Talk:SpaceX Mars colonization program/Archive 1

Archive 1

MCT Nomenclature

I'm starting to get the picture from side comments made by SpaceX that the Mars Colonial Transporter might be the in-space portion of their transport system. IE Raptor = BFE. Unnamed SHLV = BFR. MCT = the thing they're launching that will actually take people to Mars. So I think our naming system could use an update. Maybe not today, but as soon as we have enough information to convince everyone. — Gopher65_talk 14:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see N2e has already made some moves in this direction when I wasn't looking:). Cool, never mind them. — Gopher65_talk 14:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Gopher65:—Yeah, I created a short-term use redir called MCT launch vehicle for this purpose. I think that is about all we know about it, for now. But it does give us a place to put info that comes out about it. And I do think, as you apparently do, that the 1st stage is separate from the MCT payload carrying Mars transport vehicle. N2e (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Gopher65:—Well, one week later, turns out that I learned something else; but it was something that Craigboy was already aware of. The MCT launch vehicle will be either one or three cores, each with 9 Raptors, according to the NSF source. So Craigboy updated a part of the article a few days ago, and I got on yesterday and tried to make the prose consistent on that count. As we learn more, we'll no doubt be able to flesh out the article with more info per new/future sources. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Super Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (SHLV)

I tossed together this picture to give a sense of scale.--Craigboy (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Labels would be necessary for correct interpretation, Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Craigboy:—Thanks for generating this image. I believe this is a useful graphic, and is based on well-sourced information. And I think it will fit in some article. I'm not sure it is yet this one on MCT, since it is not clear that the MCT will have a 10m core and 9 Raptor engines, even though it is clear per the Raptor article published on NSG earlier this month that the booster rocket for the MCT would have a 10m core and 9 Raptor engines. Net: still thinking on where your graphic might go. Feel free to leave any ideas. N2e (talk) 10:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I should rephrase that just a bit. I think your graphic, as is, totally and well describes the scale size comparison of the MCT launch vehicle to the legacy SpaceX launch vehicles.

I'm just unsure that, at the present time, the launch vehicle (engine-end view) for the MCT should be the only image in the Wikipedia article on the MCT, when SpaceX has not yet disclosed how far the "MCT" designator will be applied. For example, we don't know that the MCT name will apply to the first stage at all per any source I've seen. The "MCT" name might be more analogous to "Dragon", where Dragon flies on a "Falcon 9"; we just don't know how the BIG ROCKET of SpaceX will be named, and whether that name will include "MCT." YMMV, as well as other MMV. That's just my two cents based on what's in my head based on all the sources I've read to date. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

During a recent interview (The Space Show - 21 March 2014), SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell stated that the SHLV didn't yet have a name (22:16). She also stated that she believed that Pad 39A would be too small for it and that they would need to build a new pad (20:40).--Craigboy (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded:—You are correct, labels or a caption would be required before the graphic could be used in the main space. However, I believe we do have sufficient information in the various sources to write a caption that is solid. My first draft would be: "Scale size comparison of SpaceX first-stage launch vehicles: (from left) Falcon 9 v1.0 (2010), Falcon 9 v1.1 (2013), and the 10-meter diameter, 9-Raptor, booster for the future Mars Colonial Transporter." N2e (talk) 11:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the addition of height/diameter and a descriptive caption including the thrust force should be informative for such comparison. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

We don't yet know the height or how many cores the SHLV will consist of.--Craigboy (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Craigboy:/@BatteryIncluded:—Okay, I have added the image to the Raptor (rocket engine) article, as there, it very well illustrates the very large size of the Raptor engines on the (now in plan) 10 m diameter "BFR", or MCT launch vehicle, or whatever we call it until such time as SpaceX chooses to name the huge first stage booster rocket. If anyone would care to look over there, and see if the caption might be improved, that would be fine with. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I have created a section in the MCT article now just to cover the little bit we have sources on for the MCT launch vehicle. Given that this is now a separate section, with a narrowly-defined and well-specified scope, I think that adding the graphic to the MCT article is entirely appropriate. If other's disagree, just revert my edit, and we can discuss further here. N2e (talk) 04:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Rumor has it that SHLV will have single 15 meter in diameter core stage. It can't be added to the article until we have a solid source but I thought it would good to keep some of the other editors up to date.--Craigboy (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

15 metre core diameter... wowzers. That's kinda crazy:). — Gopher65_talk 15:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Musk talks later dates for the large-size "seed [of a] citylike colony" on Mars

There is a long-form interview, in Aeon—The Elon Musk Interview: On Mars, September 2014—where Musk outlines a good bit more of his long-term timeline on Mars plans than he had previously made public. Includes, for example, this bit, which might facilitate some improvement to the article:

Musk might be ready to send his first flurry of missions, to seed a citylike colony that he expects to be up and running by 2040.

‘SpaceX is only 12 years old now,’ he told me. ‘Between now and 2040, the company’s lifespan will have tripled. If we have linear improvement in technology, as opposed to logarithmic, then we should have a significant base on Mars, perhaps with thousands or tens of thousands of people.’

Musk told me this first group of settlers will need to pay their own way. ‘There needs to be an intersection of the set of people who wish to go, and the set of people who can afford to go,’ he said. ‘And that intersection of sets has to be enough to establish a self-sustaining civilisation. My rough guess is that for a half-million dollars, there are enough people that could afford to go and would want to go. But it’s not going to be a vacation jaunt. It’s going to be saving up all your money and selling all your stuff, like when people moved to the early American colonies.’ (emphasis added)

Notably, those dates are quite a bit later than previously stated in public. N2e (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It will have boosters

It will have boosters so why not put it in the article? my source is http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/03/spacex-advances-drive-mars-rocket-raptor-power/ it is 2/3 to 3/4 of the way down that it tells about it. I think it will be a larger falcon heavy modified possibly so it would be bigger than the falcon X heavy. LABHOUSE (talk) 05:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot of speculation on that, and the engineers who frequent the NASAspaceflight.com forums are speculating with the best of them. Unfortunately, SpaceX has not publicly released details on the MCT launch vehicle to indicate whether it will or will not be/have a three-core version like Falcon Heavy.

