "Intended uses" section. F.Alexsandr (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you cannot accurately summarize my comments then please don't do so at all. That number shouldn't be included because it is for a mission to Mars, which includes multiple launches (as shown on the slide) and far less frequent reuse (as discussed in the presentation, too). It is not the cost per launch. And it is completely outdated, too. Tweets from Musk are statements from the CEO of SpaceX. Will they achieve that goal? Who knows. But it's fine to write that SpaceX has this goal, because they announced that goal publicly and secondary sources (such as the space.com article cited) have written articles about it. --mfb (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So we all agree $62m is outdated and majority at least accepting it is for multiple launches. Back to the current text: The eventual makes it sound like it is some far off aim for an eventual larger successor launch vehicle or at least many iterations later. I propose text should be changed to "Aspiration of US$2 million for operational costs only". C-randles (talk) 09:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * From everything I've read, there is no reason to think that $2 million would be the initial, operational cost. It's mentioned in the context of high flight rates and easy, rapid turn-around times (i.e. little more work that refueling.) There is no chance that will happen starting with the first, operational flight. That cost may be achievable with substantial experience operating the vehicle, but not from day one. I'm not comfortable with text which creates the misimpression that it would be. Fcrary (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * instead creating a new section in the article I wrote a section like this at Space Launch System. I don't think it would work as well here. The reason is that this is such an early stage venture, being run by a private company. Basically all cost numbers are guesses. They are under no obligation to share their finances with the world. Polar opposite of a long-running publicly funded government project with oversight boards putting out many reports over the years. I don't think there is enough substance on this topic, published, yet, to warrant a paragraph or section in the article. Maybe just a passing mention somewhere, a sentence or two, would work though. Leijurv (talk) 06:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * $2m is definitely too aspirational, rough first 10's of starship launches would cost close to $100m but still cheaper than using Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy while calculating for $/kg.
 * Anyways for this matter, only input for price we have now is the tweet by Elon / SpaceX about $2 m long term cost, until Starship gets operational in coming years I think we should stick with the $2 m long term cost per flight. Chandraprakash (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is really weird because it is really simple. The quote is "If you consider operational costs, maybe it'll be like $2 million". This is clearly only operational costs, i.e. it doesn't include anything for recovering development costs. To fairly represent what the source, Elon Musk, said we have to use the same operational cost qualifier. It seems sensible to also use a word like aspirational/aim/goal to imply (as it clearly is) that it is uncertain and not yet known. The source doesn't say anything about long term or eventual and we should avoid adding such synthesis which isn't supported by the source. I really cannot see any reason why lots of people here seem to want to add 'long term' and not the 'operational' cost qualifier. C-randles (talk) 10:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Cost per launch is not meant to include development cost, see essentially any other page that uses this rocket infobox. It is simply meant to be the cost of launching the rocket. Leijurv (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The cited reference states that rapid reusability is essential to achieving that $2 million per launch cost. Fro m other references, which we can add if you like, it's clear that "rapid" in this case means launching the same rocket a weekly or daily basis, if not more rapidly. Starship will be "operational" long before that sort of turn-around time can be achieved. So saying "operational" cost isn't sufficient. That would imply the cost will be $2 million as soon as Starship is flying payloads to orbit. Fcrary (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Another WP:RSN Discussion
I have started a discussion at WP:RSN about Elon Musk's tweets. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - Wikipedia StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 14:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Starship is a system
Starship is a system, both in the sense of Starship/Super Heavy and in the sense of the many different configs and models of Starship second stages. This link illustrates, but I wouldn't intend it for the article, as its not a WP:RS; so just view it for the illustration.

The point is that Starship second stage has never been only three models (tanker, cargo, crew), or just what has been mostly publicly spoken about since (which might include the larger on-orbit accumulation tanker; or the lunar Starship for the Artemis NASA contract; or the deep-space version Musk has mentioned; or the Earth-to-Earth point-to-point that both Shotwell and Musk have mentioned). It is all of those, and more, and we've never had any sources since early concepts in the mid-2010s that said it would be only a small or limited extent of models/versions.

Yet, sometimes the article locutions sound a bit definitive, as if "this is the way it will be", rather than "SpaceX have publicly mentioned at least n different versions of Starship second stage that might be built." I think we editors need to watch our locutions in the prose. Descriptions more like the latter and less like the former are helpful for making the article better. SpaceX is always iterating and changing designs, and doing new versions, and halting work on old stuff they've previously spoken about. We just need to be cautious in how we word the encyclopedia prose to say no more that the sources tell us. N2e (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead Clutter
I can't shake the feeling that the lead is completely unhelpful to anyone looking for a quick bit of info on Starship. There's an entire paragraph on testing that gives me a stroke with how info-dense it is, and should be one or two sentences at most -- "Starship prototypes began testing in 2019 as part of SpaceX's iterative design process. Since then, the program has..." or something along those lines. There's also zero info on the actual purpose of Starship, which seems pretty important to me. I've made a few changes already, but I don't want to go crazy before getting some input here. Polymath03 (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @Polymath03: I agree. How about something like this: "The Starship system is a fully reusable, two‑stage‑to‑orbit super heavy‑lift launch vehicle under development by SpaceX designed to take crew and cargo to the Moon, Mars, and Beyond. Starship prototypes began testing in 2019 as part of SpaceX's iterative design process. Since then, the program has had multiple tests and flights. SpaceX is planning to have Starship's first orbital flight later in 2021."
 * And that would be the whole lead section. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 14:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it would be good to essentially entirely remove the second paragraph of what's currently the lead. Paragraphs 1 3 and 4 are reasonable but could be pared down. Leijurv (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed!
 * ✅ I have removed all the detailed test info from the lede, leaving only a summary of the test program. N2e (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Starship and Super Heavy.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Super heavy-lift launch vehicles.png

Bit more info?
Can somone add a but more info on other starship pages Nasaspaceflight and starship wiki can be useful66.58.243.154 (talk) 06:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * If you have specific things in mind, be WP:BOLD and add them! Polymath03 (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC) I,m not that good at editing though... 66.58.243.154 (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

ok added it even though i didnt want too...66.58.243.154 (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Starship wiki is definitely not a reliable source. Also, verifiability policy is clear that all WP:TERTIARY sources are deprecated, and WP:SECONDARY sources are preferred, but that primary sources can be used to establish facts, just not notability of an article, etc.  Ping 66.58.243.154   N2e (talk) 03:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Lede Image Photoshopped
Not a regular wiki editor, just dropping by to point out that the infobox image currently used is photoshopped to add a Falcon 1 rocket for scale (visible in the bottom left, alongside a C-5 Galaxy from the image shopped in)

May want to change this to an unmodified image.

2604:3D08:337D:4200:4984:E8F3:6BC9:3C44 (talk) 23:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, 2604:3D08:337D:4200:4984:E8F3:6BC9:3C44. That does seem to be the case.  I'll remove it. N2e (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This image is coming from reddit. The trees at the bottom are from the Falcon 1 image, too. This is not a SpaceX image. --mfb (talk) 02:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Kindly do not change the primary thrust unit
What we do here must be collectively useful for ever one to understand, Below are examples from CEO/CTO Elon himself, I hope you accept the primary unit accordingly.

