Talk:DearMoon project

There's a good chance this won't happen

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.

---

Therefore let's not write this article as though any of this is guaranteed. Use "is planned for" rather than "will". FOARP (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It looks like it won't happen at all: [1]. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Or, it will be launched with the BFR instead. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Good call Mchcopl (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2018 (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.

Mission not cancelled

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.

---

Musk never cancelled this space tourism mission, he just said that Falcon Heavy will not be used for crewed flights. Now, this mission is likely to be carried out by the Big Falcon Rocket. So it's probably wrong that it wouldn't be planned anymore, it seems to be still on track. --212.186.7.98 (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

If the mission is launched instead with he BFR, then the update requires that you delete the use of the Dragon capsule, Falcon Heavy and Falcon 9. BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The modified Dragon capsule is still gonna be used, only the carrier rocket will be changed. --212.186.7.98 (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

If Musk is using the BFR for the lunar tourism, then he is not using the Dragon 2. That should be updated/deleted. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, this sounds like just personal speculation. Unless we have a good source for the BFR plan, we should not mention it. — JFG ^talk 19:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

What sounds like speculation is to launch the BFR with something else that it was designed for: 1) At the top of the BFR is the Big Falcon Spaceship. 2) “We kind of tabled the Crew Dragon on Falcon Heavy in favor of focusing our energy on BFR.” Rowan Forest (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

no longer just speculation, after the announcement last night^ref it has been confirmed this is the same customer, same plan just a different more capable vehicle Stepbot (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The speculation by that user was launching the Dragon capsule on a BFR. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry struggling with the indentation here... I agree that "The modified Dragon capsule is still gonna be used, only the carrier rocket will be changed." is wild, unfounded, and incorrect speculation. Thought you were referring to "If the mission is launched instead with he BFR, then the update requires that you delete the use of the Dragon capsule, Falcon Heavy and Falcon 9" Stepbot (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2018 (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.

Mission now on BFR, more Sep 17

SpaceX has signed the world’s first private passenger to fly around the Moon aboard our BFR launch vehicle—an important step toward enabling access for everyday people who dream of traveling to space. Find out who’s flying and why on Monday, September 17.. --mfb (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 18 September 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. (page mover nac) Flooded with them hundreds 09:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

---

SpaceX lunar tourism mission → dearMoon Project – Yusaku Maezawa's name for the mission and its associated projects, which I'd imagine would come under the scope of this article. The official website can be found here. The true name is #dearMoon Project, but the pound sign would have to be ommitted due to technical issues. A {{Correct title}} hatnote would be used to indicate this at the top of the article. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 02:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that the flight is a part of the project, not all of it. After they create their art, they will expose/perform. Question: Is it SpaceX's flight or Maezawa's? Rowan Forest (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: There wouldn't be a need to split the articles into different parts of the project, so I'd imagine everything involved in the project, the SpaceX-operated flight included, would come under the scope of this single article. Also, throughout the presentation, both Musk and Maezawa stressed that Maezawa fully funded the flight and chose SpaceX to launch it. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 03:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

My intent was to begin discussions to define, from the perspective of Wikipedia, if the central subject will be the mission architecture, rocket performance, etc. as done with other space missions, or if to focus on DearMoon Project (which is my inclination at this point) and include the technical aspects of the flight as a near secondary subject of this art project. Rowan Forest (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

It is revolutionary from the spaceflight aspect on its own. This is not the 186th flight of some rocket where we can just focus on the mission of the spacecraft. --mfb (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: The article is currently only seventeen sentences long, and considering the lack of information there is on the entire project as a whole, let alone the flight itself, at this stage, I doubt there'll be a need to split the article into two or more for a long time to come. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 03:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: What we are dealing with, currently, is the particular lunar flyby mission, which is called dearMoon project. The SpaceX BFR is just a [significant] part of this project. When and if there are other BFR flights to the Moon, a proper Wikipedia page is to be created, I think. Igor Krein (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I think we all agree in that the scope of this article is to be focused on dearMoon Project. That means to delete the section "2017 announcement" and re-write the rest. Rowan Forest (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Why throw away history? I think retitle the page to focus on dearMoon but I think despite how little information there is about the project circa 2017, that was still the first stages of the project and should be told as such.Stepbot (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

