Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/SpaceX Starship/archive2

< Wikipedia:Peer review

SpaceX Starship

edit
Toolbox

This article is more-or-less done now and I want to nominate it at featured article candidate once everything is polished. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:Leijurv:

edit

Edit: All my comments were as of this revision.

Speaking from the perspective of someone who has never read this article before, I'm going to read through it, pretending as if I've forgotten everything I know about Starship.

Starship is a fully reusable launch vehicle developed by American aerospace company SpaceX I'm not sure about "developed". It feels weird because while, so far, they have just done development, it is intended for more. Perhaps "designed and manufactured" like Falcon 9? Perhaps "operated" like Atlas V? Also okay might be "under development".
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It is not mass-produced yet, so manufactured isn't quite right. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane: I've used "under development" Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Kudos on what you're doing right now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
with the ultimate purpose of assisting Mars exploration and colonization "assisting" is definitely the wrong word, maybe "enabling" or "permitting"?
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Upon its debut, Starship will be the largest and most powerful rocket ever constructed. I find this a little confusing. What exactly is a "debut"? How will we know when it has "debuted"? It has been constructed, unveiled, selected by NASA, part of it has flown, etc? Is it not already the largest rocket ever constructed?
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
all powered by Raptor rocket engines and burning liquid oxygen and liquid methane propellant I think "all" should be "both", and "and burning" should be something else, maybe "that use" or "that burn" or "using".
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In July 2019, a test vehicle named Starhopper performed the first hop at SpaceX's Starbase facility. I think this fails to explain why this is important. What is a "hop"? Why does the name of the test vehicle matter? Perhaps instead something like "In July 2019, a prototype vehicle achieved stable flight and hovering with a Raptor engine, at the Starbase facility" would be better.
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first complete Starship spacecraft prototype was SN8, which crashed upon landing on 9 December 2020. Again I think this focuses on the wrong things. "SN8" doesn't matter. Somehow this only mentions that it crashed, without mentioning the important part which is that it flew! You can infer that it flew, but it isn't clear unless you already know how Starship works.
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These developments sparked many concerns about SpaceX's treatment of surrounding residents and the environment. I think we (cacti and myself) already agree on this, so not much to say here. Regardless, this is worded clunkily and I'm not sure it belongs in the lede.
  Done, removed Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Little competition between launch providers emerged before private spaceflight became more established. Phrased awkwardly. Beginning with "little" is strange. I'm not sure I even understand what it's saying. Is it saying that there was no competition between... countries... before private spaceflight, or what?
  Done, reworded to show it is in the US context Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, within the United States, preference for existing contractors made competition even more difficult for companies. Replace "companies" with "new entrants" or something like that, maybe "startups"
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only in the early 2010s when the commercial sector grew when a substantial amount of competition begun. This is not valid grammar. Perhaps "Only in the early 2010s did a substantial amount of competition begin, alongside the growth of the commercial sector"
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since at least 2009, SpaceX recovered the first stages of several early Falcon 9 flights to develop its reusable first stage. Needs more explanation. What is the Falcon 9? Perhaps something like "SpaceX has been striving for reusability since at least 2009 with its previous launch vehicle, the Falcon 9, by attempting to recover and eventually reuse its first stage". Also link to Falcon 9.
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The launch vehicle can be used to launch almost any space payload, instead of being specialized for only one facet of spaceflight. I think this needs a link, footnote, or some other kind of explanation for what it means to be "specialized" to one "facet" of spaceflight. What's a "facet"? Is this trying to say that other rockets have.... limited payload fairing sizes? limited orbital injection capabilities? limited number of stages? an inability to refuel in orbit? All those might be true, but I don't know which.
Not too sure about this either, CactiStaccingCrane any ideas? Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nigos Hmm... what I'm trying to say is that Starship can virtually do anything, like lunar and Mars landing, space station, small sat + big sat launcher, etc. Not sure how to phrase it. Maybe "sector of space industry"? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Done, finally. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both the Starship spacecraft and the Super Heavy booster are powered by the Raptor rocket engine, burning liquid oxygen and liquid methane. I understand why, but this has now been said 3 times in a short timeframe. Perhaps that could be reduced to 2. I don't feel strongly though, it might only work this way.