Time and again Elon Musk posted unit of thrust in tonne-force (tf) rather than Newton.

Reason is, As you could take this below tweet as example,

With 1.5 Thrust/Weight ratio, you need like 150 tf of thrust to lift 100 t rocket, Just simple as that.

Even simpler example is 1N = 100 gram of force which not practical unit, thats why kgF & tF are used by Elon.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1300700639786340353 Chandraprakash (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * As noted on the identical discussion on the Falcon 9 talk page, SpaceX itself uses kN, not tonnes force. And we only rely on tweets when no other reliable sources are available. Fcrary (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Musk doesn't write Wikipedia's Manual of Style. ton-force is an obscure unit that shouldn't be used as primary unit in articles unless there is a really good reason for it. "Musk used it in a tweet" is not a reason. --mfb (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Weight-force units are convenient, which is why Musk probably uses them, but the equivalence is not as precisely 10:1 as Prakash above suggests. The convention in aerospace is to use metric force units, we should adhere to that. If the only source for something is a tweet in "ton force", we should use the convert template - as in something like 147 tonne-force. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 04:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My my, Musk doesn't write Wikipedia's manual of style,
 * But you are writing about his Rocket ;) Chandraprakash (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, Wikipedia's manual of style doesn't specifically say about not using t-f before N Chandraprakash (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * MOS:UNITS does call for using the SI unit before other units in scientific articles, which this would qualify as. Also, the infobox templates for rockets, rocket stages, etc., specifically call for thrust to be presented in kilonewtons. Carter (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, Elon spoke what we exactly discussed here here two months back, kinda funny !!!
 * shorturl.at/fhkIJ Chandraprakash (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

After the usual fourteen days for discussion, I think it's clear that four editors out of five think kN is the appropriate unit. Putting "tonne-force" in parenthetically, with a conversion template would probably make sense. So I suggest changing the article to that. Except someone already has... But this involves a change to all, or almost all, articles regarding SpaceX launch vehicles. So I'm added a comment to that effect on the Spaceflight Project talk page. I'm also concerned that, in the back and forth editing, some of the numbers have become inaccurate. I.e. due to roundoff error when someone cuts and pastes while shifting the conversion template from one primary unit to another. So we probably need to recheck those numbers against the referenced source as well. Fcrary (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that all source changes quote explicitly the units their source states. To maintain consistency for cases where the wrong units arrive from the source, the convert template should be used with order=flip. E.g., 147 tonne-force produces 147 tonne-force, where the source shows up second. This should make checking them painless. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 02:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point, But stick with undefined undefined template, abbr=on is standard across SI Units, so Cvt does that by default unlike Convert.
 * Eg: 150 t-f Chandraprakash (talk) 11:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Also we need to clean up some mess like using proper multipliers,
 * Eg: 5,000,000 kg to 5000 t
 * 75,000,000 N to 75 MN
 * Else it becomes unreadable and serves no purpose. Chandraprakash (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For now we could stick with thousands of tonnes,
 * Once future launch vehicle which would weight over 10,000 t, at that point we could probably move to 10 K t (kilo-tonne) etc Chandraprakash (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

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

 * 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 : 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 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!
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)

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 Peer review/SpaceX Starship/archive1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Cocoa Beach site had undue weight.
Please see. 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?
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, 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)
 * Dispute resolution has been requested at Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. Please refrain from making any major edits until we achieve consensus. Stonkaments (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it ok for me to integrate the section now? It has been 10 days. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Notifying @QRep2020 @Stonkaments. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The RfC ended with no consensus to change, i.e. keep, so I do not know what you mean by integrate. QRep2020 (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all, you (and Stonkaments) do not comment on the DRN, which meant to me that you are either disinterested in resolving the issue, or you are fine with integrating the article. How do I supposed to know the core reason why you guys are disagreeing? Plus, I really think you are missing the purpose of integrating criticism here, that is to give the criticism in full picture and not just a list of comments, which currently it is, albeit with some linking words. Unless the criticism portrays a full picture of the situation, it is better to integrate. My opinions is that having a section just for criticisms is justified with extremely controversal topics. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no WP:CONSENSUS to go forward with your intended changes, and the DRN was clear about what should be the next steps to gain consensus: If there continues to be disagreement about where to put the criticisms, the editors may resume discussion on the article talk page, Talk:SpaceX Starship, or they may use one or more RFCs. If the editors want help in publishing an RFC, they can request help on my user talk page. If the editors decide that they do want moderated discussion and are willing to participate actively, a new thread can be filed. Continuing to push your proposed edits without gaining consensus first is not considered an appropriate option; continuing to do so may be seen as disruptive. Stonkaments (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's my fault. I won't do that again. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No. The editor who closed the DRN discussion said: At this time, there is no consensus in support of change, so the criticisms can stay in the Criticisms section. Stonkaments (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, it's time to tackle the problem again, notifying @Stonkaments and @QRep2020. Here's the policy Neutral point of view that said:
 * "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear 'true' and 'undisputed', whereas other, segregated material is deemed 'controversial', and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other."
 * I won't implement it directly in the past, but I think this is a good starting point for why I think integrating is ok. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I also want to mention that while Stonk and QRep isn't a COI on SpaceX and Starship, it should be pointed out that they and me have some bias to the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not see any "back and forth" happening in the content itself. QRep2020 (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Featured article candidate translusion
CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Starship HLS Moon landing.jpg

Add dry mass?
@Mlindroo Hello, I think you are the person who add Starship's dry mass. I disagree, because it is just a prototype and far less than an actual number of a Starship in production. Furthermore, Musk's tweets are sometimes rather inaccurate, and it is far better to use a news source to cite the stats itself. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