If he was the secret client in 2017, then yes. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Elon confirmed it in an answer to a question asked by ABC in the Q&A time of the announcement. If you didnt watch it or at least read a transcript of it I would recommend doing so as it is at this time a primary source for this page. r/SpaceX has a nice summary thread of it on reddit if you need to get up to speed. Stepbot (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Support/Oppose

• Support - Rename and focus on DearMoon Project. I don't think the hashtag is necessary, as that is a Tweeter thing. Rowan Forest (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Rename and change to a style similar to an article about a satellite: includes description about the launch, but mainly focuses on the mission/results (e.g. the art exhibition) XYZt (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Rename and focus on DearMoon Project with style focused on mission and results rather than the vehicle. I think this will eventually be three pages,DearMoon Project,BFR Flight XX and possibly something like SpaceX Space Tourism Programs but for now, I think the DearMoon project is the central thing tying it all together. Stepbot (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Neither the engineering or the artistic side of this project are well understood in any detail yet, and both would be stubs individually. For now, they should remain as a single article with a clear, descriptive but generic title. Later, when more is known, the artistic side to the project can be split off as DearMoon Project, and the engineering side as BFR Flight XX. Anxietycello (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support — the mission has been notable for a couple of years, and passed WP:GNC a long time ago. Now, with the mission having a specific focus and a payload and a sponsoring purchaser of payload services form a launch service provider, the article should clearly pickup the name of the primary payload, just as has been our policy in spaceflight articles for a long time. We've discussed and settled on this as a general practice in the Spaceflight WikiProject as well. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support — regardless of how many articles there will be in the future, at this point there's just the one project, which we now have a name for. Λυδαcιτγ 01:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support - the name for the project has been formally announced along with who is paying for it all. While it was anonymous in terms of the project sponsors it made sense for a more generic title, but that time has passed. It has always been about a singular project and I haven't seen that change in terms of some group like Space Adventures signing up a whole series of flights. There is also zero reason to distinguish the spacecraft from the artistic project since it is all rolled up together and being purchased with the same funds. If the spacecraft itself is named (Elon Musk suggested naming the first vehicle "Heart of Gold" more than once), that can be split into a separate article... especially if it is used in multiple noteworthy missions/flights. I agree that the hashtag is not necessary in the naming convention here either, and likely won't be used in press reports beyond the initial descriptions. --Robert Horning (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support — All human spaceflight missions have an article named after the mission. In this case the mission is called "DearMoon" not "Apollo 11", but the same logic applies. The DearMoon Mission will fly on a SpaceX BFR Rocket in a similar way the Apollo 11 mission flew on a NASA Saturn V rocket. There are already articles on SpaceX and BFR, this article is about the mission and should follow existing naming conventions. If DearMoon becomes a multi-mission project like Project Apollo, then a separate page on the larger project can be created.

• Support — SpaceX lunar tourism mission is not specific enough. It has already been given a name by Yusaku. "DearMoon" is a better name. I don't think it should be called "dearMoon" or "#dearMoon", because that seems like a Twitter thing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mchcopl (talk • contribs) 12:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support "DearMoon" – "SpaceX lunar tourism mission" was a descriptive title for lack of a proper name for the article subject in sources. Now that the project has been named, DearMoon is a better choice. I think calling it "DearMoon Project" is unnecessary, just "DearMoon" is WP:PRECISE enough while more WP:CONCISE. — JFG ^talk 21:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Wording

Although it is not 7 days yet, it looks like there is a strong consensus to move the page name, but there are a few close variations proposed, so lets refine the exact wording. #dearMoon seems to have no traction, as it is a Tweeter handle. The other proposed names are:

• DearMoon
• DearMoon Project
• dearMoon
• dearMoon Project
• #dearMoon
• #dearMoon Project