In fact, that article you reference indicates "Known as the Raptor, nine of these immensely powerful engines – on one or three cores – will be utilized to send SpaceX’s Super Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (SHLV) uphill on missions to Mars." (emphasis added) Cheers. N2e (talk) 07:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

N2e, it now appears that the Raptor will be about 1/3 as powerful as predicted. It's estimated that a single core will need somewhere between 40 and 100 Raptors in order to have a payload in the predicted range. Also, SpaceX has said that they're unlikely to use more than 1 core. — Gopher65_talk 23:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been hearing that also. But since the Wikipedia article space is only for sourced material, I've been waiting to see that in a reliable source. If you, or any other editor has such, then by all means add it to the article. Until then, this article can only reflect the reliable sources it has; thus, 1 to 3 cores using that really mongo engine that SpaceX described a year or two ago. I'm sure we'll all learn a lot more if Musk actually does a public overview in late 2015 as he may be planning to do. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Launch Facility (question?)

The "Launch Facility" section of the article says:

"SpaceX has indicated that their leased facility in Florida at Launch Pad 39A is not large enough to accommodate the vehicle, and that a new site would be built in order to launch the >10-meter diameter rocket."

My question is, how can that be an accurate statement? The Saturn V rocket launched from Launch Pad 39A at the Kennedy Space Center, and it had a diameter of 33 feet (10.1 meters). So, I would think that with some reverse modifications, Launch Pad 39A could be fully capable of launching a rocket of that diameter again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkluge (talk • contribs) 18:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is not a forum, we are just talking here about improving the article. We need to stick in the article space to what is reliably sourced and cited. That statement in the article is sourced to a SpaceX person. Until we have something better, Wikipedia goes with what is sourced. If SpaceX later changes their mind, and goes with a smaller Raptor engine or MCT launch vehicle than they were considering a year or two ago (which many are hearing about; see sections above), and should they happen to field a launch vehicle that is usable from LC 39A, then we'll reflect that in the article when we have sources we can cite. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Given that SpaceX has stated that the BFR will place almost as much usable payload on the surface of Mars as Saturn V could place into LEO - all while being fully reusable, which will cut its payload substantially from what it could do if it were expendable - I think we can safely assume that it will be much, much larger than a Saturn V. Like, 5 times more powerful.

One important thing to keep in mind is "minimum safe distance" from the rocket, both during nominal operations and in case of an explosion. Think about the Soviet N1 lunar rocket. When the N1 exploded it was the most powerful non-nuclear explosion ever (almost equivalent about half as large as Hiroshima). The N1 was also somewhat less powerful than a Saturn V. Thankfully one of those never exploded. A BFR exploding on the launch pad would be equivalent to a decent sized tactical nuke. You simply *cannot* launch it near people. — Gopher65_talk 03:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

100 tonnes landed on Mars - possible?

"100 tonnes LANDED on Mars (planned)". How is that possible? It uses Raptor engines. Even 9 Raptor engines may not be enough??

Even putting 100 tonnes on Mars ORBIT would be difficult. But LANDING 100 tonnes...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_(rocket_engine)#Comparison_to_other_engine_designs

SpaceX Raptor (targeted,as of January 2015). Vacuum thrust 2,300 kN

Rocketdyne F-1 (Saturn V). Vacuum thrust 7,740 kN.

Saturn V was able to put maybe 100 tonnes to LOW earth orbit and a fraction of that to Moon.

88.192.242.201 (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The first stage will use dozens of Raptor engines, and be at least 15 meters in diameter. Current rumours (more details will be released in Sept or Oct 2016) lean toward the BFR being able to launch ~100 tonnes when used in fully reusable mode. It's believed that it will take 3 BFR launches to send one MCT to Mars. One to launch the completely empty MCT (empty once it reaches orbit, anyway), one to refuel it on orbit, and one to launch crew, passengers, and cargo to the Mars-bound MCT right before the transfer window opens up.

We'll see how accurate that view is in a few months (hopefully). — Gopher65_talk 01:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Musk speech next week (27 Sep): retain article history!

Musk is scheduled to make a speech next week in Guadalajara where he has indicated he will be revealing a great deal more info about MCT, now apparently the Interplanetary Transport System (ITS).

As new material is added to the article, please do not delete all of the information that has existed up to this point. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and the historical information about what was the MCT prior to Sep 2016, and prior to its name change to ICT, are all relevant for an encyclopedia article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

suggesting creation of new section "destinations"

Anticipating Musk's Guadalajara speech, would it not be a good idea to create an (initially empty) "destinations" section . This would be complementary to the "launch facility" section. This new section would later split into "Mars destinations" (with altitude and lattitude criteria) and "other destinations" (Moon, Titan...). In next week's announcement there may be technical feedback from recent data obtained during Falcon stage returns. So this article will grow fast.

Paul Williams (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

PS. The following remark may seem prudish, so others may decide whether to make a modification to the article or not: The term BFR = "Big Fucking Rocket" is colloquial at best, rude at worst. Whether this word is mentionned or not, should it not at least be preceded by the official name which is Big Falcon Rocket, presently absent from the article ?

On "Destinations", my own sense it that would be premature, at least until missions are actually fully contracted for with significant value changing hands. For now, this is a development project funded by a single company, that clearly has Mars as its central and leading target, but has indicated willingness to (as the tech is developed and built) consider missions to other locations in the solar system. Until we have sources that those are more than just possibilities of physics for a system of this size class, I'd be for holding off on the "Destinations" section. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Great article

I would just like to thank the editors of this article, who have made it wonderfully complete with so little info available. --Pmsyyz (talk) 09:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Pmsyyz. There has been a lot of interest in Musk's project, so their tend to be quite a number of reliable sources with which to build content that meets Wikipedia guidelines. See also the new article at ITS launch vehicle, focused on just the new super-heavy launch vehicle, and not the entire system and Muskian megaproject. N2e (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Images

A few comments about the images we have:

The lead image should be a collage of the following:

• 
• 
• 

It's a pity we don't have a clear image of the ship landed on Mars.

I think this image isn't very encyclopedic and should be removed:

• 

I think having both of these images gives undue weight to the "Outer planet concepts":

• 
• 

One or the other, although maybe an image showing the outer solar system itself would be better.

Anyone else want to discuss this? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 03:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure. I'm not much of a wiki image expert, and usually leave that part of improving articles to others with much more skilll and knowledge in the intricacies of image process and licensing. But I agree with you that, as currently stands, there is probably a bit too much outer solar system emphasis in the multiple images of that, while the Mars/inner solar system options are a bit underrepresented.