As a compromise, I listed the anticipated dry mass target instead, as per Musk's twitter message. Starship remains in a state of preliminary development. To me, Wikipedia should track the current anticipated weight / size / performance etc. parameters while carefully noting the source. The alternative approach would be to scrub the infobox of virtually all information as even the payload capability might prove to be "inaccurate". Mlindroo (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Per WP:CRYSTALBALL, "Wikipedia should track the current anticipated weight" would be an incorrect policy. We report what is, not what might be. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 13:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Tarl N., I originally listed both! We have Elon Musk's claim re. dry mass for existing Starship Mk.I (approx. 200t) as well as his stated might be target for Mk.4/5. (130t). When Musk's reality changes, we change the Wikipedia article accordingly. Mlindroo (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Mlindroo You didn't read her message carefully. What she meant is that the "anticipated" specs shouldn't be added into the article. Look, I have another source that said the final weight should be 100 tonnes. The prototype anticipated weight isn't the final product weight. Other specs of the article is taken in SpaceX's website, not in some random tweet. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I see no reason for not listing (in one form or another) interesting statements such as Musk's statements about the Mk.I dry mass (and the Mk.4/5 120t figure) as well as the EveryDayAstronaut interview where Musk said the S20's final weight should hopefully not be be much more than 100t. Revisions and changes such as these are routinely tracked in other Wiki spacecraft articles, see e.g. Orion (spacecraft) for an example. As a good faith compromise proposal, I will leave your Rocket Infobox as-is while updating the article itself. Thank you. Mlindroo (talk) 10:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You are not listening. This is not a compromise, this is a policy. I really don't understand why a prototype dry mass can be the final product dry mass, as you are comparing Starship with Orion here. They have nothing in common: Orion does not have prototypes and the design explicitly said that X is Orion's dry mass. Also, a reminder that this article isn't the place for prototype specs, it is for production Starship. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Orion is entirely incomparable as it is set in stone. It has a frozen design, after being in development for decades. It is already constructed. It is literally already on top of the rocket that will launch it in a few months. Leijurv (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I have once again reverted your deletion of the Elon Musk provided dry mass. I will add that I have edited dozens of rocket and spacecraft articles over the years. These include proposed future spacecraft proposals, some of which eventually became operational while others fell by the wayside at an early stage. Nobody has ever purged this kind of info before, provided there is a clear inline information source (=no speculation or original research by the person editing Wikipedia). If Elon Musk himself(!) publicly states Starship Mk.I weighs about 200t while Mk.4/5 hopefully will have a dry mass of 130t, then that is the currently available information and it ought to be good enough for everyone, for the time being. If this is not okay, then please take this to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Mlindroo (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Above reply and your tenurship doesn't make things from wrong to right. Also, Elon's tweet is highly aspirational at times, such as "Mars 2024" thing, therefore we should take sources from somewhere else. Please don't revert my edit again or else WP:3RR will apply here, and stuff will suck for both of us. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The Artemis 1 launch date has been shifted many times. Do you want to remove that, too? Why not just remove all launch dates beyond 2022? We have a statement from the CEO of SpaceX about a planned value for their spacecraft. We routinely report planned values in Wikipedia, well knowing that the final values might be different. I don't see why we should make an exception here. --mfb (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * After re-reading your arguments, I have actually come around to see your point of view with regards to the infobox. I now realize one crucial difference between Starship and other spacecraft concepts is Musk plans to churn out a huge number of ships which are continuously redefined. This in marked contrast to cancelled proposals for one-off space projects. I accept there is no reliable Starship dry mass figure to cite yet, but I think we should still list Musk's relevant statements about this topic in the body of the article itself, which is already the case for the booster article. So I put those quotes there instead. Mlindroo (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I rephrase your information a bit, just to make sure it fits into the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much appreciated. I respectfully maintain that the late 2019 Musk tweets about the initial (Mk.I) and late (Mk.4/5) operational Starship's weight goals should be listed for now, until we have a better source. SN20 is not intended to be reusable, it does not carry a payload and it does not go to orbit. Hence, Musk's dry mass goal for SN20 (already in the article) is interesting but it's arguably not more important than what he said about the operational vehicle. Mlindroo (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review
Used to log problematic statements (without sources) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC) Way too much synthesis going on, GA review at the bottom

Request for comments on criticism and controversies section
Should the criticism and controversies section be integrated to the article? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Background information: @Stonkaments and me have a pretty aggressive discussion about this. We are aware of Criticism, and we would like input from other editors. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The content should be included. In general "criticism" sections should be avoided but other more neutral titles could be considered.  Springee (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that it should be included as well, since it makes a ton more sense with context. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The section should be moved to the SpaceX South Texas launch site article and then very briefly summarized here. The criticisms are not directed against Starship. They are directed against the activities at the launch site. Within the launch site article, the section can be expanded if necessary. -Arch dude (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's actually a good point that I hadn't considered, thanks arch dude. Anything that doesn't relate specifically to the Starship rocket could go on the article about the launch site. However, we couldn't reasonably move the entire thing. Everything relating to the FAA is about actual starship launches done without authorization, not at all about the launch site. Highway closure is only the launch site. Methane production is a bit of in-between because it is ground infrastructure and not really part of the ship, but it only needs to happen because the ship runs on methane. Leijurv (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This article discusses all aspects of Starship, including the launch site, development, planned operations, etc. As such, the criticism and controversies are clearly due for inclusion here. Stonkaments (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

(talk) 00:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We have a guideline, WP:CORG, that speaks directly to this situation: Many organizations and corporations are involved in well-documented controversies, or may be subject to significant criticism. If reliable sources – other than the critics themselves – provide substantial coverage devoted to the controversies or criticisms, then that may justify sections and sub-articles devoted to the controversies or criticism... It seems to me that per this guideline, the section should remain. Stonkaments (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * But is Starship an org? I don't really think so, and I agree with arch dude more about this. CactiStaccingCrane
 * I mean, the criticisms would stay, but it would be summarized in a section here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We absolutely need the criticism section somewhere in some article or sub-article of the organization article per WP:CORG. The organization article is SpaceX. Since this particular set of criticisms is centered entirely around Boca Chica, I feel that the SpaceX South Texas launch site is the most appropriate article, and in particular the criticisms can be expanded as needed there. The Starship article should definitely have a small summary. The criticisms are not about Starship except peripherally. If Starship were to be launched somewhere else, There might be criticisms, but not these criticisms. This article does not discuss all aspects of Starship in detail, it summarizes and links to other articles, such as Starship HLS. -Arch dude (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's see Stonkaments's thought on this. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why do you think WP:CORG speaks directly to this situation? It appears that this is not the same situation since this is not SpaceX. As a metaphor, if SpaceX McGregor were found to be... let's say... violating noise constraints and causing complaints, that criticism (if it were notable) should go on SpaceX McGregor and it would be strange to put it on SpaceX Raptor, even though the Raptor is what is making the noise. This might not be a great analogy but I think it makes sense. What do you say to criticism not directly of Starship being moved from the Starship page to SpaceX South Texas launch site? Leijurv (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I also think that a more appropriate place for this criticism would be the SpaceX South Texas launch site article. In this article, we could leave a summary of the criticism in the section about the launch site. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, looks like many people agree that moving the criticisms to SpaceX South Texas launch site is a good idea, so I gonna do that now. SN8's criticism is notable, so I just put that to a section somewhere... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, some criticism stays and are placed to appropriate sections and being represented at lede, as well as being copied to here. @Stonkaments, do you have any objections? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The section of the Boca Chica article with the criticisms should be wikilinked from the Ground Infrastructure section as a See Also. QRep2020 (talk) 09:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Where is it? QRep2020 (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Here: "have criticized Starship development, claiming that" CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

A-class review translusion
CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Merging proposal
Oh boy, there's a lot of explaining needed for doing a RfC, A-class review and merging at the same time...

