Talk:SpaceX Starship/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

Misleading lead

I'm not so happy with various wordings in the lead which sound quite misleading to me:

• Reading the lead suggests to a casual reader that the SpaceX starship is something like the extremely wellknown starship enterprise. Alalch_E. added a footnote, but it's quite late and will be missed by most readers.
• The sentence "Starship is the largest and most powerful rocket ever flown, surpassing the Soviet N1 rocket, the Saturn V of the 1960s Apollo Program and the SLS of the current Artemis Program" is somehow misleading, too. While "flown" is technically correct, it suggests to casual readers that it surpasses the successes of these other space vehicles, while in reality the Saturn V and SLS have flown astronauts into orbit and beyond, while the SpaceX Starhip hasn't yet.

Especially taken together it suggests to readers which are not familiar with the details that the SpaceX Starship made the Star Trek starships reality.

Let me make the following proposal. It's only slightly longer than the current lead, and would solve the mentioned problems. But of course I'm also open for other solutions.

Starship, named after the theoretical spacecraft capable of interstellar travel, is a super heavy-lift space vehicle under development intended for flights to earth orbit, moon and mars by SpaceX. Currently the first and only test flight reached 50 km height. At 120 metres (394 feet) in height and with a liftoff mass of 5,000 metric tons (11,023,000 pounds), Starship is the largest and most powerful rocket ever built, surpassing the Soviet N1 rocket, the Saturn V used for the first moon landing and the SLS of the current Artemis Program.

Any thoughts? Zae8 (talk) 10:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Zae8 (talk) 10:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The "named after the theoretical spacecraft capable of interstellar travel" part is absolutely unnecessary so early in the lead. The next sentence says Starship is a rocket. I think it's relevant, but later in the lead. It shouldn't be a note (most readers don't check notes), probably just a sentence "but despite its name not interstellar travel" or something along this.

I also don't understand why you and others want to keep on adding information about other rockets such as the SLS or the Saturn V in the lead of the Starship page, there is no point in specifying Saturn V reached the Moon. The title of the page is "SpaceX Starship", not "Comparison of super heavy lift launch vehicles". CodemWiki (talk) 10:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the "starship" issue, I'm definitely open about other solutions. I agree that this specific wording is not necessary, but I think it is necessary to resolve that problem in the first sentence somehow. Far more people know Star Trek starships than SpaceX starship.

I don't want to add information about other rockets in the lead. It is already present right now, and I didn't delete it. I'm absolutely fine with removing this whole sentence.

What about the following more compact version?

Starship, named after theoretical interstellar spacecrafts, is a super heavy-lift space vehicle under development by SpaceX intended for flights to earth orbit, moon and mars. Currently the first and only test flight reached 50 km height. At 120 metres (394 feet) in height and with a liftoff mass of 5,000 metric tons (11,023,000 pounds), Starship is the largest and most powerful rocket ever built.

Zae8 (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand the reasoning behind specifying SpaceX Starship is named after starships? It seems obvious and unnecessary - and definitely not compact. Also SpaceX has never really talked about it because it's really not relevant. It's also not what people that read the article are looking for. A simple sentence saying Starship is a planned for trips to the Moon, the Mars etc but despite its name not interstellar travel is plenty enough.

A lead sentence should be concise and get the main points straight instead of wasting a whole sentence worth of words on obvious details.

I'm not sure what the lead sentence should be, I think the current one is a decent compromise - with maybe too much focus on Starship surpassing other rockets but that's about it.

I agree with your idea that one of the first lead sentences should specify "Starship is intended for flights to earth orbit, moon and mars.". Maybe add to that sentence, something along "but despite its name, not interstellar travel"? CodemWiki (talk) 11:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the reasoning behind the name is not important, as long the common misperception is avoided.

Therefore, based on your proposal, what about simply the following?

Starship is a super heavy-lift space vehicle under development by SpaceX intended for flights to earth orbit, moon and mars, but despite its name not designed for interstellar travel. Currently the first and only test flight reached 50 km height. At 120 metres (394 feet) in height and with a liftoff mass of 5,000 metric tons (11,023,000 pounds), Starship is the largest and most powerful rocket ever built.