  Done, removed the part about oxygen and methane Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Methane was chosen as Starship's propellant because it is cheaper, burns more cleanly, and can be produced on Mars via in-situ resource utilization. Perhaps throw in a "among other reasons" or "for reasons such as", because I don't think it's quite this simple. There's also ease of storing, volumetric density, and specific impulse.
  Done, added "among other reasons" Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All Raptor engines should be able to fire many times, possibly up to a thousand each, late into manufacturing phase,[18] and have their engine nozzle regeneratively cooled. Perhaps rephrase "All Raptor engines have their engine nozzle regeneratively cooled and should be able to fire many times, possibly reaching a thousand firings as a long term goal"
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In an interview with Tim Dodd, Elon Musk, SpaceX's CEO and chief engineer, stated that Remove. The reader has no use for this information, and it doesn't make the article better, rather more confusing.
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SpaceX will build many variants SpaceX intends to build many variants
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sea level-optimized engine has a throat to exit area of 1:34,[19] while the Raptor Vacuum variant is equipped with a nozzle extension, increasing its throat to exit area to 1:80. The sentence about specific impulse is okay because it links to specific impulse, and that's a standard metric by which to judge rocket engines. However, this sentence about throat to exit area, is probably too much detail. I might remove it, probably belongs on the Raptor page.
  Done, removed Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Each is fed either with a mixture containing mostly liquid oxygen or a mixture containing mostly liquid methane. Perhaps replace "One is fed with an oxygen-rich mixture, and the other is fed with a methane-rich mixture." And perhaps combine with the next sentence, connecting with a "therefore" or some such.
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Without propellant, Super Heavy's mass ranges from 160 t (350,000 lb) to 200 t (440,000 lb). Slightly confusing. The dry mass will not actually range, it will be an exact figure. There is only a range due to present day uncertainty. Perhaps rephrase "Super Heavy's dry mass (without propellant) is expected to be between" or something like that.
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Four grid fins are installed above Super Heavy and controlled by electric motors, powered by batteries. They are not above super heavy, they are on super heavy near its top. "above super heavy" makes me think they are on starship.
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the first stage of Falcon 9, the grid fins on Super Heavy can only rotate in one axis and cannot retract. Confusing to read. The F9 grid fins can retract and spin, these can just spin. It should be more clear that the "rotate on one axis" and "retract" actually refer to the same motion. Perhaps something like "the grid fins can only rotate, they cannot retract like those on the Falcon 9"
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For attitude control at space For attitude control in space
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Residents at nearby Brownsville may experience more than 60 dB A-weighted noise levels,[24] comparable to the loudness of a normal conversation. Add a comparison like this to the earlier 90db. Perhaps compare to the db of an airport.
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The spacecraft can hold 1,200 t (2,600,000 lb) of propellant,[9] spliting into two main and two header tanks. Each tank in a type either holds liquid oxygen or liquid methane. Confusing. "tank in a type" is icky. Also "spliting" is missing a second "t". Perhaps: "Starship splits each variant of propellant into two tanks, a main tank and a header tank, for a total of four tanks to store its 1200 T of propellant". Meh. I don't really know how to make it sound great, but it's worth thinking about.
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nigos Better: Each types of propellant have two dedicated main and header tanks, for a total of four tanks storing 1,200 t (2,600,000 lb) of propellant. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These header tanks are used to store propellant for landing the spacecraft with its engines. Worth rephrasing to add an interesting tidbit, in my opinion. Perhaps "Header tanks are needed to store the last bit of fuel needed to flip the spacecraft and land vertically with its engines."
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two are mounted at the nose cone and called forward flaps and the other two are mounted near the bottom and called aft flaps. Rephrase "Two forward flaps are mounted at the nose cone, and two aft flaps are mounted at the rear."
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Starship's heat shield is composed from many surface-mounted black tiles with some room to accommodate thermal expansion. They are mostly shaped into hexagons and mounted directly to the spacecraft, and should be able to withstand atmospheric entry multiple times. Rephrase "Starship's heat shield is composed of many hexagonal black tiles mounted directly to the spacecraft. The tiles are mounted with some room to accommodate thermal expansion, and should be able to withstand atmospheric entry multiple times."