I tend to favor the simplicity of DearMoon, per JFG argument above. Your thoughts? Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: As I had mentioned in my original nomination paragraph, the pound sign has to be omitted because of technical restrictions; the pound sign is used on MediaWiki for specific purposes, such as a URL tool to get to certain points on a page. If included in a title, it would basically break the URL and default to Wikipedia's Main Page. So to correct the record, "#dearMoon" was omitted as an option not because "[has] no traction", but because it is technically impossible for the page title to be that. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 02:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The website uses "#dearMoon" everywhere. We keep the capital M so I think we should also keep the small d. For technical reasons the page has to start with a capital letter but we can use {{lowercase title}} and use a small d everywhere in the article. I suggest dearMoon, with a headnote about the "#". --mfb (talk) 07:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree with dearMoon enabled by {{lowercase title}}. — JFG ^talk 13:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Note that we could also use {{Correct title|#dearMoon}} if the name with hashtag is deemed to be the 'correct' name . Rosbif73 (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I would put alternatives as redirects and definitely in the lead paragraph, but I would personally suggest sticking with DearMoon Project as the article title itself. Reliable 3rd party sources like Motherboard are using the form Dear Moon Project without the hashtag and including a space. It would be interesting to compare other sources before trying to copy the crazy twitter hashtag in terms of naming conventions. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Motherboard is not necessarily known for its high quality. space.com: #dearMoon. medium.com: #dearMoon. businessinsider: #dearMoon. bbc: #dearMoon, ... --mfb (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest going with either Dear Moon or Dear Moon Project (with a personal preference for the former). It is common in hashtags and URLs to run words together but that doesn't mean we need to follow that convention in ordinary written prose. Oska (talk) 09:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia usually follows the common name. "dearMoon" is not limited to the URL, you also see it all over the website and secondary sources. We also have StarTram, LauncherOne, DragonFly and more articles with a capital letter in the middle. --mfb (talk) 07:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

US space law and legal matters for "spaceflight participants" Maezawa + artists

Here is an attorney-written essay on how the space law aspects of this flight will work under the current US legal regime for spaceflight participants. The Fine Print that Comes with Maezawa’s Lunar Tourism, Laura Montgomery, 19 September 2018. As we get more sources on this, I think we could improve the article with a summary paragraph or so on the risk and legal liability aspects of this groundbreaking flight. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 29 September 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to DearMoon project with a lowercase project. (non-admin closure) — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