Zae8 (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Zae8 (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

" but despite its name not designed for interstellar travel" is still too early in the lead in my opinion. And we should probably have the opinion of others users when discussing changing the lead.

My opinion is still that this revision was really great and we shouldn't change much beyond that. Sorry. CodemWiki (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

That version does not solve the two issues with the lead I mentioned at the beginning. The lead shoult not suggest that we are talking about something like the Star Trek starships here. Ok, I think I go with the uncontroversial changes first, and then let's see. Zae8 (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I changed the lead to address the discussed problems with hopefully non-controversial changes. CodemWiki, I didn't include your change from the "really great" version, since this seemed to be controversial and was reverted by another author. What do you think about the current versions? Feedback and suggestions for further improvements from anyone else? Zae8 (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Current version is clean, I like it. I'm not a deletionist however for lead sections, less is often better. CodemWiki (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

No, that's Star Trek fantasy world again. Zae8 (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here. The article clearly states the purpose of the vehicle in the lead. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Nobody seems to be under the impression that the vehicle is a sci-fi interstellar voyager. It's clearly a launch vehicle, for pete's sake. The version you restored contains information non-critical for the first paragraph and is also grammatically poor. You are also the only one arguing this point here. Sub31k (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks like we have a stable version in the lead now. I would like to point out that SLS hasn't flown astronauts yet, contrary to the claim in the first comment here. "Flown" does not imply anything about crewed flights anyway. --mfb (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Change lead image

Personally, I think that the image in the lead should be changed, per the following two reasons:

• The Starship vehicle isn't clear on that picture
• Nearly all the other rocket articles show the rocket with the launch pad still in the frame; doing so here as well would keep that consistency

Does anyone have any objections, or ideas for what picture to use instead? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The image is the best that we have, for a few reasons:

1: The rocket is in flight. As far as I know, this is the only photo Wikipedia has of an integrated Starship in flight.

2: The vehicle is "modern" The only other photo's Wikipedia has are of B4S20, but again, I could be wrong here. While S24 and B7 weren't the most modern prototypes, even at the time of flight, they were about six months younger than B4S20, and far closer to any "operational" version.

If you have a candidate image, I'd love to see it. But until then, I cannot support any motion to change the image. Redacted II (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Launch Statistics Bar Graph

Would anyone be opposed to separating prototype failures from failures of the "actual" vehicle, in the Bar Graph present in the Launch Statistics section, and not in the Infobox? Redacted II (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I completely support this. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I have a "prototype chart", do you have any objections to this?

3

'23

'24

'25

'26

•   Prototype Failure
•   Failure
•   Prototype Success
•   Success
•   Planned Prototype
•   Planned

Redacted II (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm against it, since the vehicle that launched on 20 April was supposed to be a functional vehicle, even if it was a prototype. I think the majority of people who got caught up in those intergalactic nuclear wars that broke out earlier this year would probably say the same thing. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 00:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

A "prototype" vs. "everything else" classification has been rejected over and over again, but a handful of editors will keep trying to add it everywhere and forever. For now I think we don't need a graph at all. Once we have a handful of launches we can add a graph and maybe distinguish between prototypes and different versions of operational vehicles (Starlink launcher, tanker, ...). --mfb (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

WHY IS IT A PROBLEM. TELL ME. BECAUSE ITS NEW?!? Sorry, i got carried away. It wasnt fully functional, and it is still changing. Just like falcon nine block four and five. different, but similar.

(btw i need some judging for my idea under this cooment(s)) Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Prototypes are a distinct "version", very different from what any potential "functional" or "operational" vehicle may be like.

The graphs in Falcon 9 distinguish between the different versions (they even differentiate between new and reused boosters).

There are five graphs in the Falcon 9 article. One of them is for "Rocket configurations". Adding a similar graph needs to be done.

(oh, and Fehér Zsigmond-03, please calm down). Redacted II (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The graphs in the page for Falcon do not distinguish prototypes from operational vehicles. Stop trying to argue that any of these graphs somehow should as it's been explained to you numerous times before.