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Starship is expected to have 1,100 m3 (39,000 cu ft) of storage volume, far larger than any spacecraft ever built. Might be worth mentioning the second place rocket, how much does it have, in comparison?
  Done @Leijurv: I would compare it to Apollo command and service module. Doing the math, that would be 180 times. However, in my opinion, this is pretty misleading, as it would imply that you can fit 500 people to Starship since the CSM can hold 3. I might try with something that's closer to Earth, let's say a typical commercial building elevator volume, which is now about 150 times. That would be easier to picture, and much easier to image imo. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The spacecraft is expected to experience about 2 g of side and downward acceleration, and up to 6 g of upward acceleration during liftoff. Why is there both downward and upward acceleration for liftoff?
Source said so :) No really, look at the source, it really said so. Cannot argue that. Also,    1.75x amplified ultimate quack of ultimate destiny :D CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can argue that it doesn't make sense as-written (and yes, I am also saying that the cited source doesn't make sense as-written). What does that actually mean and how could it be rephrased so that it makes sense to the average person? Leijurv (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult... I really have no idea how. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Not done because other alternatives sound way off. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the source, and from my own experience in engineering, I believe is expected to is a false interpretation of the provided information and misleading in this context. First, the provided figures in the starship user manual are maximum limits - they are not necessarily nominal values, they are there so a payload designer knows the maximum possible loads their structures must withstand. Second, this information is in the context of vibration analysis - the ship's vibration may briefly cause transient downwards acceleration. I think the sentence as written is misleading; most readers probably just care about average accelerations over long timespans, if at all. I suggest striking this sentence as well as the following one about sound pressure inside the fairing. A fully contextualized set of numbers would be distracting and only useful to payload designers. Troy Trombone (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Done, it makes sense as these figures can be misleading. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Troy Trombone, thanks for joining Wikipedia, it really does help to have people like you to rectify facts. I'm just an average spaceflight enthusiast :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Starship cargo variant will feature a large door replacing conventional payload fairings, which can capture, store, and return payloads to Earth Confused by this, isn't it more important to bring payloads to space, than capture and return them? Shouldn't that use case be mentioned first?
  Done Oops, fixed.
Another possibility is to mount the payload on to the inside of the payload bay's sidewalls I don't understand this. Given the previous sentence that this is "another possibility" to, it reads as if one option is to have a payload door, and another option is to have trunnions. That doesn't make sense, wouldn't you need a payload door in either case?
  Done, wording fixed Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
can be made to adapt for missions can be adapted for missions
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delta-v budget, or range I understand the intent, which is to explain to the reader that delta v budget is like the range of a spacecraft, but I think it can be phrased better. Perhaps "delta-v budget, which is similar to an operating range" or something?
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As of October 2020, the Rocket Cargo program is the only dedicated program that research this mode of transport, funded by the United States Transportation Command. research -> researches
  Done
A space analyst highlighted risks involved in point-to-point spacecraft travel such as conflict escalation due to misunderstanding. I have no idea what this means. Does it mean that it could be interpreted as a hostile attack? A nuclear strike? Or what?
Starship's reusability and stainless-steel construction has influenced the Terran R[44] and Project Jarvis.[45] Obviously you're meant to click on the links, but per WP:EASTEREGG we can make it a little easier on them, perhaps "has influenced other rockets such as Terran R and Project Jarvis" so the reader knows they're rockets.
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The firm further explained that both projects are very intertwined, since improvements in launch capacity and cost will improve Starlink and vice versa. Maybe "since improvements in launch capacity and cost can be applied to Starlink satellite launches, and Starlink profits can be fed back into Starship development"
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Starship may enable very large science payloads "may" -> "would" or "should"
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One such example are the To avoid the weird grammar of "one are", perhaps "For example, the" and then at the end "could be made possible by Starship"
terraformation of Mars The article says "terraforming" and I think that is the more common word, perhaps use that here too
