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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is there any serious opposition to mars expeditions? I am personally against any attempt to go to mars, not to speak to send humans, it seems to be such a really childish pursuit. Not particularly technically clever, just hugely expensive, an overgrown child dream like going to the moon or the space station. Plus the contamination issue. The most reveling justification is the one of the backup location for a specie which might be destroying the planet where it could live in harmony if it only would keep quiet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omblauman (talk • contribs) 17:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
SpaceX interplanetary transport system height 103.167.66.182 (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)