The ship has already sank (literally), so stop trying to insist that it's unsinkable. Beating this dead horse over and over again constitutes a waste of people's time. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 14:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

They distinguish versions of the vehicle. Prototype is a version. Therefore, in order to be consistent with that article, the different versions need to be clearly separated.

I am not saying Starship is unsinkable, and I honestly have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

Can we agree that S24 and B7 are radically different from any future operational vehicle, given the differences between B7 and B9? Redacted II (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

None of these articles specifically say "prototype", so neither should this article. Other articles distinguish between variants of operational vehicles, not between prototypes and operational vehicles, so neither should this article. I myself and others have explained this to you an uncountably infinite number of times in the past.

This is not a trivial difference. Do you not understand this, or do you wilfully ignore it? DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 14:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Please try to avoid personal attacks.

That being said, I consider "prototype" to be a version of the vehicle.

If you want prototype to not count, sure. But that means the # of launches in the infobox should say 0. After all, it was a prototype, and not an operational vehicle. Falcon 9 doesn't include the Grasshopper, so why should Starship include S24/B7? Or the next set of vehicles?

So, if prototype launches DO count as launches, then therefore, they must be variants of the operational vehicle. Redacted II (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, we're not going to change every other rocketry article to reflect what is, quite frankly, a flawed way of doing things.

Secondly, I never said that they "shouldn't count". They should, but other rocketry articles lump in prototypes with operational vehicles; they don't list them separately. Starship should be no different. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 14:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Other articles don't record prototypes and operational vehicles together.

Please, provide some examples (other than this article). But, just to rule out a few:

Falcon 9 v1.0 (not prototype, not even on the first flight)

Atlas V's first flight used an identical vehicle to what launched November 10th, 2022/

Delta III was intended on being the successor to Delta II, so not a prototype.

If you disagree with any of these examples, then I'd love to discuss that. Redacted II (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of whether prototypes are lumped in or not listed, other articles don't list prototypes separately when counting vehicular success or failure rates, and neither should this article. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 15:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

This isn't in regard to the infobox. This is regarding the bar chart (which is an excerpt from list of SpaceX starship flight tests).

That article also separates prototype and operational launches into different sections (Prototypes v.s Future operational flights).

So, in order to be consistent with other articles, the bar chart has to be changed to separate "operational" and prototype launches as different versions of the same vehicle. Redacted II (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I know this isn't in regard to the infobox.

Secondly, it's true that the article you mentioned discusses prototypes and operational launches separately, but that's not what we're talking about here.

Thirdly, the bar charts on other rocketry articles with bar charts don't list prototypes separately. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 15:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

"First of all, I know this isn't in regard to the infobox."

I just wanted to make sure, due to what you have often called "the intergalactic nuclear war".

As for "Secondly, it's true that the article you mentioned discusses prototypes and operational launches separately, but that's not what we're talking about here."

Actually, it is. You said "other articles don't list prototypes separately when counting vehicular success or failure rates", and I was providing counter evidence, that also happened to be from the article that the debated chart is an excerpt of.

"Thirdly, the bar charts on other rocketry articles with bar charts don't list prototypes separately"

I consider prototypes (in this case) to be a version of the vehicle. And my logic regarding this has been listed in earlier discussions.

But you have made some very excellent points, and I would be more than happy to modify my proposal based on those points. Redacted II (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Those articles have separate sections discussing the prototypes and operational vehicles, but the graphs do not list prototypes separately.

If you want to stay out of trouble, I would suggest retracting this proposal completely and moving on. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 15:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

"If you want to stay out of trouble, I would suggest retracting this proposal completely and moving on"

Why retract it? So far, 50% are in support.

"Those articles have separate sections discussing the prototypes and operational vehicles, but the graphs do not list prototypes separately."

The proposal is to change the graphs, so saying that the graphs in that article (which the graphs here are an excerpt of) don't separate prototypes from other vehicles is irrelevant.

And like the last comment, I'm shifting this over so we don't have an increasingly narrow chain of replies. Please don't move it. Redacted II (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Your sample size is way too small to be able to safely say whether people support or oppose this change. I recommend retracting it because you're beating a dead horse.