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He also often made many over-optimistic near-term development timelines and pressures his employees to achieve them. Change of tense, "has often made" is past tense but "pressures" is present tense. Change "pressures" to "pressured", or change "made" to "makes" (but not both, haha).
Nevertheless, Musk had acknowledged There is no event to anchor the "had" to, so this doesn't make sense. Probably just "musk has acknowledged"
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
fuel Starships and sending the settlers back to Earth. Perhaps "fuel Starships to return the settlers to Earth." But perhaps "settlers" isn't right, because if you return you aren't a settler just a visitor, maybe?
  Done, changed to generic "people" Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However, methane production via the Sabatier reaction is very energy inefficient, requires an extensive thermal management system, and the resultant methane must be purified before use. This feels like it needs a sentence after it, maybe like "For these reasons, the Sabatier process is not used on Earth for economic reasons, but it will be the only option on Mars"? Perhaps, I'm not sure.
with the workforce primarily made from nearby residents I'm not sure this makes sense to say, it seems obviously and necessarily true.
  Done, removed Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The build site is Starship's production line, where many prototypes are built simultaneously at facilities. "at facilities" doesn't make sense, maybe just delete it?
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the vehicles' raw materials are delivered as rolls of steel, where they are unravelled, cut, and welded into steel rings. The "where" doesn't make grammatical sense, perhaps instead use ", then unravelled"
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The vehicle may launch from one of two orbital launch complex there "complex" -> "complexes"
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
there, each consists Replace comma with semicolon
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
eight tanks, three Replace comma with colon
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
cover about the development program cover the development program
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However, some residents of Boca Chica Village and Brownsville have criticized Starship development claiming that SpaceX had conducted test flights along with infrastructure construction without explicit permission by government agencies,[67] the forced sale of houses, and noise pollution.[68] The last Oxford comma with the "and" doesn't make sense. "Claiming that SpaceX the forced sale of houses" doesn't work. Perhaps ", forced them to sell their houses, and caused noise pollution".
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two tank farms holding liquid methane or liquid oxygen would be placed at launch complex's first and second corner, while its last corner would host a road, heading toward Starship's launch and landing site. Unclear what "first corner", "second corner", "last corner" means.
NASASpaceFlight.com, a space news website with a dedicated column for Starship, analyzed potential advantages of mitigating of sonic booms from residential areas and increasing launch frequency of the Starship tanker variant, vital for refilling spacecraft in orbit. This sentence is missing the "so what". What was the conclusion of the analysis? Are there advantages? Feels like this needs a ", and they concluded that the offshore platforms could be vital in making Starship rapidly reusable without causing unacceptable noise disruption to onshore communities" or some such.
cut off, just before the stages "just before" -> "then"
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delta-v budget or range Same comment as above ^ for this "budget or range" phrase.
  Done, removed as it was explained earlier in the article already Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For destinations with a substantial atmosphere, Add "such as Earth, "
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
after atmospheric entry Starship's body faces windward Starship's body faces windward after atmospheric entry
thereby changing the amount of aerodynamic drag exerted and its terminal velocity. Probably worth saying the direction, not just "changing", it should say "increasing drag and decreasing terminal velocity". Maybe even go above and beyond and say why we want to do that, how the heat shield will reflect heat, etc
A thesis analyzed that the belly flop maneuver can reduce the g-force exerted to astronauts and spent propellant. Reduce it from what? What's the alternative? Are the G-forces comparable to landing in other kinds of spacecraft? Are they within human tolerances?
Minutes before touchdown, it is predicted Sorry to say it, but this entire paragraph looks like WP:PRIMARY/WP:OR to me. Do we have WP:RS saying that this analysis is valid? It looks like this is just directly cited to a primary source analysis paper.
propellant at the main tanks "at" -> "in"
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
difficulties at pressurization "at" -> "with"
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Starship development has been described as iterative and incremental and often contrasted against Blue Origin's New Glenn[77] and NASA's Space Launch System development.[78] Ehhhhhhhhhh, the "often" feels like WP:WEASEL. I don't know. Maybe it's fine. It feels a bit too... fanboy, I guess.
Removed "often" Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
to collect vast amounts Remove "vast", it borders on WP:PEACOCK