Having said all that, I'm quite confident it will all shake out just fine over time, as changes get made, the best ones tend to stay, and the less supported ones will tend to get thrown out. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Name change from MCT to ITS

Considering that the official name of the vehicle has changed, I was wondering if it would be appropriate to start referring to it as the ITS, both in abbreviated form and in full. Of course this would not extend to quotes, and contexts when it was definitely referred to as the MCT in the past, for example "According to Elon Musk, the MCT would effectively become the first human habitat on Mars.", would have to be carefully considered. Just wanted to get the idea out there considering the International Astronautical Congress is on Tuesday!--DawsonCXVII (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Touching on that subject, yes, the name changed, but the vehicle is by no means the infrastructure for a colony. Musk will present his project, as well as other concepts AND will remark the need of cooperation for an actual base or "colony". The costs of a base or "colony" is beyond the wealth of any single individual or country to afford. After his presentation, this difference will become more evident. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The ITS (IT System)—and for that matter, the MCT system when it was called MCT—is much more than merely a launch vehicle, and it is much less than a functional large scale colony on a far-away planet in the inner solar system. So, yes, we do need to be careful to describe in the encyclopedia only what sources support. There is now a separate article on the ITS launch vehicle, which is obviously some major part of the ITS system as a whole. N2e (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

In some ways, I think it might just be better to change this article back to the MCT so far as whatever the new vehicle will be that Elon Musk presents is going to be substantially different from all of the stuff that has been brought up before. There is precedent for this such as the Falcon 5 article that includes much of the early speculation and engineering concepts that later on became the Falcon 9. For all practical purposes, what is going to be announced with Elon Musk's speech really ought to be considered a completely different vehicle and not merely a name change. Certainly there will be a sharp difference between the pre IAC discussion about this vehicle and the stuff that will be said after this conference. The fact that SpaceX now has a separate section of their website that is being developed about their Mars program shows there is going to be much more in the way of details that will be released that more or less trashes this article as it stands right now. The name "MCT" or "Mars Colonial Transport" certainly has enough notability that it deserves its own article for the pre IAC content. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Well I've made a number of edits since the change, and my principle has been to retain and not lose history, and not to just let this article (or any other) become a newspaper sort of article on current statusof this project. See if you think we have (all editors, making many edits) done that to your satisfaction. Also, take a look at the rather extensive History section in the ITS launch vehicle article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm mainly pointing out that the MCT, as a name, can be considered independently notable and that the fact is that the vehicle design has changed considerably over time. The pre IAC version of the article was certainly well developed, but bears not a whole lot of resemblance to the current article. Content already has been removed, where I'm arguing that in some ways it really does need to be preserved and/or augmented for strictly historical reasons alone. Much of that early historical speculation doesn't even really need to be in the current article, like the presumed sizes of the Raptor engine that have now been diminished considerably with a rather different engine arrangement. I envision over time that even more of that older material will be removed, perhaps with only the lede sentence being about the only thing being kept.... if even that and that part likely only mentioned as a side historical note. I've seen this happen to other articles, which is why I bring it up here. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

"Most people in advanced countries"

I've excised an unnecessary quote from Musk that doesn't really stand up to any sort of scrutiny and doesn't add anything to the article. Musk's boastful claim that "most people from advanced countries in their forties" would be able to afford half a million dollars for a flight to Mars is self-evidently untrue (median US household income is $52k), and we don't need to repeat public relations puffery here. The system is ambitious enough to stand on its own. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the idea here is that this is being thought of in the same way as a mortgage or pension, for which a sum equal to ten years' median earnings is not infeasible. But no, I wouldn't say "most" people could afford it. -- The Anome (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

A mortgage is a long-term loan backed by the collateral of an appreciating (in most cases) asset. Not sure a bank is going to be willing to loan many people $475,000 to sit atop a rocket to another planet. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

This is going well beyond the scope of writing an article on Wikipedia, but the idea is that some means of financing a trip to Mars could happen for an ordinary person in a fully developed industrial country could happen. That price point... of it barely being in the reach of an ordinary citizen from an advanced industrial nation... is what Elon Musk was trying to reach for and has been mentioned in numerous interviews of Elon Musk well before even the IAC talk. How that is worded can be argued, but I think it is reasonable to put something to that effect into this article and not be splitting hairs over if it is actually possible or not. Turing this discussion into a soapbox about economic realities is not something that should be happening here, and violates the principles of NPOV. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Just mention the estimated price. Musk's reasons are his own. I am glad that sentence was deleted. BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Large purchase agreement for carbon fiber

Speculation that this is for the Mars Colonial Transporter, and in a source that is generally acceptable on Wikipedia as a reliable secondary source. SpaceX not ready to confirm large purchase of carbon fibers Probably need another media or SpaceX confirmation before improving the article with info about carbon fiber and the MCT. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone found an update on this? A billion dollar contract to buy remarkably large amounts of the world supply of carbon fiber to make the launch vehicle and two spacecraft models is sufficiently significant that it would not be undue to mention in the economic aspects of this article. N2e (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

What

Big Fucking Spaceship - really?--Manefon1989 (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

See BFG (weapon). Reach Out to the Truth 16:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Elon Musk likes videogames (he was a programmer) and science fiction, hence some of the names and codenames -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 05:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

On another note, I see "***" instead of actually spelling this out. Doesn't that violate WP:NOTCENSORED ? -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

What about the thrust?

Hello,

I have made a change on the article to give more information on the thrust of the spaceship. It has 42 engines which are equal to 155 Boeing 747 aircrafts. I have done the change on the "Tanker" part. Please approve the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diyetisyenece (talk • contribs) 14:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Infobox for this article?

This article has had a "Spaceflight" infobox on it for some time; never seemed quite idea to me since this is both a system, and a development project, and not a spaceflight. The article has had that infobox since March of 2014, even when the article was named Mars Colonial Transporter until very recently.

Now, just in the past few hours, that infobox was replaced with a "Rocket" infobox. That one doesn't seem right either, for two reasons. First, the ITS (Interplanetary Transport System) is a system of things, including multiple different rocket piece parts, launch pads and ground support equipment, automated methane and oxygen propellant production and storage plants to be built on Mars, etc. Secondly, there is another article recently split off of this one to cover just the rocket piece parts: ITS launch vehicle. That article on the launch vehicle probably should have a "Rocket" infobox in it; but that just begs the question, is any infobox appropriate for this article?