If prototypes were listed separately, it wouldn't be consistent with other rocketry articles with such graphs. So this point of mine is absolutely relevant. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 16:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

"Your sample size is way too small to be able to safely say whether people support or oppose this change. I recommend retracting it because you're beating a dead horse." The sample size is limited, I agree with you on that. I never said people support it. I only said it's not opposed (1:1 ratio). And given that it's unrelated to the "intergalactic nuclear war", it is in no way beating a dead horse"

"If prototypes were listed separately, it wouldn't be consistent with other rocketry articles with such graphs. So this point of mine is absolutely relevant."

I gave an example of an article that separated them. And as I said, the proposal is to change THIS graph. I interpreted that complaint as you stating "the graph in the article you mentioned doesn't back your statement". Well, they are the same graph, therefore, that graph (not the organizational structure of the article) is irrelevant. I was not trying to say that the lack of prototypes being separated in other graphs is irrelevant. Redacted II (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

> And given that it's unrelated to the "intergalactic nuclear war", it is in no way beating a dead horse

It is, since both of these are covering attempting to distinguish between prototypes and operational vehicles.

> I gave an example of an article that separated them. And as I said, the proposal is to change THIS graph.

Exactly, and I recommend you abandon this before it turns into another war. Please, just move on.

DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 16:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

"It is, since both of these are covering attempting to distinguish between prototypes and operational vehicles."

Which is an important distinction. It's like saying Falcon 9 1.10 had a failure because F9R Dev 1 exploded. Or Block 5.

"Exactly, and I recommend you abandon this before it turns into another war. Please, just move on."

I have no intention of abandoning this. There was even a week long period where it had 100% support. I could have implemented it then. But I didn't, because I didn't want to start another huge debate.

We can discuss this peacefully, and come to a solution that we both approve of (or at least don't disapprove of), while being consistent with other articles.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your main objection is that you don't believe prototypes count as a variant of the vehicle, while I do.

But (at least from my perspective), if prototypes are not a variant of the vehicle, why is one being counted as a failure, or a launch at all?

Maybe we can make a rocket configuration chart instead? The article will need one eventually. Redacted II (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know. What I am completely against is your simultaneous preaching of "consistency" and pushing in favour of something that breaks said consistency.

You can't really say it "had 100% support" since there were never many people involved in the discussion. That's hasty gerneralisation.

Prototypes are a variant of the vehicle, but it wouldn't be fair to give them special treatment because they're prototypes, which is what you're doing.

As long as you don't abandon this, you're wasting everybody's time. I already know what the opinion of most people who visit this page will be. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 18:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not given "prototypes" special treatment. I'm giving them the same treatment as other versions. The Falcon 9 article is the main basis of my arguments. Look at that to see if separating different versions of a rocket is or isn't consistent with other articles. Or Atlas V, to a lesser degree.

The only reason I mention consistency in my arguments is because you have consistently mentioned it in yours. That's how counterarguments work.

And 2/2 is 100%, so there's that.

But please, establish what you think the regular treatment of a vehicle variant is in an article. I'm curious Redacted II (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Redacted II: Can't believe we're revisiting this again. It still has not yet launched a second time. Refer to our conversation on Archive 6 in which you agreed As long as we can agree to revisit this when another vehicle launches, I'm fine with dropping this. Redacted II (talk) 3:32 pm, 18 May 2023, Thursday. On top of which, this graph is ridiculous. What WP:CRYSTALBALL do you have that indicates that the 2023 launches will be "prototypes", and the 2024 and 2025 ones won't be? We only have one launch, and only vague approximate plans for future launches. This launch vehicle is still early and we are miles away from having a hard schedule. Consensus is to describe this first launch as a failure and not a "prototype failure", again refer to archive 6 and archive 7. Please drop the stick. Leijurv (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I did say it was a "prototype" of the graph.

I was thinking that there wouldn't be very hard opposition to updating the graph, but, well, I thought the same about the note, which led to an RFC. I was wrong.