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
had led to many prototypes' explosion haS led to many prototypeS exploDING
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
another space vehicle The article uses "spacecraft" or "launch vehicle", I don't think "space vehicle" works that well.
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
launch vehicle, able to put I think this would read better as "launch vehicle that could put" or "launch vehicle capable of putting"
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
booster was going to have Again, reads a bit better as "booster would have". Same goes for "spacecraft was going to have nine"
  Done, change to "would have had" Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
other than getting from the government Not valid, perhaps just remove "getting"
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
sea level-optimized Just a random note, should this be sea-level-optimized? I know that's weird, but it feels a bit better since "level-optimized" feels like "one thing". Idk.
I'm not too sure about this Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Besides ferrying crew Perhaps "Besides" -> "Beyond" or "In addition to"
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
rather for getting more Missing a phrase, perhaps "rather it was intended for getting more"
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In September 2018, the dearMoon project Link to dearmoon
  Not done, it was already linked earlier in the article (lede and the commercial section)
and be paid for by Awkward, perhaps it could be just ", paid for by"
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The spacecraft, containing Maezawa along six to eight artists, Missing a word, maybe "alongside" or "along with". Also "containing" should be maybe "bringing" or even "ferrying". Honestly maybe just reword the whole thing, something like "In September 2018, the dearMoon project was announced, to be funded by (descriptive phrase like "billionare" or something) Yusaku Maezawa. During a presentation to blah blah, a revised design of the Big Falcon Rocket was presented, that would have blah blah blah. Maezawa, along with six to eight other artists and SpaceX pilots, will fly a free-return trajectory around the moon, to 'create amazing works of blah blah next generation'"
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
During the presentation, Musk revised the He did not revise it during the presentation, so maybe instead "During the presentation, Musk detailed the revised"
Seems to have been already done.
Starhopper is the first prototype to "is" -> "was"
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and hopped up to about Mention it was untethered this time. Are there any copyright-allowed photos that could be added too? Also it's worth explaining that by "hop" it means a controlled hover at low speed, otherwise it might make people think of a ballistic trajectory (which is much more normal for a rocket).
  Done, looking for photos Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leijurv: Is it alright if I link to external media instead? Nigos (talk | contribs) 15:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! Leijurv (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
presentation, where Musk is the main speaker Awkward, maybe just "presentation given by Musk"
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
unlike carbon composites of unlike the carbon composites used in
The switch's rationales are The rationales for the switch are
The company in January 2020 purchased two oil drilling rigs from then-bankrupt Valaris plc for $3.5 million each, planning to repurpose them as offshore spaceports. Link to SpaceX Starship offshore platforms somewhere in here
Notably, its third engine fire test splashed the molten pad below. Does this mean "melted the pad below"? Or was it already molten from unrelated causes? :)
but it crashed to the pad while still moving downward fast but it crashed into the pad, still at high speed
performing almost identical flight path performing an almost identical flight path
as debris from the explosion make the surrounding area dangerous "make" -> "made". Or rephrase entirely, maybe "posed a danger to the surrounding area"
which it would have which would have
two sub-orbital launch pad two sub-orbital launch pads
tank farm storing propellant "tank farm for storing propellant" or "tank farm to store propellant" or "tank farm that stores propellant"
to a city named Starbase "to" -> "into"
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
authority power and potential abuse for eviction Add commas: "authority, power, and potential abuse for eviction"
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
although leaned by its crushed legs "by" -> "due to" Also explain more, that some legs got crushed on one side or whatever, maybe include a picture?
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
with one possible cause is a rupture in propellant tank "is" -> "being"
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the same maneuvers by prior prototypes "by" -> "as"
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
then in-construction "in" -> "under"
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the first complete Starship launch vehicle "complete" isn't really correct, perhaps "full-scale" or "full height" or "stacked"
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In a report sent by SpaceX to the Federal Communications Commission Sentence is missing something like "SpaceX explained the planned trajectory of the first orbital flight of the Starship system in a report sent..."

