Talk:SpaceX Mars colonization program

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 March 2024. The result of the discussion was speedy keep by nominator.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SpaceX Mars colonization program article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 3 months

Spaceflight: SpaceX working group Mid‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by SpaceX working group.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Starship landing sites on Mars

Found an official document from the 2021 Lunar and Planetary Science Conference regarding SpaceX and JPL working together to select Starship landing sites on Mars: SpaceX Starship Landing Sites on Mars

Includes information on 22 potential sites and 4 primary sites. Anyone have thoughts on how best to incorporate this information into the article? Yiosie 2356 05:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prior launch vehicle proposals

I split that section in a section for SpaceX Red Dragon and a section for the SpaceX Starship design process. That way, this otherwise specific second section can be linked to in a much more versatile, clear, standard and explicit way. It also makes it consistent with the Space Shuttle equivalent "Space Shuttle design process". Similarly to the Space Shuttle's, Starship's design process could deserve its own page — albeit it would be redundant on SpaceX ambition of colonizing Mars. What is the solution here? I do think this article is trying to do too many things at once, but I would also agree that the Mars Colonial Transporter design concept is relevant here. @User:CactiStaccingCrane CodemWiki (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"SpaceX Mars propellant plant" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect SpaceX Mars propellant plant has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 18 § SpaceX Mars propellant plant until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 15:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How really tall the SpaceX interplanetary transport system without the super heavy

SpaceX interplanetary transport system height 103.167.66.182 (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORUM

IIRC, 48 meters without booster, Redacted II (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of proposed Mars landings.

I feel like the history section is missing some parts of the history of proposed Starship Mars landings. While its good to have the current timeline proposal, this is definitely not the first time Mr. Musk has promissed a Starship mars landing within a couple years. If someone has the time/motivation to compile a more comprihensive summary of past Starship/Mars timelines, this page would definitely benifit. 138.246.3.72 (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, would improve the article if this were done and added.

Sadly, much of this material has been written in this article in the past, and over-energetic editors come to the page and often seem to want to make it more of a newsmagazine on current plans, which Wikipedia IsNotANewspaper.

See the Talk page archives for some of this: ex. 2014 Aeon article interview w Musk is mentioned, as well as my own comment from Sep 2016 specifically requesting that we retain the History of the SpaceX plans. Will take some editing work to recover the lost info: but perhaps you would be up for that 138.246.3.72 ? Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinionated Criticism Section

The entire criticism section is written in passive voice (it has been argued, has been criticized etc.) and is full of weasel words and original research. To name a few examples:

"Mars colonization has been called a 'dangerous delusion' by Lord Martin Rees, a British cosmologist/astrophysicist and the Astronomer Royal of the United Kingdom. Musk has stated that staying on Mars is a life threatening endeavor that needs to be glorious to be worth it."

This is clearly original research implying that musk is delusional. See example: Wikipedia:No_original_research

Exploration of Mars has also been argued to be better left to the already successful robotic missions, with crewed missions simply being too expensive, dangerous and boring.

This is clearly a weasel word used to mask personal opinion. See example: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Clarity"

This is a very important section and needs to be rewritten to a higher quality. A good start would be to integrate who^[who?] is arguing these points directly into the prose, instead of hiding the authors in the sources (the same guardian article is cited in 4 different 'it is argued' sentances describing different critiques).

The criticism of the SpaceX colonization program is very real and deserves a quality description with a neutral point of view. This means no weasel words, appeals to authority, or original research. This section is highly editorialized, which should be avoided. 2A0C:5BC0:40:1008:2E58:B9FF:FE38:5854 (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]