However, thank you for politely correcting me here. Next time, can you leave me a talk page message instead? Redacted II (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

With respect to the infobox, the note, the graph: My guess is that you're a fan of SpaceX (I am too), and you want Starship to be described fairly on Wikipedia (I do too). But we have to be fair. As a fan, I might want to paint it in the best light. For example, I might want all the initial failures to be marked as prototypes, then when it starts working I might want all of those to be marked as the operational vehicle. But, we have to fairly weigh, judge, and evaluate how to describe Starship in a way that's supported by reliable sources. As a part of this editorial discretion, we use consensus among editors to agree. Yes, consensus can change, but it's not enough to just wait a few months. In a scenario like this, you'd want something new to have happened (e.g. another launch), or at least to have discovered some new WP:RS to cite.

To be frank, I think that eventually, years in the future, you'll probably end up getting what you want here. I bet the initial versions of Starship will be generally understood by reliable sources as a separate category, perhaps a "v1", and we'll have a situation just like the Falcon 9 article that you're referring to. However, this hasn't happened quite yet. Starship doesn't really have versions yet. It would be WP:SYNTH / WP:OR to invent versions, and it would be WP:CRYSTALBALL to guess what the versions will be in the future.

With respect to user talk, I suppose I could do both, but generally per WP:TPG, WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, and WP:DETCON, if we're talking about what should go in this article, the discussion should happen here on the talk page for that article, so that others will see and evaluate it. But regardless I will tone it down a bit, I didn't really need to sarcastically ask about your crystal ball etc Leijurv (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Just so you know, I have never seen a more accurate description of any situation. I am very much a fan of SpaceX (though not Elon), and I thought a few months was enough (with a bit of bad timing on when the note RFC was closed).

In regards to asking you to place these messages on my talk page, I was referring to warning messages.

Finally, you have no reason to apologize for your message. Redacted II (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Against. It's another atempt to deviate from the previous consensus and contradicts WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is no Musk fan page, but an encyclopedia. Zae8 (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

how is this musk fandom? its just to clear things up.

(btw i need some help with my idea under this comment) Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

There's no need to "clear things up" since everything is clear enough as it stands. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 18:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I oppose this change as it goes against the consensus reached in two separate RfCs which was to not list the ships, which failed after liftoff, as prototypes. This is not okay. Please take into account the consensus reached previously when discussing or making edits. Yasslaywikia (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I oppose - This is another attempt to break the consensus that was previously established multiple times. CtrlDPredator (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

One, it's not. The previous consensus was in regards to the Infobox.

Two: this topic is already dead, and will remain so until IFT-2. It doesn't need further discussion until then. Redacted II (talk) 13:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The consensus reached from the RFC on the infobox can be applied here too as another attempt has been made again to classify the Starships which have crashed thus far as prototypes, and the infobox RfC reached consensus to not clarify that the Starships which crashed were prototypes, and we shouldn’t do so for the foreseeable future until Starship has successfully launched with consensus being reached on the matter when the time comes. Yasslaywikia (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

"and we shouldn’t do so for the foreseeable future until Starship has successfully launched with consensus being reached on the matter when the time"

While (as I've stated before) I'm not going to push for a clarification until IFT-2, I won't wait for a successful flight of Starship.

If you want me to list some of the changes I plan to discuss after IFT-2, I can do that. Redacted II (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Reiterating your argument numerous times weakens it, even when it’s completely valid. I’d like you list the changes you plan to discuss after the second test flight, however, if the second test flight is not successful, then I’d advise you to hold off until a successful flight happens. If you don’t, other editors may not be pleased with your persistence to repeat the same point again and again, despite it receiving significant pushback. Personally, I would be open to clarifying the prototype status of the current line of Starships in the future after a successful flight, and this is the impression I get from the majority of editors who participated in the previous RfCs as well. Yasslaywikia (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll take your advice into consideration. I have been warned from WP:Bludgeoning before, and I try to avoid that as much as possible. And I do factor in the previous consensus's when proposing edits.

My changes (I may add or remove from this list over time) are as follows:

Clearly state S24/B7 as prototypes. However, as several arguments against this in previous RFCS were over concerns of infobox size, the clarifier would be similar to that in the Atlas V page. Atlas V has 11 different version, but in order to see the divide in the version (what version failed, what version didn't), you have to click "Show". Therefore, the infobox would remain the same size.