In any case, I did not revert the WP:BOLD edit for this discussion; others do so if you think return to WP:STATUSQUO willl make the discussion more straightforward. As for myself, I do not have a good idea on an infobox that is ideal for this project. User:Baldusi, User:Huntster, User:JFG, User:BatteryIncluded, User:Solarday, and others, please weigh in. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

To me, the obvious approach is to move the Rocket infobox to ITS launch vehicle and leave this article without any infobox. We are talking about an R&D program for the whole transport system and I don't see the need to force an infobox where none makes sense. — JFG ^talk 14:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I also think that being a system or program, it does not need an infobox. This case is similar to NASA's Discovery Program, etc. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

 Removed it — JFG ^talk 15:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, I'm the one who changed the infobox. At first I added it to the ITS launch vehicle article, and after that I discovered this article and copied it over. Why? The prior 'spaceflight' infobox was general and sparsely populated. The rocket infobox neatly gathers and summaries much of the information already present in the article body, which is of course its purpose. Moreover, it does so in a manner which provides for visual similarity with and easy comparison to like pages; open 'Saturn V', 'SLS', or 'New Glenn' to quickly compare and contrast. Common formats for the win.

To the 'system' argument... how strongly do we believe this? Did we believe it when the acronym was 'MCT' and did not include an 'S'? Naturally any launch apparatus consists of multiple systems, many of which do not reach orbit. However, what Musk presented on Sept. 27th and dubbed "ITS" primarily consists of a rocket and its variant spacecraft: first stage booster, second stage transport variant, second stage tanker variant. Musk did not present habitat plans. The ISRU plant was barely touched upon and noted as a requirement. The rocket infobox is the best format for collecting and displaying the majority of information shared in Musk's presentation.

One might ask why both 'ITS' and 'ITS launch vehicle' articles are necessary. I suggest we look at them: the two are highly redundant. Solardays (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I honestly had the same thought. They should probably be merged until everything matures a bit more, then revisit the issue. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, i was also reading both articles the last few days. Right now there is minimal difference in info content between them. Splitting both articls off does make sense once there is enough information that both topics can stand on their own. Like aside from the rocket parts have details on the fuel plant. That is not there right now. so I'd suggest going over botjh articles and merge non-redundant information. --213.23.77.130 (talk) 06:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The original topic of this section, figurng out what to do with the infobox, seems to have been dealt with, per some consensus. (although if others have different view than the consensus, please feel free to add here, as it has only been a few days on that.)

However, the topic is seeming to move to whether or not we ought to have a separate article for the launch vehicle, separate from the overall system that Musk et al have in mind. I come down on the side that there are a number of good rationale for the launch vehilce detail to be in its own article, and only have a summary and a {main|...} link in this overall project/system article. But I very much think that it is an okay discussion, and others might feel differently, but it seems to me it belongs in a separate Talk page section (with a clear section title) or in a formal Article for Deletion or Merge discussion.

Anyone want to start that topic with a concise proposal? If not, I'll try to get back here and create a proposal for discussion in the next few days. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe that two articles are justified. One for the rocket booster and its two spacecraft, focusing on technical and design details, performance, launch pads; one for the transport system as a whole, focusing on logistics, economics, timeline, collaborations, challenges, etc. The global article should have a short section about the booster and spacecraft, pointing to the rocket article for details. We're not far from there, we just have to trim redundant info from each page. — JFG ^talk 17:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

On the added topic, that of merging the two articles, there does not seem to be an early consensus forming in favor, but perhaps that is in part due to some interested editors not finding this discussion, since it morphed a previous discussion, and some editors might not get here given the topic is named after a previous topic. I'd recommend a clear distinct section for discussion of any WP:MERGE, or someone can nominate for WP:AfD if they'd like. N2e (talk) 04:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I am uncertain whether this belongs under a merge heading or elsewhere, so I'm putting it here for now. Please move as deemed necessary...

I would agree that multiple article are justified. What must be addressed is the *naming* of those articles. Let's take Apollo as the example. We have an Apollo Program article which links to the Saturn IB and Saturn V articles. Launch Vehicle(s) : Program :: Saturn IB & Saturn V : Apollo Program... right? We could, and likely should, follow that pattern.

Then for purposes here, let us solve: Launch Vehicle(s) : Exploration Program :: X : Y

I propose that X = Falcon Heavy and ITS. Not "ITS launch vehicle", but Interplanetary Transport System, complete. Why? ITS is the recent replacement for 'Mars Colonial Transport'. In all the discussion of MCT, everyone understood that term to mean SpaceX's Mars Rocket+Spaceship. ITS is not equivalent to 'Apollo Program'. We need to find a new value for Y, something along the lines of 'SpaceX Mars Colonization Program.'

To summarize:

Multiple articles? Yes

Detail Articles : Master Article ::

Launch Vehicles : Exploration Program ::

Saturn IB, Saturn V : Apollo Program ::

Falcon Heavy, ITS : SpaceX Mars Colonization Program

.

Solardays (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Cost projections

I'd like to be clear about something. Another editor added the Cost projections section about a week ago. I have made many edits to that section since trying to make it clear what exactly Musk was really projecting: very long-term, forward-looking, only-after-this-thing-is-successful, and only-after-it-is-flying-at-a-very-high-flight-rate, cost projections. It was not clear what the costs were about previously, and appeared much too optimistic (to my eye) without the qualifications.

Having said that, I do not have any strong view to keeping all that. Just a view that if it was to be kept, as it was stuff Musk did in fact get into in his talk at the IAC, then it needed to be qualified quite a bit to be reasonably encyclopedic.

Happy to have others modify and edit it. Or even suggest that it may be too much to leave in the article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, I'd say to just mention the final cost figure (as estimated by Musk) and the ticket price when all wheels are turning (as estimated by Musk). The inline references are enclosed. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, for sure, not Wikipedia voice. They are clearly company (or Musk personal; hard to say since he is CEO of a company) future projections of transportation costs under a set of assumptions as of Sep 2016. And all those qualifiers will serve us well as the article ages, and as (inevitably) new info and projections of costs will surface later on. So, yeah, go for it. Edit away. N2e (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems you have a better grasp on that issue; please do the changes. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Batt, I took another look at Musk slides. These are not "transportation costs"--even that qualification was insufficient. These are merely a part of what will be transportation costs. Per Musk's slides, these are merely "fabrication cost" given some set of assumptions, fabrication of the three vehicles (the booster, the tanker and the spaceship). This would seem to be more of a CoGS (cost of goods sold) sort of cost, like the cost to manufacture a product before R&D cost is considered, before depreciation of capital assets / SG&A (sales, general and administrative) costs / operations costs / and return on capital (ROI for the investors).