Alright, so I want SpaceX Starship development to be merged with SpaceX Starship. My main rationale here is fancruft. The amount of cruft here is so detailed, yet just get rid of them don't do the article's justice. However, I believe that many information there are extremely helpful to the article, and the information added can be minimal because of the amount of detail in history of Starship on this article is acceptable. That's why I don't think a delete discussion would do its justice, and a merging discussion would be more appropriate. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Infobox's units abbreviation
The unit names in the main infobox need to be abbreviated to match the rest of the article, Eg. "m" instead of "metre" "lb" instead of "pound" etc. But the problem is I can't figure out how... QualifiedKerbal (talk) 06:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * @QualifiedKerbal I will try, but since the infobox fetches data from Wikidata, so abbreviating can be tricky. Also rapid unscheduled disassembly is a real thing here :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it is time for getting help
I think that having others to help would be optimal, considering that I have almost 85% authorship and being practically the most significant contributor. Because of that, I afraid that I might has missed something (and after a hard look, there is a lot that is missing!) There is just too much work to be done, and in my opinion collaboration would be optimal at this stage. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to help find, add in and source more information. By the way, what do you mean by Post-processing? Is it what happens after the boosters land (refueling, maintenance, etc)? Nigos (talk c) 14:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I just get rid of the section. After more research, I cannot find a lot of info about Starship's mission profile, so I just merge them into a common header. Thanks for helping out though, your contributions are really valuable, as it gave me more insight about Starship in general. Team work FTW lol CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm trying to find references for Musk's tendency to over-hype his products, but the best I can find is an opinion piece from Bloomberg News. Perhaps you could find a better source than that? Nigos (talk | contribs) 13:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I will, I remember that there is a lot of stuff about him and SpaceX in general, and yeeting out very optimistic timelines. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I am starting to feel that Starship has a punch on being a featured article, compared to this. It feels more complete, I guess? What do you think is missing? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's more complete compared to the previous version. I've compared it with the Space Shuttle article, and I guess the section of the mission profile could be expanded to include plans on how launches for Starship could be prepared? I'm not too sure if there's info on that yet but I'll search for it. Nigos (talk | contribs) 10:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! I am gradually completing proseline sections, as well as researching on future prototypes. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help! Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh, by the way, if you need help on one of your active articles, I would be happy to help as well. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll let you know if I need help Nigos (talk | contribs) 13:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, so after I write and sourced everything, I would send it to WP:PR for editors to nuke problems from high orbit. BOOOM!!! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I have a question about the Legacy section though. Starship hasn't done an orbital launch yet, it's not really a predecessor to anything right now as it is still in development and is not being retired anytime soon. Nigos (talk | contribs) 10:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it is more like influences to stuff, it just that writing "Influences" is pretty ambiguous. I will research on it later. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "impacts" would be a more suitable word? Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you are right. Let me change it real quick CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by The tank farm stores propellant and water, and only dispenses just before a launch.? I'm trying to find a source on this, does it refer to fueling up Starship just before it launches? Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, it is the eight big white tanks, which the nerd termed it "Orbital Tank Farm". Some contain LOX, some contain CH4, some contain liquid N2, and one contains water. Pretty difficult to describe it in one sentence lol CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I meant "dispenses just before launch", is it the fuel being added to starship Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The ladder. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I just requested a edit notice banner, so that people stop adding recent-y stuff and improving the article in general. Let's see how its goes. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, so almost done! Will submit to peer review today. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I will invite some people who have participated in the prior reviews CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, time to yeet this thing to high orbit, the peer review. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And hope it does not run into an unfortunate disassembly Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be epic ngl CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Balon Greyjoy comments
As requested by on my talk page, here are some comments on this page.


 * Much of the article reads in a promotional tone. Sentences like "Since SpaceX develops Starship via operational testing—flying prototypes directly instead of testing each component—its design can change rapidly." and "The launch vehicle can be used to launch almost any space payload, instead of being specialized for only one facet of spaceflight." come across as if Starship is superior to other launch vehicles. While it will presumably be a successful program, these statements are treated as definitive facts rather than SpaceX goals.


 * There are quite a few grammatical errors or inconsistencies in the article.


 * This article switches between treating future events as if they are already happening ("A single Starship launch can deliver more than 100 t (220,000 lb) of payload") and speculation ("The vehicle may facilitate point-to-point flights – coined 'Earth-to-Earth' by SpaceX.").


 * Overall, I think it is too early for this subject to have a Featured Article. While there won't be a definitive line for when the Starship program is mature enough to merit an FAC, I think that it is safe to assume that this page will change drastically if and when flights occur. This is an article about a program intended to fly throughout the solar system, but so far has had a handful of suborbital flights and one successful landing. Starship certainly meets notability criteria, but it is too early for an article about the entire program to be featured. I would instead focus on the article about its development, and later use that information in this article.

Hope that helps! I know it's probably not the most supportive and I don't mean to discourage your efforts. Let me know if you have follow up questions! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these criticisms! It really does help to see what's wrong about the article, especially if you have worked on it for a while and being blinded from flaws. By the way, I adapted the style from your Space Shuttle, particularly on the mission profile bit. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I do have one question though: Do you feel that some aspect of Starship is missing from the article? If so, what is it? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Balon Greyjoy courtesy ping CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To echo my last point, I think the Starship aspect missing from the article is more information about its operational history, which doesn't yet exist. I would liken it to the articles on the 2024 United States presidential election or the 2022 NFL season, in that information about them exists, but the article's subject has yet to accomplish what is is notable for. That's just my personal opinion and I understand other editors may disagree with me, but I think it's best to wait on trying to upgrade an article's status when it is almost certain that major content changes will happen due to future events. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that by making the article mode "modular", i.e. easier to add content, would be the best way to do so. Making it easier to add content would make it satisfy comprehensiveness better by editors. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