Furthermore, a vehicle configuration chart, alongside Launch Outcomes and Launch Sites should be added. It'll be required eventually, if some of the changes Elon has hinted end up a part of vehicle design.

Finally, separate S24/B7 and S25/B9 as different (prototype) versions of Starship, regardless of the launch outcome. The list of differences is immense (different thrust structure, different staging method, additional engine shielding, and a different gimbaling system). I'm probably missing a few, but that's enough to be different version. Redacted II (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Upgrade listing

Back a few Months ago, in a now deleted conversation, I brought up the idea of listing of potential/happened upgrades. Now that more And more upgrades are happening( such as hot staging, raptor3, etc.), I thought I bring the idea up again. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe as part of the History section? Redacted II (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, but I'm thinking of a separate section. What do others think? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

HELLO? Anyone seeing this? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 08:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

No-one is obligated to comment here. Begging others will only push them away. Redacted II (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Is it really an upgrade if it's introduced before the rocket carries a first payload? The design evolution fits in the history section. --mfb (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

True. While the rocket is in the prototype stage, its not an upgrade, it's a design change. Redacted II (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

So, should i write it to design changes part? Or history? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

History.

My recommendation: write a draft here, so other editors can give advice. Redacted II (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

sorry it took so long.

the draft: While starship is already a poerfull rocket in itself, musk and spacex always work on making it better, either by streamlining, or just makint it even more powerfull. here are some upgrades/ design changes that will be implemented in the future. The raptor3 is the successor to the raptor2. it is simpler, and more powerfull. this could allow starship(upper stage) to stretch by around 10 meters, alloing more payload to be carried. talking about the upper stage, spacex will re- emplement the 6 vacuum engine desing for it, as it will allow for higher power while in space, and with it also stretch the fuel tanks by 20 meters. this again, will make overall mass to orbit and mars in tzhe future, hihger. Another big design change would be the addition of hot staging, wich musks say could allow for a 10% increase in payload as it will never be just slowed down by the air. this could function as a lauchnch escape system, wich starship prevoiusly didnt have.

onc e again,sorry for the long time to reply. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to take your time.

Your draft does run into NPOV issues, however. As well as having some inaccuracies.

The bit on Hot Staging is already being implemented, so that really doesn't belong in such a section. And the bit on a potential Launch Abort System seems to be too speculative.

Maybe this could work:

Several potential changes to the Starship design have been hinted at by Elon Musk. These include the switch between Raptor 2 and Raptor 3, increasing the total thrust of the first stage to 90 meganewtons. This would enable a 10-15 meter stretch to the vehicle, resulting in an additional 1000 tons of fuel. In addition, 6 engines may be used on the second stage. These changes would enable Starship to carry 200 tons to LEO while remaining fully reusable, and up to 300 in an expendable configuration. Redacted II (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, exactly how i thought. You should clarify that 3 more vraptors will be added, not just any raptros( and the stretching coming with it). other than that, it looks great. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

How about this, then?

Several potential changes to the Starship design have been hinted at by Elon Musk. These include the switch between Raptor 2 and Raptor 3, increasing the total thrust of the first stage to 90 meganewtons. This would enable a 10-15 meter stretch to the vehicle, resulting in an additional 1000 tons of fuel. In addition, 3 additional vacuum engines may be used on the second stage. These changes would enable Starship to carry 200 tons to LEO while remaining fully reusable, and up to 300 in an expendable configuration. Redacted II (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Associated Rockets?

Other rocket articles have a list of Associated rockets, mainly for "Comparable" Rockets, in their infoboxs. Should Starship have such a list, and if so, what rockets?

I'm currently thinking of including these:

Space Launch System (or SLS): due to both being Super Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles at the same time.

N1: due to the absurd number of engines on the first stage of each, as well as both using hot staging.

Saturn V: similar payload, and the Saturn V brought us to the moon, while Starship is supposed too bring us to Mars.

Space Shuttle: both have reusable upper stages

Long March 9: That thing keeps on getting more and more similar to Starship by the day. Redacted II (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

seems fine to me, but you better show the ev. of long march 9 though Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

This is in regard to a section of the infobox. Such detail would belong on the Long March 9 article. Redacted II (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

not just a launch vehicle.