In other words, without extensive qualification in the encyclopedia prose, these cost numbers by themselves could be extremely misleading to our readership. I have made a couple of edits that clarify the prose to be only what the slides present, but that may not be enough context for our global readers to be encyclopedically clear.

Moreover, one could argue, that since this info is such a very small part of total costs, even total transportation costs, that it is WP:UNDUE to even have it in the article. I'm not pushing for this interpretation, but would really like to hear what a few other editors think about the matter. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Surfeit of Mars missions by mid-2020s: NASA may change course

This is interesting for both Mars scientists, and for the general public. SpaceX Mars plans are mentioned as a part of the reason for NASA rethinking their approach to Mars science. http://www.nature.com/news/nasa-rethinks-approach-to-mars-exploration-1.20758?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews N2e (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be discussed at Talk:Exploration of Mars ? -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 06:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Definitely. Good idea. But probably worth noting such a sea change in attitude—by what has been the government space agency that has had the largest and longest Mars footprint over decades—in this article also. When they are seeing commercial offerings leading them to modify their former long-term-held approach, that is significant. N2e (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Another article, based on in-depth journalist interview with Musk

This article has more detail than some, based on an in-depth interview the author (Tim Urban) got with Musk, in addition to the main Musk talk/announcement on 27 Sept. Includes new media, and Musk-driven and highly-qualified projections of how "it might" roll out. SpaceX’s Big F***ing Rocket – The Full Story, 28 Sep 2016. As it seems, this journalist got multi-day/week access to SpaceX and Musk in 2015, and wrote several long-form journalism pieces on SpaceX. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Transport system vs. colony

Musk is a visionary businessman and he is #@%& smart, but here in Wikipedia we have to remark the 'small print': ITS is that. A transport system. Yes, he will dump a couple of habitable modules on Mars (a limited base), but the "one million-people colony" is not a committed SpaceX plan. There is not enough money to do it. The small print and punch-line is that Musk wants the private sector and citizens to jump onboard and start paying and building the mega-colony he envisions. I hope as time goes by some more journalists will write about it and clarify this important point. Think of the Mayflower from Plymouth to the New World in 1620. For the time being, I ask we focus this article on the ITS, and place less emphasis on the colony that he hopes OTHER partners/passengers will build in the far future. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Musk is quite clearly focusing on the production of the space transport technology, and what we can assume is a rather limited set off things and ground infrastructure on Mars to effect the earliest missions, and have some probability that the transport system, can even on the early missions, have some reasonable shot at getting some humans back (even though he has said high risk of dying, etc.) His US$10 +/- billion will not build a sustainable colony on Mars; but his $10B is not nothing, and he did say he has committed all of it to this project. He wants to build the "forcing function" (his frequent term for it) of low-cost access to space, and to heavy-lift, multi-hundred-tonne interplanetary spaceflight technology. It is, indeed, that stuff that will allow others to fund/build/go/do what they could not go/build/do without the transport tech.

Having said that, while his $10B may only be enough to fund the development and build of the first one or two of these systems of spacecraft, Musk is clearly the idea-guy behind the concept of the entire Mars colonization system, the many ships going, in many synods, over period of years, to get to his oft-stated goal of a sustainable second planet on which human civilization is residing. He frequently says that is his goal, and has been singing the same song for years now. He is, rather, the champion of the whole kahuna. Kind of like he is doing with Hyperloop project, where he is championing, and spending some money/resources, but is clearly not paying for nor building the real live systems between cities. N2e (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph to the article that attempts to summarize that both sorts of things are in play here. SpaceX (the company) is doing transport infrastructure including initial propellant plant on Mars technology. Elon Musk (the person) is advocating for and championing a much larger and more expansive, multi-company-actor, multi-government-actor, multi-decade grand vision thing for stuff that can only emerge over time, per sources. Please take a look, copyedit, make it better or more correct, etc. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

N2e, Thank you for working out all the details of the system and the program. It is complex, and it is obvious you have done a very good job. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Cool. Then this one is  Done. Thanks for the kind words. N2e (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Interplanetary Transport System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.marketwatch.com/video/asset/elon-musk-ill-put-a-man-on-mars-in-10-years-2011-04-22/CCF1FC62-BB0D-4561-938C-DF0DEFAD15BA
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140322013556/http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2212-BWB-2014-03-21.mp3 to http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2212-BWB-2014-03-21.mp3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140322013556/http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2212-BWB-2014-03-21.mp3 to http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2212-BWB-2014-03-21.mp3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Earliest references to this launch architecture

Reading the history of this article, it would seem that the development of the larger-than-falcon-mars-rocket began in 2007. But SpaceX have stated many times that the company was founded with "the ultimate goal of enabling people to live on other planets"; they'll have known from the outset that this wasn't possible with then-current technologies, otherwise it would've happened already. Therefore new technology development was necessary, which must've progressed from napkin sketches at first, to the more substantive architecture discussed here. The launch system has gone through a number of design iterations and name changes (BFR/Falcon X/MCT/ITS, etc.) but clearly this has been something the've been thinking about since the early days. Here's an article from 2005, and a filing from 2003 which provides some referencing for this.

Is there scope for including such early history in this article? Or is it too much of a synthesis? Anxietycello (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

As long as you work from sources and avoid personal speculation, please be WP:BOLD and add relevant bits of history. — JFG ^talk 15:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The important thing is to avoid tieing it to "this architecture" unless specific explicit sources support it. N2e (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

A more generalized SpaceX Mars architecture

With the recent announcement of the newer design for a vehicle that Musk says "we are searching for the right name, but the code name, at least, is BFR"—BFR launch vehicle, BFR spaceship, BFR tanker, and BFR cargo—we now have two different expressions of the Mars architecture, both of which have many of the same elements, and both of which LVs/spaceships are clearly iterations of designs that meet many of those overarching elements.

I've started editing the article by reflecting both the 2016 LV designs as well as the more-recent and much smaller 2017 LV designs. This also reflects how many elements are similar in both. In short, I've generalized the article prose away from being so LV-specific as it inevitably was after the 2016 unveiling of the ITS launch vehicle. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Rename the article

• Since (in September 2016) Interplanetary Transport System was the second name SpaceX gave their Mars architecture, after first being referred to as the Mars Colonial Transporter from 2013-2016. And it was in Sep 2016 that SpaceX had publically stated they would develop the ITS launch vehicle, and unveiled a set of specifications for it...
• and since, in the September 2017 update of the mission architecture and unveiling of the BFR launch vehicle—a much smaller and more general-purpose launch vehicle intended to perform all of SpaceX launch service provider missions, even of the Earth-orbit part of SpaceX' payload transport manifest—the overall architecture was not referred to by any particular name whatsoever...