---

DearMoon Project → dearMoon – Following up on the prior discussion, I suggest to shorten the article title to be simply "dearMoon". The word "project" brings no extra information, and it does not seem to be part of an official project designation. Initial lowercase and mention of the "#dearMoon" exact name should remain in place. — JFG ^talk 18:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Pinging prior RM participants @Anxietycello, Audacity, Igor Krein, Mchcopl, Mfb, N2e, Oska, PhilipTerryGraham, Robert Horning, Rosbif73, Rowan Forest, Stepbot, and XYZtSpace: comments welcome. — JFG ^talk 18:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Notifying Definitely Heisenberg because of username change. — JFG ^talk 18:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Sound argument. Neutral. Looks like some parts of the website still has "dearMoon Project", while other parts don't. Posted by XYZt (talk  |  contribs) on 18:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC); Updated 21:55, 29 September 2018
• Oppose - "Project" is part of the official name as seen on their site #dearMoon Project Schedule (TBD), at the bottom of the site ©2018 #dearMoon Project All rights reserved., by their twitter handle[2] and Instagram account [3]. --Gonnym (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
• Drop the # — I am neutral on the use of upper case or lower case, or even dropping off the word 'Project', but the use of the Tweeter hashtag # makes me sick. Rowan Forest (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The hashtag symbol at the beginning has been used in each instance I've seen of the name. Wikipedia uses the common name. Do you have examples without the hashtag? Killiondude (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Spaceflight Now, [4]. It is a common understanding that the symbol is a Tweeter hashtag added to the name. Rowan Forest (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by common understanding? What do you mean by "Tweeter"? I'm unfamiliar with that term. You seem much more knowledgeable than me. Thanks for your help! Killiondude (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• Neutral/Comment - I think it is simply premature to see how the name is going to be used and it is going to take awhile to see how "common usage" will end up taking the name of this project. I personally hate the hashtag, but that is a personal preference here in terms of somebody taking a functional network code vs. something used formally as a trademark. If you could point to some official government document like a trademark application it would go a whole lot further in terms of pointing out "official style" of how the capitalization and spacing of the name ought to be used. Sometimes you might find a formal press release coming up with a style guide for how the organization wants press reports about that organization or group to be used. I'm not seeing any of that so far. Oddly enough, I just performed a search of the USPTO for "dearMoon" and got some...rather odd pre-existing trademark usage for the words that have absolutely nothing at all to do with spaceflight and might not even be flattering to this project either. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Use lowercase p - Thanks for the ping. It seems that the "official name" might sometimes include the word "project" and sometimes not, but I think including "project" in the title is a good idea just to clarify what the article is about. I'd imagine that there'd be more links in other articles to DearMoon project than just to DearMoon. Λυδαcιτγ 02:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Just noticed that the "P" is capital. I'd suggest renaming to DearMoon project. Λυδαcιτγ 02:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Well, English is not my native language, so I could miss some small but important bit, but still... The dearmoon.earth website indeed uses both #dearMoon and #dearMoon Project names, and this fact alone means that the Project actually is not an essential part of the name. It looks like it is used only to indicate that we are dealing with a project and not with a company, organisation or some other entity. Here some quotes from Maezawa: "I hope that this project will inspire the dreamer within each of us. [...] I am truly blessed by this opportunity to become Host Curator of "#dearMoon". [...] I vouch to make this project a success." Again, I am far from being an expert in English, but what I see here is: there is some project and it is called #dearMoon. Igor Krein (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment – The hashtag is not essential, and I'm not sure we should elevate it with the {{correct title}} hatnote. As is common practice on other articles per MOS:TMSTYLE, we could say: "The dearMoon project, stylized "#dearMoon", is a lunar tourism mission and art project…". To simplify further, we could also write: "#dearMoon is a lunar tourism mission and art project…" I find this last version more elegant. — JFG ^talk 08:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I like either of these suggestions. Killiondude (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose dropping "project" altogether, firstly because WP:PRECISE is IMO more important than WP:CONCISE here (and two words is reasonably concise anyway), and secondly because it allows more latitude for naming future detailed pages once those become necessary. Support move to lowercase p, however. I think the # should be kept in the {{correct title}}, because that is what the project calls itself even in a non-twitter context and that is how we have referred to it throughout the article (and, as a secondary point, because having the hatnote will help avoid protracted edit/comment wars about the inclusion of the hashtag). Rosbif73 (talk) 06:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment - Note that the very popular #MeToo movement article in Wikipedia does not use the Tweeter hashtag: Me Too movement. I don't see why we should use it here. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Huh? It is called "#MeToo" everywhere in the article. It can't use it in the lemma for technical reasons. --mfb (talk) 06:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Tweeter hashtag is not used in the name, look again, the hashtag is correctly presented as a secondary alternate name. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Yusaku Maezawa is resigned from the moon tourism

According to the Business Insider, "Yusaku Maezawa plans to sell a 30% stake in his online fashion retail company, Zozo, to Yahoo Japan. As part of the $3.7 billion tender offer, Maezawa will resign take home $2.3 billion."[5] What do you think with this? —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 04:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

He is resigning for the Moon tourism. He sold most of his shares in the company to pay for the mission. --mfb (talk) 05:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Any updates for this mission?

I'm attracted by the content in this page, will there be any updates for this mission since 2019? Update on Feb 2019 is the latest update I could find on this page. Are there any people accept the invitation from Yusaku already? Who did he invite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anfinite (talk • contribs) 06:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Normal people

Suggest that this is an inappropriate term Sheps (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I replaced it by "passengers". --mfb (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)