thing is, for an article to be featured it needs to be "stable", and when a lot of new information comes out and a lot of people come in to edit it its quality can degrade and it no longer remains stable Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * and has the potential to transform the space industry seems to have a promotional tone, I feel it should be removed for now Nigos (talk | contribs) 15:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, be bold and do it! I couldn't figure out a way to make it better. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed it from the article for now. Nigos (talk | contribs) 15:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I am currently request for comments on the article, so that we have a large "problem bucket" to sort out. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just made a thread at NASASpaceFlight.com forum here: . CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I mean, Barack Obama and John McCain are featured while running in office, so, that should never be an excuse. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * True, but that information could've been put into Presidency of Barack Obama and John McCain presidential campaign. Then again the new information could be put into SpaceX Starship development Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm, interesting... I don't oppose this to be honest, but that would mean more work. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't really want to do that though Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, same for me. In my opinion, its "easier to work on the main article, but still expend the same amount of work". He probably meant killing two birds with one stone. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That is true, and as I said above, there's no line when suddenly a subject matter is "mature" enough to merit featured content. That being said, both Barack Obama and John McCain had established political careers prior to the 2008 presidency; I would say the analogue for Starship would have been putting those two articles up for FAC immediately after their first national election prior to them taking office. Don't let my words dissuade you if you want to nominate this article for FAC and let the greater English Wikipedia community decide; I am just voicing my preference that this article waits until the subject has some operational history. Whenever this has milestone launches it is bound to get a lot of attention, and subsequent edits, and change drastically. I think, should this article reach FA in the near future, there will be a lot of work for future editors to make sure it stays at FA-level to avoid a FAR. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Balon Greyjoy Spent some time thinking about it, and I think nominate the article after Starship's orbit launch would be the best. You are right about the article being a bit too soon to be nominated, but it's good to keep working on the article anyways. I am currently fighting against new editors that added WP:TOOSOON stuff, so ye, agree on what you're saying as well. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that is the correct decision. If Starship proves to be the revolutionary technology that it is promised to be, you can expect this article to grow and change quit a bit over the coming decades. You're definitely doing yourself and other editors a favor by keeping its quality high as events happen; it's much easier to update an article periodically rather than try and do massive update in the future. On a side note, I would advise you to stick away from terms like "fighting" and "new" when describing your interactions with other editors. While arguments can sometimes feel combative and I won't deny that it can take some time to learn the ropes with Wikipedia, it's important to remember that account age is just one small metric, and that other editors are trying to help improve Wikipedia as well. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder about biting other editors, I should be more lenient and helping them instead. About the article, I think that the plan now is to add more info from reliable sources, and figure what to do at the start of 2022, maybe a source review? Anyways, thanks a lot for helping us out on Starship, and I wish you a happy new year :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, since the FAA environmental assessment is going to take ages, with ETA of April or May 2022, I just gonna be bold and improve the article to featured. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments as requested
@CactiStaccingCrane Ok, a quick comment! Starship HLS is mentioned under variants, but is not reusable. Starship is fully reusable by definition, so it's a contradiction. Perhaps it's best to rename variants to something more generic like further developments. 4throck (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Clarified. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, more general stuff. The article mentions Super Heavy booster and Starship Spacecraft, but those names are informal. The user guide https://www.spacex.com/media/starship_users_guide_v1.pdf mentions Super Heavy and Starship. As for variants they use the term configuration, mentioning a cargo configuration and a crew configuration. So my constructive suggestion is to simply use the terms as they appear on the user guide: Super Heavy, Starship, configuration ;) 4throck (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Big brain :) However, variant is better, since multiple RS said so, and it is more commonly used in general. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * You need to follow the references. If SpaceX mentions configurations, then that's what it is :) There are similar problems with the article. For example: "The launch vehicle consists of a Super Heavy booster stage and a Starship spacecraft". But the user guide mentions the "Starship system" when dealing with the Booster + Starship. So it should be something like: "The Starship system consists of two elements, the Super Heavy booster stage and the Starship vehicle." All names and definitions need to be referenced and consistent to SpaceX documentation... 4throck (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's my list of reasons for opposing your idea: spaceflight is infamous referred stuff in a roundabout way; most people refer the launch vehicle "Starship", even Elon; and configurations and variants are synonyms. Let me know what you think. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Colonizing Mars! other languages
In the meantime, I will translate this article to Vietnamese and Simple English, so I wouldn't be active here that much (even more so with all of the end-of-year stuff). Hitch me if you need something. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I can help with 'translating' it into Simple English Nigos (talk | contribs) 08:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! I tried, but the article has substantially changed since then. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a heads-up, there might be a little kerfuffle in the Starship article on the simple English Wikipedia, please don't undo any edits by someone undoing mine, I'll take care of it. Nigos (talk | contribs) 06:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. So, I thinking that this article should be significantly shorter than English's version, since it needs to be simple. Prehaps only main headers would do it? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * By simple, it means the language needs to be simple. The article does not need to be short Nigos (talk | contribs) 06:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Simple also means short. The article here although pretty short, but still substantial and should be simplified. Most people who read at Simple English are kids or people who don't understand texts at English wiki. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh alright, then I guess we should leave it as that Nigos (talk | contribs) 06:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Nah, I think it needs to be work on. It needs updating and simplifying. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Infobox rocket
Should this use Wikidata data, or should it be inputted locally? Nigos (talk | contribs) 07:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


 * My opinion is Wikidata, since it is standardized, easy to translate, edit and monitor. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Research needed
This article is now pretty good, but I think more information in general is needed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * : Page 24 and onwards CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Missing information for Starship
The Wikidata page for Starship is missing information (Thrust, Mass/Dry Mass of the rocket itself [which appears on the page but not the wikidata profile]). It used to be alike the Wikidata page for Falcon Heavy. Would this change be due to the unknown parameters of the continuous changes of the Starship system? Dawson81702 (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Seems to be so, Starship changes rather quickly and the final prototype/design hasn't been implemented or revealed yet. Nigos (talk &#124; contribs) 02:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Btw, can someone here make the lede longer? I don't really know how to write the lede so that it is proportional (giving due coverage) and sounds good. Any ideas? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I can try doing so once I have the time. Nigos (talk &#124; contribs) 08:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Nigos ✅, I just rewrite it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Describing Musk's "predictions"
SpaceX's schedule for its Mars program has suffered many delays, invalidating Musk's optimistic predictions - I'm not too sure if "optimistic" is the best word here. Musk has a tendency to overhype his products. Bloomberg News describes it as such: "Start with wild promises, followed by product delays, production hell, shareholder anger, and finally, hopefully, redemption.". This is of course in Tesla's context, but he's also done something similar with SpaceX, claiming that the dearMoon mission (or something similar) would have had been in late 2018. Of course that hasn't happened and has been pushed back to... 2023. Five years off target. Nigos (talk &#124; contribs) 13:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "optimistic" seems to me like a correct word for overhyping. It's just that "overhyping" doesn't sound WP:FORMAL :) Leijurv (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think both words are problematic, since they imply a motive or belief we can't document. "Overhyping" implies someone knowing the stated goals are impossible and making them for rhetorical or propaganda purposes. "Optimistic" implies someone honestly but mistakenly believing everything will go right and that no problems will come up. In this case, we can't read Mr. Musk's mind, so we shouldn't use a word that implies something about what he's thinking. What we can say, based on his own statements, is that he thinks deadlines and short schedules push people to get things done more quickly, even if the deadlines and schedules probably aren't achievable. Can anyone think of a word to describe that? Fcrary (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * He has previously claimed that optimism fuels his unrealistic predictions and timelines: https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-says-he-sets-unrealistic-timelines-has-an-issue-with-time-2018-6. QRep2020 (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Related: Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just keep in mind, people's opinion on Musk ranges from "he's a god" to "he's a villain", with almost no neutrality in between. It is extremely hard to get NPOV. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