Proposed: Let's rename the article to a more general descriptive term about what the article is about: the Mars mission architecture.

• SUPPORT—as OP, I support renaming the article to avoid confusion from the old name that many associate with a particular (very large) Mars- and interplanetary-mission-specific launch vehicle. N2e (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I should also say that I think any of a variety of names might be better, such as SpaceX Mars mission architecture, or Mars mission architecture of SpaceX, but other suggestions are welcome. N2e (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support move to SpaceX Mars mission architecture– per nom.
  Additionally, if this article is moved, some of the more general content in the ITS launch vehicle (such as the economic considerations section) should perhaps be transferred to here, so that the ITS launch vehicle article is about the specific now-abandoned proposed rocket/spaceship system from 2016, whilst the SpaceX Mars misson architecture article is a more general description of the various plans by SpaceX to colonize Mars. The ITS launch vehicle article should also be edited to use the past progressive tense rather an the future tense.
  Finally, assuming that this article is moved to SpaceX Mars mission architecture, I'd support moving ITS launch vehicle to Interplanetary Transport System (2016 proposal)– as that article isn't just about the launch vehicle but also contains a section about the proposed spaceship from 2016. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 11:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support move to "SpaceX Mars mission". There are several Mars missions in paper; this particular page is about the one by SpaceX. BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support but the SpaceX architecture is no longer about Mars only: they talked about enabling missions to Jupiter, Saturn and the Moon. I would suggest SpaceX deep-space transport architecture. — JFG ^talk 19:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support move to SpaceX deep-space transport architecture --Ita140188 (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment This article is very much focused on the Mars mission/colonization architecture, despite mentioning the possibility of other deep space missions, so I'm not sure how good the title "SpaceX deep-space transport architecture" would be. One possibility would be to split most of the Mars-related stuff into another article like "SpaceX Mars colonization architecture", but then we would be left with an awful lot of articles about very similar concepts. We could end up having SpaceX deep-space transport architecture for SpaceX plans for a transport system that operates in deep space, SpaceX Mars colonization architecture for the plans to colonize Mars and the infrastructure to make that happen, Interplanetary Transport System (2016 proposal) for the specific rocket and spaceship proposed in 2016, and BFR (rocket) for the specific rocket and spaceship proposed in 2017. BFR (rocket) could even be moved to BFR (2017 proposal) to avoid confusion with earlier designs that used the "BFR" name, but a name like "BFR (2017 proposal)" implies that it's just a proposed rocket rather than one where the construction process has already started.
  And then there's also the possibility of a "SpaceX proposed suborbital commercial flight architecture" article separate from the four that I've already mentioned, or something like that... All in all, it's a confusing mess. I'm not sure of the best solution, other than that this article should definitely be moved from its current title. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 06:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Chessrat: I understand your position, however I also noted that Musk is rarely speaking about how to colonize Mars, rather about SpaceX offering a reliable, affordable and regular transportation infrastructure to Mars, comparing his mission to the sailing ships from Europe to America. Taking this into account, I don't see the need for a separate "Mars colonization plan by SpaceX", as they don't seem to have one, really. Even if they do, it's not been widely covered in RS, besides saying "Musk wants to colonize Mars" with no specifics outside of transport. He talks about how to make propellants locally (which is again related to enabling transport), but he makes no significant comments about how to support the colonists' life there. Would you support "SpaceX deep-space transport architecture" now and keep "SpaceX Mars colonization plans" for later, if and when colonization details beyond transport emerge? — JFG ^talk 10:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The plans for suborbital Earth-bound transport should be reflected in a section of BFR (rocket). They do not justify a separate article until a concrete offering is announced. They definitely do not belong in this article about deep-space transport, except as a passing mention. — JFG ^talk 10:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Yes, their primary focus is on the transport system, but I don't agree that SpaceX doesn't have a Mars colonization plan. Interplanetary Transport System#Mars early missions and Interplanetary Transport System#Mars settlement concept, as well as much of Interplanetary Transport System#History both focus heavily on the Mars colonisation plans and wouldn't really fit well in a SpaceX deep-space transport architecture article. Thing is, SpaceX has focused a lot on Mars colonization, but they just haven't published any detailed plans for the creation of the settlements. Even without such detailed plans for the actual cation and governance of a large colony, I definitely think we have enough information for a SpaceX Mars colonization plans article at the moment
As for the suborbital Earth-bound transport, I agree that information about those plans can stay in the BFR (rocket) article for now until more detailed plans emerge.
Actually, thinking about it, I'm not sure that we need a SpaceX deep-space transport architecture article for now. Rather, just three articles would suffice: an Interplanetary Transport System (2016 proposal) article for the specific rocket proposed in 2016 and its intended uses, a BFR (rocket) article for the specific rocket proposed in 2017 and its intended uses, and a SpaceX Mars colonization plans article for the history of SpaceX's plans for missions to Mars. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 20:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment: SpaceX is/will be limited to transportation to Mars, any "colonization" is beyond Musk's plan, and he has correctly stated that it would require a multitude of organizations with very extensive funding working together. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• @JFG:, @N2e:: I made a start on what I think should be done to the articles: this article becomes User:Chessrat/SpaceX Mars colonization infrastructure plans, and ITS launch vehicle becomes User:Chessrat/Interplanetary Transport System (2016 proposal). The BFR (rocket) article would remain pretty much as-is.
  I haven't finished on those sandbox articles yet (the history section needs to be condensed in the former article, for example), but it's a start. Thoughts? Good idea or bad idea? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 10:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

We might still debate the titles, but you're on the right track about contents. The BFR article will need expansion, though. — JFG ^talk 10:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Concur with JFG. You are on the right track about contents: article on the Mars architecture and then one on the 2016 (12-meter, 450 tonnes payload to Mars) launch vehicle/spaceship design. On names, I don't think it'll work to change the LV article to the Interplanetary Transport System simply 'cause Musk made pretty clear that the "system" was composed of much more than just the vehicles, including the ground infrastructure for propellant manufacture on Mars, the novel on-orbit, multi-tanker refill of nearly empty second stage tanks in LEO, and the use of the second-stage as the long-duration spacecraft vehicle. That is to say, the name is already taken for the "system", so we can't really take it for a single part (even a large part) of the system. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

What specifically should we Rename the article?