And there's an nice, even, 100 bullet points.

  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps! :) Leijurv (talk) 08:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix this once I'm able to do so Nigos (talk | contribs) 09:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few more by proxy (credit to SYNSG)

another SpaceX facility at Florida Say where in Florida (Coca)
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The company in January 2020 purchased two oil drilling rigs from then-bankrupt Valaris plc for $3.5 million each "then-bankrupt" isn't great, maybe "during their bankruptcy proceedings"
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After the Mark series, SpaceX named subsequent prototypes with the prefix "serial number" or "SN", followed by the serial number awkward
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Newer prototypes would feature minor improvements over the last version if you're going to say "named" you can just say "featured"
No prototypes between SN1 and SN4 were flown, between February 2020 awkward
SN1 bent and then burst buckled then burst
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SN2 was repurposed to be a test tank "to be" -> "as a"
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and SN4 exploded after its fifth engine fire "fire" -> "firing"
  Done Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the company started accelerating the construction of manufacturing and support infrastructure at Starbase, such as large tents, stations, and repurposed "started accelerating" -> "accelerated"
Seems to be done.
When linked together, these facilities effectively become a production line unclear meaning
  Done, clarified (i hope) Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leijurv (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Done, addressed all issues. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:SYNSG:

edit
  • Starhopper is the first prototype to operate a full-flow staged combustion cycle rocket engine the source cited here doesn't actually mention this claim, only stating that "this was the first time a large rocket engine burning liquid-methane propellant made a significant flight", which is unrelated to the combustion cycle. roughly the same claim is made earlier in the article (The Raptor engine is the only operational full-flow staged combustion cycle) with an appropriate source, perhaps reuse that citation. also, saying it's the "first prototype to operate..." is a bit misleading, it's the first prototype to fly. as mentioned earlier in the article, FFSC engines have been tested on stands before.

SYNSG (talk) 11:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will find source for the claim,   In progress. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-comments by CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

edit

This makes me a lot less confident for the article to pass FA. This does not mean that the reviewers are bad, not at all! It is just that there are so much stuff needing to be done. My prediction that an editor would not be enough is spot-on here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also cannot contribute much anymore, since I am going to have a hectic schedule near Christmas. See you guys later, and hope that Wikiholism don't kick in :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Watchlisting this for the time being. I know someone off-wiki who is interested in SpaceX and who might have input on missing information etc. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being involved here, feel free for them to fact check anything :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, folks. I haven't edited Wikipedia in ages but I am effectively the space blogger on TV Tropes. I can look over this and give my comments but bear with me since I'm not used to the markup. Fighteer (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fighteer: Feel free! You can learn the markup here: Help:Wikitext. Once you get used to this, it becomes pretty easy to use. Do keep in mind the verifiability policy before adding or removing content, it is really important to sort out speculations! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nigos: Wait a sec... A comment by @Hurricane Noah in the article's previous FAC said this: There's quite a bit of relevant scholarly sources out there that aren't included. For example, I saw one related to future landing sites on Mars. Should we include them? For Noah: What do you mean by that comment? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We could include them in the mission section Nigos (talk | contribs) 12:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[1] You will need to look through these and find any relevant ones that need to be added. NoahTalk 13:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Done, to the best possible extent. I am poor and many resources being paywalled pretty heavily. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have some concerns about the article's compliance of the WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Many of the sections presented have its own article and the featured article criteria has this counted, so this is important problem to solve. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is just my opinion and I tend towards more "comprehensive" in terms of information content, but I don't think the sections are unnecessarily long and detailed. Imma ping SandyGeorgia too for a different perspective, since they tend more towards "summary" than I. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything of concern length-wise; the overall article length is fine, and the sections which have sub-articles are not excessive. Should the article grow considerably, tighter summaries may be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia I just gonna play safe and use the summary style instead of the inverted pyramid, as the topic is expected to grow a ton in the future. The summary style is not just "summarizing" in the guideline in my view; it makes sure that the reader can understand the topic when jump into sections, i.e. read Starship history first before design. I would think of this as writing the lede of a brand new articles, with some exceptions. Is my interpretation of the guideline correct though? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:Fighteer (talk):