His timelines have in the past certainly been optimistic, so I don't really have a problem with use of that word. However "invalidating Musk's optimistic predictions" does seem problematic to me: Past timelines suggested by Musk being over-optimistic doesn't mean he cannot learn from this and so current predictions are not necessarily over-optimistic timewise and we shouldn't predict continuance of optimism. Warning about past optimism seems a sensible warning. There is also a wider problem of whether *invalidating his predictions* is too wide in scope, is it just his timelines that have in the past been too optimistic rather than generality of his predictions. I would suggest his predictions of what will occur have been quite good (e.g reusable first stages, growth of electric cars) just the timings have been optimistic so to suggest all his predictions are invalidated is just not at all appropriate. I think I would prefer something more like: SpaceX's schedule for its Mars program has suffered many delays and other past Musk predictions have been too optimistic timewise. C-randles (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Should we add more of a warning re hype? That seems problematic: Do I think Musk hypes his (future) products? Yes I do, but don't all entrepreneurs? Is his hyping to a higher level than is warranted? Sounds difficult to judge but show me an unbiased source that reaches this conclusion from suitable evidence and maybe I will agree we should add something about overhyping. C-randles (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @C-randles, I'm not sure how to write it. Perhaps Musk has made many prediction about the development rate of Starship, which most are too optimistic. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would be quite happy with Musk has made many prediction about the development rate of Starship, most of them have been too optimistic. C-randles (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Added and thanks for raising this issue :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, I have a feeling that many people think that the article is not NPOV. What makes you feel that way and how can this be fixed? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * A poorly chosen example for a delay. The 2018 plan for dearMoon was a Dragon capsule. It was later upgraded to Starship, obviously with a new timeline. Looks like Dragon will never fly on a Falcon Heavy now, but the capsule did fly people in 2020 - two years after the initial dearMoon plan, and after the complex NASA certification that dearMoon wouldn't have needed. There are better examples for overly optimistic timelines, especially within the Starship project. --mfb (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

GA Reassessment
— Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 15:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy
As per Good article reassessment/SpaceX Starship/2: how do we incorporate this into the article, there is very little information on the criticism and controversy of Starship and its development. Don't think it should be split off from the main article as per and. Nigos (talk &#124; contribs) 00:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I believe criticism of Starbase should be kept in the Starship article instead of being moved to the Starbase article in its entirety. I've found some :articles online on criticism of Starship as well:
 * https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/21/22738106/spacex-boca-chica-starship-launch-site-faa-town-hall-environmental-assessment
 * https://phys.org/news/2019-10-elon-musk-starship-moral-catastrophe.html
 * https://www.cnet.com/news/spacex-starship-launch-proposal-draws-vocal-support-some-criticism-in-faa-hearing/
 * https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/05/01/nasa-identifies-risks-in-spacexs-starship-lunar-lander-proposal/
 * Can these be incorporated somehow? Nigos (talk | contribs) 01:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, wait a sec, let me add them in CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

NPOV and tone
After review of this article, as well as the current consensus on Good article reassessment/SpaceX Starship/2, I added the POV and TONE banners to the page.

A large portion of the article does not seem to follow the general tone of Wikipedia; many sentences and paragraphs are written in a more casual manner. I am actively working through this but might need a bit of help. Maxmmyron (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Maxmmyron, I will help. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Editing glitch
Whenever I make a change in visualeditor, it adds several duplicated infoboxes without my knowledge. I even clicked on the button that would show me the changes I made to the page, and it did not indicate the adding of any duplicated infoboxes. As such, I will abstain from using visualeditor until the problem is fixed. Sorry for any confusion this has caused. X-Editor (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's ok now. Thanks for adding the criticisms, I almost forget that it's there! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Raptor 2?
In the article, Raptor 2 is described as the next generation of the Raptor engine. However, since this version is the most likely to go into mass-production, should the Raptor v1 called "development version"? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 20:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What do reliable sources call it? We shouldn't be extrapolating such terminology on our own. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * @Ahecht It's pretty confusing. I would say wait for a bit till more info is available, which is pretty rare that the article you're working on has the subject which is in active development. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, Raptor v1 is still going to remain Raptor 1, while Raptor 2's increased capabilities are going to set it apart as something similar to the increments with the RS-25 family, so it may become Raptor-A and -B in the future or stay as Raptor-1 and -2, with future versions taking a higher number. However, since again most of that is speculation, I would say hold off on dubbing Raptor 1s the development version, especially since they have flown in the past! XFalcon2004x (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

What's missing?
I feel like I have cover the subject comprehensively now. What do you think? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Let's set the lead sentence straight
I am hoping we can reach consensus on how the first lead sentence should be written. I initially modeled this first sentence after several other launch vehicle pages (see here, here, and here), however it keeps getting changed to something along the lines of "Starship is a fully-reusable rocket made out of stainless steel, in development by SpaceX".

Based on the precedence set by prior launch vehicle articles, it is more important to let readers know that Starship is a super-heavy lift launch vehicle than it is to let them know what material it is made out of. The fact that Starship is made out of stainless steel is useful, but just not in the first sentence.

While it is indeed novel that such a large rocket is being constructed out of stainless steel, including that in the first sentence means nothing to someone who doesn't know anything about why this is useful to know. Instead, it should be explained why stainless steel is an unusual and novel choice in the rocket industry. This could be done later in the lead, but it's probably best not in the first sentence. Maxmmyron (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with these statements. My attempt to improve the lead sentence a few days ago here was reverted with the justification that "super heavy-lift launch vehicle is not needed as more specific capability is stated later in the lead". I think that it is necessary for precisely that reason; the specific capabilities of the launch vehicle ought to continue from the general statement of its capacity, namely "super heavy-lift". My current preferred version of the lead sentence is:
 * Starship is a fully-reusable super heavy-lift launch vehicle in development by SpaceX.
 * Discussion of the stainless steel composition would follow later in the lead. Yiosie&#8201;2356 22:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I disagree. For one thing, super heavy-lift launch vehicle is basically a capability classification, and the "100 tons" is more useful and specific to non-technical reader. It's like saying "A quark is a half-spin elementary particle". CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The articles for Saturn V and Energiya both have "super-heavy lift" in their first sentence. I think it's fine, especially when "super heavy-lift launch vehicle" is linked. Polymath03 (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Added "super heavy-lift" per discussion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article need more explanation about many decisions of the Starship program, but I am pretty burn-out after a few months straight of editing. We already has a very specific number of rocket capability, see my argument above. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Remove future tense?
Hard to source from the future. I would suggest that sentences like "Starship will launch at Starbase, Kennedy Space Center, and two offshore launch platforms" ought to be rephrased with somewhat less prophecy, e.g. "Starship is set to launch at..." or "Starship is expected to launch.." or "SpaceX plans to launch Starhip at ....", "If all goes well, Starship will..."

Similar comments apply to most other uses of the word "will" in the article.