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

---

From the discussion above, it seems we have a strong consensus formed on renaming the article. The consensus above is support the idea that Interplanetary Transport System is not the right title to describe the scope of this article.

So the question here is, *What should we rename it to?*

Above suggestions for the name for this article were, with the editor's indicated preferences so far marked after each one.

• SpaceX Mars mission architecture—N2e and Chessrat (initially)
• Mars mission architecture of SpaceX
• SpaceX Mars mission—BatteryIncluded
• SpaceX deep-space transport architecture—JFG and Ita140188
• SpaceX Mars colonization plans—Chessrat (later)

If I missed any suggestion, please add it above.

So, I could go with any of those five names as better than the name we have now, but slightly prefer first and the third as mentioning Mars, which is Musk/SpaceX's primary objective and look at the mission architecture beyond mere colonization, although clearly colonization is one of the goals. Deep-space is also not the primary goal, but rather just a possible extension of the Mars architecture, just like the suborbital point-to-point Earth transport is an extension to what Musk is aiming for. N2e (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Good idea, this article definitely needs moving to something. I would support all of the titles below over the current title. As for what the best title would be: I'm fine with most titles with "Mars" in them (although "Mars mission architecture of SpaceX" is rather awkward and "SpaceX Mars mission' just feels wrong). I feel like colonization should be mentioned in the title, given that enabling Mars colonization is the primary goal of SpaceX (even if they don't plan to directly carry out the colonization itself). But I'm not certain of the best way to succinctly describe exacly what SpaceX is doing in the title alone. Anyway, I've voted in the poll below. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 02:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for summarizing the discussion so far. We do seem to have consensus on keeping an article about the transport concept, especially regarding Mars, and two articles on the specific rocket and vehicles proposed in 2016 and 2017. Given the intended scope of this article and the input from various editors, at this stage I would suggest another variant of the title: SpaceX Mars transportation infrastructure. This addresses the following points:

• SpaceX intends to deliver a robust transportation infrastructure to Mars and back, not extended life support or colonization.
• Transport to Mars is the main focus; Earth ballistic transport and other Solar System destinations are side benefits.
• If/when a concrete offering for Earth ballistic transport emerges, it will deserve its own article.
• It looks more correct to speak of an "infrastructure" rather than an "architecture", because SpaceX intends to actually build the ships, the launch pads, the propellant depots and the ISRU mining operations on Mars (and possibly some early habitats): this is all infrastructure.

I will add this variant to the poll below for consideration. — JFG ^talk 06:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Out of all the options given so far, I think this is the best one. Most accurately summarizes the situation. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 15:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Preference poll

Here's a list of the names with no !Votes yet recorded. Might we all just add our names by any and all we could live with? If agreeable, I could add my name to all of them. Just add a "— ~~~~" below. If agreeable, I'll come back soon and do the same.

• SpaceX Mars mission architecture — Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 02:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC) — mfb (talk 22:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)) — N2e (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Mars mission architecture of SpaceX —
• SpaceX Mars mission —
• SpaceX deep-space transport architecture —
• SpaceX Mars colonization plans — Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 02:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• SpaceX Mars transportation infrastructure — JFG ^talk 06:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC) — Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 15:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC) — N2e talk 16:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC) — mfb (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• SpaceX Mars transport system — BatteryIncluded (talk) — JFG ^talk 11:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Since the system (or infraestructure) is planned for repeated flights over many years, I would like you to reconsider not using the word "mission" in the title. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

That seems a very valid point. It certainly is not a single mission. It is still however probably a mission architecture or pattern for a large number of missions to Mars (totally resusable launch vehicle and spacecraft; spacecraft with useful payload arrives LEO with nearly-empty tanks; is refueled on orbit from multiple cargo tanker flights by a related/similar vehicle; extraterrestrial methane and oxygen extraction from ice and atmosphere on Mars to refuel return trips, etc.) So it is arguable.

However, I'll say you've convinced me sufficiently that I am withdrawing my support for the SpaceX Mars mission architecture option. And I've marked that above by striking out my username. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I interpreted the name as "architecture how individual missions will look like". Anyway, looks like we have a winner now: SpaceX Mars transportation infrastructure. --mfb (talk) 05:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like there is enough support for "SpaceX Mars transportation infrastructure", so I just performed the move. Help wanted to re-align article contents with the stated scope as discussed above. — JFG ^talk 06:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

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

"Facilities" details in a Mars mission architecture article; let's discuss

In recent edits, an editor made good faith efforts to improve the article, and begin to flesh out the facilities section, to broaden this beyond merely launch facilities. The intent is commendable.

My sense however is that Mars-specific TOC-subsection on vehicle manufacturing and vehicle testing would be more appropriate in some other article, unless we have sources indicating Mars-specific intent for these locations.

As it is, BFR is SpaceX only LV for all missions. BFR will be flying all Earth-orbit, and cislunar, and Mars, and interplanetary, and Earth point-to-toint missions. It seems we should probably cover the details on build and test facilities in the article(s) on the launch vehicles, and not the article on the Mars mission architecture (this one).

We have little or no info on Mars-specific facilities; just the 2014 mention to the Texas legislature that stuff could launch to Mars from South Texas. This could change, and likely will, after the early 2020s if SpaceX begins launching Mars-bound craft. But is this really enough, in 2018, to justify a Table-of-Contents listing for facilities related to the Mars architecture? ... with TOC-subsections on vehicle manufacturing and vehicle testing? I think not; but am interested in what others think. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I also think it fits better in the BFR article. BFR facilities are relevant for both the Mars transportation and other transportation. --mfb (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

User:anxietycello, what do you think? N2e (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Is this article not intended to cover the whole Mars transportation at the overall system level? The title is "Mars transportation infrastructure" after all. As I see it, that system will have several components, which are designed to work together to deliver the ultimate goal. These components are ground infrastructure on Earth (which I started to cover in this article), the BFR booster, the BFS spacecraft (crew/cargo/tanker), the raptor engines that power them, and ultimately ground infrastructure on Mars (including the sabatier plant).