The first sentence of the lede calls it a launch vehicle. contrast this with the Space shuttle, which is called

• ... a "partially reusable low Earth orbital spacecraft system".

Sure, it's a superheavy LV. But the system is also an entire family of spacecraft. -Arch dude (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, "Spacecraft system" is a better description. Redacted II (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Move of the early Starship design history to SpaceX Mars ambitions

CactiStaccingCrane is a well-known users on space- and spaceflight- related pages, he tends to pretty boldly reshape articles. Sometimes for the worse, sometimes for the better. My biggest problem with him is that he often deletes a lot of information with sparse justification, so it's hard to see through his reasoning (even if the reasoning is legitimate).

Here are the changes that have been made for now. I completely agree with his decision to move early Starship dev history to the SpaceX Mars page, the information has greater relevance there and was making this article significantly longer than what Wikipedia advises. I have not had time to review the rest of the changes yet. See if you can point out changes that might need a discussion. CodemWiki (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I recommend changing the title of this topic, as it feels accusatory. Redacted II (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. CodemWiki (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@CoastRedwood You disagree with the move of early designs to another article (which is fine). What other part of the article should have been moved in order to reduce the article size around 100kB in your opinion? CodemWiki (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Do not put the payload capacity above the infobox. I can’t find any other launch vehicle/spacecraft system article with this kind of statistics above the infobox. Not the Soace Shuttle or the Saturn V. Nothing. All these stats go in article sections or the infobox. Doing so shows an attitude that is biased towards Starship, by emphasising the payload capacity. Why did you do that? Also, a super heavy lift launch vehicle is not just a 150 ton payload to LEO vehcile. That’s wrong. Why did you undo my edits regarding that? CoastRedwood (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

A lack of time. Will not happen again, sorry. CodemWiki (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that the early designs should be summarised on the main article. Again, have a peek at the Saturn V and Soace Shuttle articles. There is a little information about early designs, but it doesn’t go into such detail about the material and thrust like in the previous revision. It simply gives important details of the designs. CoastRedwood (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe create a separate article, similar to Space Shuttle design process? Redacted II (talk) 11:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Great comparison. I think that's a decent idea. CodemWiki (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

We used to have an article just for Starship development but I believe consensus was reached to merge it to this article: why create it again? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Because the article is huge. 139,254 bytes is simply too big. Redacted II (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

"Starship development" is still too vague in my opinion, and too broad. There isn't even any equivalent article for the Shuttle. Where does it stop, to the stages, the launchpad? It's bound to become a clusterfuck of everything and it's much more standard to just have a page for every piece of the program. "SpaceX Starship design process" on the otherhand is a title that does cover precisely the extent of what was removed, and what would need to be done is only a move from SpaceX ambition of colonizing Mars#Prior launch vehicle proposals to this new article. Who's with on that idea?

CodemWiki (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I added a dedicated topic for this discussion Redacted II (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Starship Design Process Article

Due to the size of this article, I mentioned the possibility of creating a separate article, called "Starship Design Process", based on a similar article about the Space Shuttle. To quote CodemWiki,

"SpaceX Starship design process" on the otherhand is a title that does cover precisely the extent of what was removed, and what would need to be done is only a move from SpaceX ambition of colonizing Mars#Prior launch vehicle proposals to this new article. Who's with on that idea?" Redacted II (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good, iam currently working on future design changes in the history section, perhaps we could move that to that too.? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 06:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Just remember NPOV. Redacted II (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I made it a redirect for now, consistent with a namesake section on its current article : SpaceX Starship design process CodemWiki (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Alright Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 10:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Raptor engine picture

If im correct its a raptor1, wich is the oldest and most complex of them. We should get a picture about raptor 2 or 3 if possible. But thats just my idea Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 11:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Good idea, but perhaps we should use multiple images showing the time progression Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Thats also possible, but that would drag put the article, wich we really dont want right now Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 08:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Try using Template:Multiple image, you might be able to fit two of them in the same horizontal row Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 09:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Id rather wait for more feedback regarding this Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Also im pretty new, dont know these codes and stuff, id rather just bring it to light and let others do it. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image