On the other hand, "The rocket will consist of" can now move into the present tense :) -- Vonfraginoff (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing concerns
Urve, now that the good article review is closed, I think that the sourcing issue is best dealt here. I don't solve the issues you have mentioned before, primarily because there is just so much high-quality source out there in the past. Musk's update gives a lot of new, verifiable information to the public, and is one of the main sources of information I'm collecting. Sorry for the conflict in the past, I hope that we can set it aside and focus on making SpaceX Starship a high-quality article instead. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I legitimately do not know what this message is communicating, but based on what I understand: If you want to deal with sourcing, then I left examples of things that should be fixed. I don't think it's fair or appropriate to expect another long source review if the entire article will change with Musk's "new, verifiable information". (I don't know what this refers to.) Urve (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, what I mean by that is that I have checked the sourcing, and the reason I'm idle at the GAR is because there is simply not enough reliable information. To put it another way, information in unreliable sources are now confirmed by Musk's presentation. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

National security?
Feel free to delete this if too much like a forum. But I was wondering if the environmental review goes against the current base could/would the US government overrule it on the grounds of national security? So that they have extra launch capacity for spy satellites just in case Russia decides to shoot some down. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a real concern. Actually, let me find sources for that... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Change main image to full stack?
Now that the system has been fully stacked a few times and there are plenty of photos out there to use, should we switch the infobox to using a single photo of the full stack instead of separate photos of the Starship and Super Heavy stages? SpudNutimus (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * SpudNutimus: Unfortunately, these pictures are all copyrighted and cannot be used here. However, if you have obtained permission of these authors (albeit unlikely), please let me know. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have obtained permission to use a photo. Link to the original upload of the photo: https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/t2unqg/my_son_took_this_shot_while_i_was_chillaxing/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 and proof of permission: https://i.imgur.com/JW8G02t.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpudNutimus (talk • contribs) 20:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * okay update: realizing I need photo editing permission and a license, sorry, reaching out to the photographer again but no guarantees, my bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpudNutimus (talk • contribs) 21:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * nope, couldn't get permission. oof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpudNutimus (talk • contribs) 21:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * double nevermind, the photographer just took a bit to respond. they're gonna come back with a flickr commons link — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpudNutimus (talk • contribs) 21:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * flickr link with cc attribution sharealike 2.0 license https://www.flickr.com/photos/195131646@N04/51912424446 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpudNutimus (talk • contribs) 22:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * SpudNutimus, you actually did it! Thanks a lot for your help, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I kept the original image intact based on the author request and used separate cropped version instead, in case if he message you that. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

This image being used is rather low quality. Would be best if a higher quality image could be sources and licensed.

Also... The full stack caption saying it is in a launch position remains incorrect as the chopsticks, and other equipment are not in launch position. Aswx (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Go there and take a better picture. The professional photographers generally don't make their images available for Wikipedia. We use what we can get, and the existing image is still better than everything that doesn't show the full stack. --mfb (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Good tertiary sources
Jot down some here for future reference.
 * What Is Starship? SpaceX Builds Its Next-Generation Rocket – by the New York Times
 * What is Elon Musk's Starship? – by BBC
 * SpaceX launches rockets from one of America's poorest areas. Will Elon Musk bring prosperity? – by USA Today
 * SpaceX continues forward progress with Starship on Starhopper anniversary – by NASASpaceFlight.com
 * Elon Musk, SpaceX and Falcon launch vehicle on the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which mention a bit about Starship

A lot of these won't be optimal to be used for reference directly, but they are a good overview of the program. It is also interesting that some facts are paraphrased from this article, such as this paragraph from the NYT: "The fully stacked rocket system would launch from Texas, with the Super Heavy booster splashing down in the Gulf of Mexico after delivering Starship to orbit — “a partial return” demonstration some 20 miles from the Texas shore. After reaching orbit, Starship will attempt to make a nearly full trip around the Earth before re-entering the atmosphere for a splashdown roughly 60 miles off the coast of Kauai, one of Hawaii’s northernmost islands."

compared to a paragraph at this article: "SpaceX explained the planned trajectory of the first orbital flight of the Starship system in a report sent to the Federal Communications Commission. The rocket is planned to launch from Starbase, then Super Heavy will separate and perform a soft water landing around 30 km (20 mi) from the Texan shoreline. The spacecraft will continue flying with its ground track passing through the Straits of Florida, and then softly land in the Pacific Ocean around 100 km (60 mi) northwest of Kauai in the Hawaiian Islands. The whole spaceflight will last ninety minutes." CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Use of images
As a reader, I want to congratulate the editor(s) who made such efficient use of images and layout in this article. It really works well, and I wish more articles used images like this. Thanks for your work. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Viriditas, yeah, but the prose though, ewwww! Yes, I am a main editor of the article and I've managed to screw up coherency by a large margin :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am available to help with the prose. Just ask. Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your help! I will try to add more information criticize the program, as it is the main reason the article is delisted. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Viriditas, what do you think the article is still missing? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would have to review any open tasks, past and present discussions, and the article itself to even begin to answer that question. It could take me a few days. Viriditas (talk) 08:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your dedication! I will try to help you as much as you want, just tell me if you need something. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I should point out that the idea expressed in the GAR that a criticism section is required or necessary is a common misunderstanding. It is routinely championed by some of our most experienced editors who never bothered to read the MOS.  I myself recently ran into a similar group of editors making the same erroneous claims in a biography, where they insisted that politically motivated think tanks who were paid to publish criticism of a book by the subject should be allowed!  Unfortunately, with that kind of ignorance, it is almost impossible to counter, so I had to temporarily leave the article.  Regardless of the state of this article, it looks like you are experiencing similar issues.  I’m not saying you have to leave, but you will probably need to change your strategy.  The easiest thing to do is to start addressing the problems separately.  We don’t need a criticism section, but we do need to have the most notable critiques addressed in their respective sections, if necessary.  As for copyediting, while I am certainly available to help, the first thing you want to do is make a special request for help with that task over at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests.  Once you have enough people with eyes on this article coming at it from different angles to address different problems, your job will become easier and you will start to make progress. Viriditas (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Prose questions

 * As of December 2021, the Kennedy Space Center considers having Starship launch pads at Launch Complex 39A and 49.
 * I’m not sure what "considers" is intended to mean here. Are the launch pads in place yet? Viriditas (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not yet, but they are in the plan. Adjusted. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Parts on display section
 * This small section would work better as a footnote. Consider creating a separate footnote section. Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I merged it to facilities section. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Implicit decisions made
Since many decisions here are made in edits only, I thought that explicitly state their rationale here would help a lot of future editors. Feel free to disagree/change the decisions at any time. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The first sentence is used to define the topic, with three subsequent paragraphs describe Starship's capabilities, functions, uses; Starship's launch; and Starship's development.
 * Multiple image is used instead of placing pictures next to each other because the sections are too short and may violate MOS:SANDWICH in large screen sizes.
 * All units are abbreviated, with "metric (imperial)" format
 * Wikidata is integrated on the article's infobox. This has been controversial to many editors.
 * All prototypes that has flown are mentioned, but not every single one of them. Notable examples includes SN16, SN21, etc. Reliable sources and a notable event are needed to be listed here, else the prototype could be mentioned at SpaceX Starship development.
 * Falcon X and Falcon XX (see edit history) are not mentioned, as the only source that could be found is a post from NASASpaceFlight.com.
 * Mk3, an alternative name of SN1, is not mentioned primarily to prevent confusion. Also, the sources are shaky on this fact.
 * Some pictures are still missing from the article due to a lack of free license, such as the Raptor Vacuum and Super Heavy only.
 * Some primary sources are used, such as the environmental assessment draft, FCC filing, and ENSCO manual. Some editors have highlighted concerns about Ars Technicas and NASASpaceFlight.coms source independence and reliability.