Why would it make sense to include ground infrastructure in the BFR article? These are two subtopics of this article; it doesn't make sense to contain one within another. I would suggest moving the text in the BFR article into this top-level article instead. Anxietycello (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, Anxietycello. It would be a normative view to say that this Mars-specific article on Mars transport architecture by SpaceX is the "top-level" article for BFR.

BFR is simply SpaceX next-generation launch vehicle, for all of SpaceX LV market segments: Earth-orbit sats, commsat launch, cargo transport to various commercial and potentially government space stations, plus interplanetary destinations like Mars. It doesn't follow that the Mars article is top level for that. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

True, BFR will have many uses, but I would argue that all those other uses are secondary to the primary purpose - human missions between Earth and Mars. Since day one, the primary aim of Space X was to enable human settlement of the red planet. Again, everything else they do is secondary to that. All these other activities happen in order to build the knowledge, confidence, equipment, and funding to allow colonisation to take place.

I suppose this is a matter of debatable perspective though. I think that both viewpoint are equally valid, it would just be a matter of deciding which we should follow? As a compromise, perhaps the (Earth) ground infrastructure should be contained within the SpaceX launch facilities article and linked both here and BFR articles? Obviously that article should then be renamed "SpaceX facilities" or something similar - pads are important of course, but no more so than factories or test sites (the latter of which is oddly already included). Sound good? Anxietycello (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

It's been a week now, and only three editors have weighed in. Looks to me like two mfb and N2e think that all this recently-added detail, and requests in article tags for even more detail, on facilities for building the Mars infrastructure is excessive detail for this article. One editor, Anxietycello, the editor who first added all the new subsections, sees it having value here, in this article. I think under standard WP:BRD process, we should just remove the detail since no consensus for the change/addition has been secured on the Talk page.

How do you want to proceed, Anxietycello? Just remove it, or do you want to explicitly ask more editors to weigh in via a more formal proposal to keep your changes, and give it a full month of discussion to see if you might gain a consensus? N2e (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Nah, that's it fine if you guys want to remove it from here. Can any useful text be ported to the BFR article though? Seem a shame to delete the text entirely. Anxietycello (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I would agree to WP:PRESERVE useful additions by moving them to more appropriate articles, such as BFR and SpaceX launch facilities. The spaceship may be promoted by Musk as dedicated to Mars (it used to be called the "Mars Colonial Transporter"), but even Musk's own COO Gwynne Shotwell has recently commented that Earth-to-Earth hypersonic transportation may be the most promising application of this technology. I'm pretty sure that BFR/BFS variants for Mars transport will soon diverge significantly from their "airline killer" and "mass satellite delivery" sister ships. — JFG ^talk 07:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Please also consider contributing to the generic Exploration of Mars or Human mission to Mars articles. — JFG ^talk 07:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

So Anxietycello, do feel free to WP:PRESERVE any of the stuff that might be useful by moving them to more appropriate articles. We can clean this one up in a few more days; but you can always get the details from the history if you don't get a chance to directly move it yourself. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done, made the changes to the article per above; will leave the Facilities details for the launch vehicle article, BFR (rocket). N2e (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Reverting whitespace changes

@N2e: What is this all about? KuboF Hromoslav removed unnecessary whitespace (spaces after paragraphs or double space between sentences), fixed a "but"->"But" at the beginning of a sentence, improved one link and added quotation marks for reference names. All fully uncontroversial improvements, and no text was shifted around. The only change to the article text is the now capitalized "b". Why exactly does this need to be reverted - twice? --mfb (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in to review mfb to avoid an edit war. Perhaps it is the settings of my edit comparator, but when the original edit summary said only "typos" (diff), yet quite a bit of text had showed as having been added and substracted to the article, something didn't add up. So I flagged it, and reverted.

On the second time KuboF Hromoslav made the same edit, the edit summary did add more info, but it also included a not good faith set of comments that were borderline insulting. So, I don't have time for this, and suggested KuboF take it to BRD. KuboF might also have chosen a good faith explanation, acknowledged the incorrect edit summary, and things might have gone smoother. Obviously, we're dealing with busy humans here, and bad faith comments with real humans often fail to bring about the desired results, if improving Wikipedia is the desired result.

In any case, you are an outside editor. If you review the changes declared as "typos" and decide the many edits there that were not typo fixes are acceptable, I'm good with that.

Or if it's still there in a few days when I have time to read the edit comparator for "typos" more carefully, with a lot more time on my hands, I'll change it if it really is such "small changes." This was not small changes. Cheers. N2e (User talk:N2e) 03:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if it is active by default, but you can click the "Delta" symbol to get a better comparison. I gave a full list of the changes in the comment above. It is really just whitespace, invisible syntax, one link target and the "but" typo. The first two types could have come from some script. As I did review the changes I put them back into the article. --mfb (talk) 04:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

For information N2e, my first's edit summary "typos" was about "typography", so the whitespaces. I recognize you may have a little time, so I asked you to leave the changes for review by someone who have the time (thanks, mfb!). And also, I can utilize my time better too, not by re-reviewing my old edit which was reverted by someone who does not have time for review and so reverts it, so just please, next time just really review the edit or leave it. Thanks. --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 11:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Total Rewriting Needed

The Mars Transportation Infrastructure has changed significantly since 2016. It is time for the articles surrounding it to change too.Ultimograph5 (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The article seems to summarize the overall SpaceX Mars transportation infrastructure, which is the current article title, pretty decently from the beginning of substantive disclosure by SpaceX through mid-2019. What in particular would you think still needs to change, Ultimograph5?

It will, of course, continue to evolve as SpaceX works the iterative design process on the mongo launch vehicles/stages that can make the access to interplanetary space and Mars possible for them. Some, even, on 24th of this month when SpaceX CEO is expected to provide a substantive update and review of design decisions to date. N2e (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

At some point we can rename it to "History of ..." - as it is mainly historic. We got a lot of information about Mars plans in 2016-2017, we know they changed a lot since then but we don't know the new status. We did get many updates about the rocket and the progress is tracked in Starship (rocket) and similar articles, but you don't see these updates here ("Construction of the first of the Super Heavy vehicles would begin in 2018, according to Musk."). --mfb (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

"Interplanetary Transport System" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Interplanetary Transport System. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 04:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 21 July 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

---

SpaceX Mars transportation infrastructure → SpaceX Mars program – More WP:CONCISE and WP:NATURAL. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 13:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Bingobro (Chat) 09:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Support --mfb (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

---

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

Update needed

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

Tone

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

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

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

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