edit
  • Are we discussing Starship and its Super Heavy booster in the present or future tense? Using the future tense implies that the statements will shift to present (and past where applicable) at some point. Using present tense implies that various claims and statements have already occurred. For example: It is the largest and most powerful rocket ever constructed. To me, an enthusiast, this implies that it is currently operational. It is also an absolute statement that would need to be revised should a larger and/or more powerful rocket be created. I wouldn't write it that way, but this may be in keeping with Wikipedia's general guidelines. Further, the grammar in this article is all over the place, with a confusing mix of past and present tenses.
  • The ambiguity between Starship (referring to the upper stage) and Starship (referring to the entire launch vehicle) presents a challenge for economical writing. I blame SpaceX for this, but c'est la vie. For example, The first complete Starship spacecraft prototype achieved flight appears to use "spacecraft" as a qualifier but this is nowhere in use in SpaceX's own public documents nor in media coverage. I see that the distinction is made in the Design section, which a reader would need to examine in order to clarify the introduction. I would prefer "upper stage", as that is the primary role of the vehicle, but I will cede the point if this has already been decided.
  • In the Background section: partly because of numerous technical and political challenges. "partly" and "numerous" make the language feel cluttered. I would remove "partly" and better enumerate the challenges.
  • by attempting to recover and eventually reuse the first stage of Falcon 9, its previous launch vehicle. Can be read to imply that Falcon 9 is no longer in service, an inaccurate claim.
  • I suggest adding a paragraph describing the philosophy behind Starship in terms of the economic value of a fully reusable launch vehicle. I'll draft it when I have the occasion.
  • The link to environmental impact statement in the Starbase section implies that the FAA has required an EIS for the site when in fact only an environmental assessment is being performed. Since the EA process is incorporated in the EIS article, a pothole might be used to avoid confusion.
  • Portions of this article are redundant with SpaceX Starship development, creating a risk that inaccuracies may be introduced if one of them is edited but not the other. Further, that latter article has tags for original research and excessive detail. We should either merge them and clean them up or shift the detail over to that article.
  • If I understand Wikipedia policy (MOS:TIES) properly, units and vocabulary in this article, including the Wikidata sidebar, should use American spellings since SpaceX is a US company and operates in America.
      Done, addressed all issues. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can always use the Wikidata infobox on simplewiki and vnwiki Nigos (talk | contribs) 06:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Urve

edit

First look at a source review. Version looked at.

  • General comment: Some FAC regulars believe that sources should all be standardised in terms of capitalization of titles; this doesn't matter to me, but it is a consideration. Compare citation 78 (title case) to 16 (sentence case). Make of this what you will.
  • Cite 14, not sure if faa.gov is relevant; it's just the technical hoster of the document. If you want to include FAA in the citation, maybe Federal Aviation Administration is better than just faa.gov.
  • Good - all of the pipes (|) have been removed from site titles
  • Spot check and specifics. Based on first instance of the sources only, did not check repeated uses.
    • Reference 2: Good
    • Reference 6: where is "Raptor Vacuum" in this? I don't see it being said that it's part of Starship
    • Reference 7: don't see "its design can change rapidly" supported
    • Reference 12: Good. Probably better to compare it to the Space Shuttle than "many". You can say that there are plans to have redundancy, and that the Moon and Mars wouldn't support an escape mechanism - that's why there's not one.
    • Reference 13: OK.
    • "On SpaceX's website"? You can say "According to SpaceX" instead. This reads weirdly and the precision (a website vs. a press release) isn't necessary
    • Reference 17: OK.
    • "like all conventional rockets": One concern people may have is editorializing. Why do we need to say this? It's obviously true, but the effect it has it it diminishes the complaints by saying they're to be expected. Which may or may not be true, but I don't think we should be giving that impression.
    • Reference 24: does not say black AFAICT
    • Reference 29: Don't see this information there
    • "It is formally defined by a whitepaper" - "in a whitepaper" is better, but I'm not sure it matters
    • Reference 33: There's too much information in the source that I don't understand to check for accuracy, please verify all details yourself
    • Reference 21: theses are not generally high-quality reliable sources unless the author has become a respected academic in that area of study
  • General comment: I dislike Space.com (mixed scores at RSN), but probably OK for this article.