Point of view issue
The recent good article review cited POV as the reason for delisting. Thus, I created this section for solving this issue. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems correct to have moved the criticism of one of Spaceship's launch sites to the article of the launch site rather than keep it here. I say remove the tag, doubtful that the next good article reviewer will be miffed about the lack of criticism. Wojacks (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's see that other editors agree like you. If so, after forming a consensus, only then will I remove the tag. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It would help to use this section to "write for the enemy". That is to say, steelman the POV arguments of your opponents in list form, and allow editors to poke holes in it. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, though I want to stay away from this article for a while. There is too much stress from good article review already. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Viriditas, let me try to outline some of the common criticism about the rocket and program:
 * Environmental harm (explosions and such)
 * Gentrification, financial inequality, etc.
 * Lofty plans (Mars 2024!)
 * Unproven technologies
 * That's it basically for me. Other criticisms are more focused on controversies around Elon Musk and Tesla, Inc.. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Viriditas, alright, I have just tried to bring the best of each of the criticisms listed above. Do you think that this is satisfactory now? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m going to need a diff to see the changes. I’m concerned that the article has gotten worse since the GAR, not better. Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Space Launch System & Starship
Alright, I found that there are many articles that compare both of these rockets together, from simple specs to complicated development methodology. I don't think that the article would complete without at least mentioning that (though I am aware of false balance and such), and also, having a person with an opposing viewpoint would be great for making this article more neutral. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Looking back, I don't think that adding the comparison would be appropriate due to inevitable recentism bias. Better be late than never. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Poorly written intro
The first sentence of this article, and even the whole first paragraph, is really shoddy and does not live up to standards. By comparison read the beginning of one of the Falcon articles:

> Falcon 9 Full Thrust (also known as Falcon 9 v1.2, with variants Block 1 to Block 5) is a partially reusable medium-lift launch vehicle, designed and manufactured by SpaceX. Designed in 2014–2015, Falcon 9 Full Thrust began launch operations in December 2015. As of 1 April 2022, Falcon 9 Full Thrust had performed 126 launches without any failures.

This defines what it is, who made it, when it was made, and summarizes its launch history. By comparison, this crappy intro starts off "Starship is the tallest and heaviest rocket that has been built" which reads like a line from a children's book. C'mon people do better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.60.215.239 (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * So fix it. Yee no   (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't have the relevant technical insight. 73.60.215.239 (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeeno, I will fix it if you want. The problem, however, is that Starship has made 0 launches and have not entered operation. IP, I'm not sure what exactly do you want from the lead more. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @CactiStaccingCrane: I don't really have a problem with it, I just wanted to encourage the IP to fix it if they felt it was worth bringing up. They probably want you to adhere to the traditional lead format, though I can see how that can be difficult here. Not sure what the prior consensus is here, but maybe you can describe what type of rocket it is in the opening sentence, while emphasizing that it's never been launched before. Yee no   (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, let me try to do so. Best, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure what’s going on here. The lead section has seriously degraded since the last GAR.  I don’t understand how that could happen when the opposite is supposed to be happening.  Might be best to restore the old lead section at this point moving forward and allow other editors to contribute. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Viriditas, I copied the lead of the old GAR to the article, feel free to mess around and such with it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to "Applications" Section
Last night I made some largish edits to the "applications" section. Many of the edits were revised, and I agree with some of these revisions. However, there were some larger structural bits that were reverted, and I'd like to discuss them here before making further changes.

1. I believe it is appropriate to include a "Military uses" section - the military has already contracted Starship, Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy both have an extensive history of flying military payloads, and military applications do not fit cleanly under "Commercial space uses." A decent source for the proposed section can be found here:.

2. The final paragraph of "Space exploration" and the final paragraph of "Space colonization" need to be shortened or cut. The former contains specific details of highly speculative missions that have received no funding and do not exist outside of a CAD model. The latter is a detailed description of the Sabatier reaction, which is an unnecessary tangent (linking the page about the reaction, giving a one-sentence mention, and citing the source is fine imo).

I'll help work on the weasel words when I get the time. BagelRabbit (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * BagelRabbit, hey, I am the guy who revised that section. Don't take the weasel too personally – I don't intend to shame your work. I still don't find having a section for "Military uses" useful, and besides SpaceX technically sell the launches to the military, so placing them to "Commercial uses" kinda makes sense. However, I agree that the paragraphs at "Space colonization" and "Space exploration" need to be sorted out. Regards, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Cacti, might I recommend experimenting with accepting BagelRabbit’s proposed edits? Let them sit in the article for a few days to a week.  If after that time you feel strongly that they don’t work, then revisit the issue.  I feel that your response indicates a somewhat knee-jerk reaction bordering on ownership, and it’s a feeling I know well. Remember, this article needs to move forward for improvement, and that means taking different approaches and perspectives into consideration. Viriditas (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, I will not edit the article for a whole month then. I also do strongly feel that I have owned the article, probably due to me working alone the whole time. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Added the edits by BagelRabbit. Let's see how the ball rolls. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Draft
Just a head up, I will rewrite the article to be detached from recent sources (like breaking news or stuff obtained by snooping at Starbase) in Draft:SpaceX Starship. Come in and add some info to the draft! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Propose merge from Starship HLS
Starship HLS contains a lot of original research and poorly sourced information, so much so that if it is merged and trimmed for duplicate content, it only needs one paragraph at the "Variant" section to be comprehensive. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * OPPOSE — The HLS contract with SpaceX is an approx. US$3 billion contract as initially signed by the US government in 2021. It has a massive amount of special US government/NASA requirements and contracting specifics that will make every Starship second stage to be used for HLS landing of NASA astronauts on the Moon be very different, in many ways, than a basic Starship. It is notable.  All of this will remain very newsworthy/notable, and a vast amount of HLS-specific news stories will continue for years as this ship completes design, is built, tested, and may or may not ever actually fly with NASA astronauts on board from the Lunar Gateway to the surface of the Moon.  The encyclopedic summary of this material is now, and will continue to be, so large that covering it in the main Starship article would make the article too long, or need to delete important detail.  The Starship HLS article should thus not be merged into this article, that already covers the Super Heavy Booster PLUS the first-ever fully-reusable second stage rocket PLUS has (only) a high-level summary of the variant models of the second stage.  N2e (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * OPPOSE — The HLS variant is very different from the more generic variants, which are different from each other. Each variant will eventually get its own article as that variant becomes separately notable, just as we have articles on different aircraft of nominally the same type. The base article SpaceX Starship is already quite large and was needed to be split, which was where Starship HLS came from in the first place. If you think Starship HLS has problems, then identify them or fix them. -Arch dude (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Criticism
I just wanted to get the community's feedback regarding statements like this: "critics have noted its potential damage to the natural and social environment around the sites." It seems to me that there should be citations to the specific criticisms. I have added the "citation needed" markup, but others have deleted it. B1db2 (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There is already a ref for that in the development section. The lead section only summerices the rest and needs no refs for itself. Gial Ackbar (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * Thanks for replying, I was about to start changing it over, so thanks for explaining. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  20:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Balon Greyjoy, should we do an RfC? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Sure thing, I will create a subsection for it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Redundancy at lead
I think that 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)
 * N2e, notify CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)