If we can, we should get a photo of starship in flight, the videos were gorgeus Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I've yet to see anyone freely release their photographs/videos they took of the launch, which would be an issue as they'd own the copyright and it'd violate the image use policy. Eventually we'll probably find one, might take a while though. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Thought id say Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The current infobox image is fine. User:Osunpokeh has some photos on Commons Sub31k (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, they look stunning Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah it looks like I'm the only one taking free pictures down at the launch site. I still have some photos of the vehicle on the pad that I need to get around to uploading at that point. Pleased with how this flight turned out, got much better photos than the last one [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good! Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 06:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The IFT-1 mishap investigation was performed by SpaceX

The rewrite of the mishap investigation paragraph is incorrect. The CNBC source says "The FAA oversaw the SpaceX mishap investigation while NASA and the National Transportation Safety Board served as official observers." That's because it was SpaceX doing the investigation. Admittedly, the wording in the article is ambiguous, but it is clear from FAA statements that the investigation was conduced by SpaceX.

"Following the launch, the FAA, [...] required SpaceX to conduct a mishap investigation in accordance with its approved mishap plan under FAA oversight. [...] The FAA has been provided with sufficient information and accepts the root causes and corrective actions described in the mishap report. Consequently, the FAA considers the mishap investigation that SpaceX was required to complete to be concluded." Foonix0 (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah am fine with it. Glad we have sourcing for it now. Chuckstablers (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@Foonix0 Do you plan to add this wording in? Ergzay (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Years in history subsections

I know that it was helpful to include the years of each stage of development in the sub-sections for the history section, but as more and more things are happening in individual years, it might be time to remove them. Scu ba (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Simplifying them is probably better. That level of detail should be it's own article Redacted II (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, simple yet effective is the way Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 11:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

In what way though? Effective in doing what? Communicating the previous history? I don't see the need to have like a page dedicated to the 8 years where Starship was literally just CGI renderings that musk would change on a whim. None of that matters in my opinion. Chuckstablers (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

There is an article dedicated to all the Shuttle Designs that never flew. Redacted II (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

There is a difference between Space Shuttle designs with actual studies by NASA and CGI that Musk puts out. No articles, no studies on it. Just "here's a nice picture we spent a few hundred bucks to make" and "here's the mass". There was no test articles, tunnel testing, etc before they started construction recently. There really is no comparison imo.

Also they are in their own article, not in the Space shuttle article. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

See the following quote : "A full-scale engineering development unit (EDU) for early Shuttle-C mockup and systems installation has been completed and will be converted to a functional test bed later this year. Wind tunnel tests are under way at Mar­ shall Space Flight Center (MSFC). Other major development tests include structural static and vibration..."

Compare that to Musk saying it's the "Interplanetary transport system now" and "it's twice as big now". They are not comparable. There's nothing noteworthy about Musk's early statements, cause that's really all these "designs" were. He says a lot of things, promises a lot of stuff, and most of it turns out to be wrong.

I personally don't see why half this article is just "Musk or employee said this" in wiki voice. Seems to me to be one of the reasons this article lost it's good article status, but that's a topic for a different day. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to Shuttle C (which I think has it's own article).

The final BFR did have test articles (this was pre-hopper), though it was only a single test tank.

There is also a proposal to shift a lot of this to it's own article (thus removing it from this one). Redacted II (talk) 12:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

RVAC Isp uncited

Does anyone have a source for the 363 second number for RVAC isp? Redacted II (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

(Whoever responded, thanks, but that source is outdated)

Current Raptor ISP is 327 (at least, maybe even more) at Sea Level, but the source you cited claims 321 seconds. It's also from 2014. This is pre-ITS.

So, unless a better source can be provided, I'll be removing it. Redacted II (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Hope we will have a source for it, i have searched a bit but didnt find anything. Maybe we should just remowe it and say unknown isp? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I found a source for 380 second ISP that is only 2 years old, so I replaced the 363 second number. Redacted II (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Sounds better Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

From the SpaceX Raptor article, the Rvac specific impulse is from a presentation made by Tom Mueller.

References