Have to go now, will pick up at section "Variants" when I'm able to Urve (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have less time than I thought, so if I can find some, I'll return to this. I will say that if this is nominated soon, I will either not comment or oppose on stability and probably sourcing. The spot checks I've done are concerning, because even though I'm not looking through every source, there are still problems with source-text integrity. I did some informal spot checks that I haven't written down, and several aren't supported by the citations.
I think after this peer review is done, we need to find a stable version of the article that does not have significant prose, sourcing, or layout issues. Then sit on it for a couple weeks. Then nominate it. The dozens/hundreds of edits a day are very hard to keep up with in a peer review, and especially a FAC, because the versions we review will quickly become outdated and we have to entirely start over with all of the additions/removals. My two cents. I'm disengaging from this for now. Urve (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments! I will self source check the article for all ref, since this ratio of bad ref is concerning. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:Ahecht (talk):

edit

I did some copyediting to the article, but it is nowhere near FA status. It needs to be VERY careful about differentiating between what Elon Musk claims the rocket will be able to do, and what the rocket actually can do. As I write this, the Starship portion can do nothing more than fly on three engines to 10km and land, and the booster has done nothing other than a fit check (and even then, while all the engines were installed, they weren't all plumbed in). Any claims of performance or size need to be qualified with the fact that a complete flyable rocket has not yet been built, and that Elon Musk has a long history of stating aspirational goals as facts. I fixed the sentence The rocket consists of a Super Heavy booster stage at the bottom and a Starship spacecraft at the top, making it the tallest and most powerful of all., but you have to be very careful of using statements like that without (a) qualifying them as planned, (b) dating them (as of when?), and (c) avoiding non-specific and non-encyclopedia language such as "most powerful of all" (all what?).

@Ahecht: It's pretty difficult to work on these stuffs, where everything changes everyday. I should have picked another article when joined Wikipedia... Anyways, thanks a lot for your comments, and I will try my best to improve the prose to the best of my ability. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane Yeah, this article is a great start, but it's hard to do a Featured Article on an unstable subject. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahecht   Done, hunted to the last facts. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:StarshipSLS:

edit
@CactiStaccingCrane The article is very well written. I made some edits for clarity. I also agree with the above statement from User:Ahecht that Elon Musk often puts aspirational goals as facts. I also reccommend avoiding using Elon Musk's tweets as references and instead using articles from NASASpaceflight and other similar news agencies. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 19:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@StarshipSLS Thanks for the compliments. I have removed all space.com and Musk tweets from the article, and I will skim the article again for checking and rephrasing goals. Also, welcome back! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane Thanks for the welcome! The reason I haven't been editing lately is that I've been busy with my spaceflight website. Because of this website, I will likely be editing Wikipedia on and off, so I may not reply right away when you message me on Wikipedia, so the best way to reach me would be via Discord. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 01:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@StarshipSLS Ah, alright. Good luck at working at your website! I hope that the materials inside Starship's Wikipedia page would help you partially with that goal. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! @CactiStaccingCrane StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 01:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
edit

There is a Good Article Review at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/SpaceX Starship/2. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/SpaceX_Starship/archive2&oldid=1074841559"