Talk:Super heavy-lift launch vehicle

It seems strange to include the Space Shuttle

If we include the Space Transport System Shuttle orbiter surely we should exclude the mass of the 3 SSME from the claimed payload (as they are only used on the way up). Space Shuttle says payload max 27,000 kg so why is it here ? Perhaps one could add the weight of the crew (if it was delivering them eg to the ISS). - Rod57 (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Space Shuttle is a reusable cargo payload. Telecine Guy (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

If you include the Mass of the Orbiter you also have do it for the BFR/BFS. But I would prefair to exclude the orbiter mass. The orbiter are only the delivering vehicle for the payload.80.153.239.3 (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

At least we have some qualifying notes on the numbers now. Below I suggest we have two columns to make it clearer. Although I guess some would want to add at least the crew mass to the Shuttle Payload bay contents. - Rod57 (talk) 10:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Strange is spelled "O-r-i-g-i-n-a-l R-e-s-e-a-r-c-h". How do you get away with saying Whether the orbiter mass should be accounted as "payload", or the payload should be accounted as only the cargo and crew carried in the orbiter, may depend on the operational definition used, and hence is debatable., when the source cited (NASA presskit) says absolutely nothing about the definition being debatable? An upper stage (Chandra) is used to carry a relatively small payload to a higher orbit. The Shuttle is not recognized as a super-heavy, and is included on the Heavy-lift launch vehicle page. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Winged Brick edit - mostly Energia & Polyus

The most recent edit (and one before) removes material for Energia that is sourced, and entirely removes the Space Shuttle material. The rationale given is that "READ the source that was cited. It says the sat failed to reach orbit. TAKE IT TO TALK instead of inserting false info." and "Yeah, no. According to the sources cited, Polyus failed to achieve orbit. Cite sources that state otherwise on the talk page. It didn't get to orbit. It's a failure, ZERO orbits. Zuma orbited". These edits and summaries make no sense. The article never states that Polyus achieved orbit, simply that Energia launched it. It is not Energia's fault that Polyus deorbited itself because of bad coding. The rocket did it's job. Beyond that, no rationale is given at all for removing material related to the Space Shuttle. Futher, all related citations have been removed. So, what gives? — Huntster (t @ c) 00:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Polyus failed to reach orbit. That means, the launch was unsuccessful in that it did not orbit a payload. Done. That's a failure. I did not intend to remove the Space Shuttle and have put it back. There were a lot of other edits mixed in with this. --Winged Brick (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Winged Brick: I'm sorry, but you have an incorrect understanding of this. The mission was a failure, the launch was not. As I previously said, Energia did everything it was asked of. It did insert Polyus into the correct initial orbit and released it, but Polyus itself failed to operate properly. Not the fault of Energia. This page does not distinguish between a successful or failed satellite mission, merely that the rocket operated as advertised throughout the course of its duties, and the previous wording reflected that: "Energia launched two payloads before the program was cancelled." — Huntster (t @ c) 14:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

First, some of this is conjecture. I read the contemporary articles in aviation week and the Energia (core and boosters) were incapable of launching a payload into a stable orbit. The Buran had its own propulsion that amounted to a third "kick" stage. They did the same thing with the Polyus and ATTACHED a kick stage. It would be nice to pretend that this wasn't a part of the launch stack, but it WAS a part of the launch stack. Putting a kick stage on a Soyuz that fails (all too often recently) does not mean that magically it is not part of the launch stack. If we're splitting hairs here (and we're not) somebody mentioned the Falcon - Zuma mission as an example of why we should pretend that the Polyus mission was magically successful. The difference there was that Zuma was delivered into its intended orbit with no kick stage malfunction. The payload, in that instance, did not require delta-v to get into orbit; it was there. We're not talking station keeping, here. All Zuma had to do was detach from the payload adapter and it was there. Polyus was not alone on its 180-degree turn and firing. It had the kick stage. Energia was certainly CAPABLE of launching a payload that heavy, but not to orbit. Ah, and this is where we get into the suborbital "success" thingy. If the mission is intended as suborbital and reaches roughly the right trajectory, it's a success. If it's intended for orbit and the third stage fires pointing the wrong way, it is a failure.

We've been fighting Russian apologists the entire time Wikipedia has been here. There's a certain desire to make everything from Russia the first, best, and greatest. Nationalism is okay, but call it what it was. It was a failed mission, failed third stage, and therefore cannot be counted among successful payloads launched into orbit. But, don't fret, we're counting the Falcon Heavy as the rocket was successful and it has a payload capacity comfortably in the Super-heavy range. We're counting Energia because it did, in fact, launch with the Buran payload. We count Shuttle because the payload was the Orbiter. Feel free to put an asterisk on the Poylus (like it's currently written but flower it up whatever way you'd like. What I object to is omission of the fact that it did NOT orbit the Polyus and saying it did without HEAVY qualification is disingenuous. --Winged Brick (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Your behavior is bordering with nationalism.

Speaking of Polyus launch. It was successfully placed into desired parking orbit. All GTO spacecraft does the same. They being placed into parking GTO, then they use own engines to reach own GEO. There is no difference at all. Launch system did all its job and placed it into parking orbit. Elk Salmon (talk) 12:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

You first of all misunderstood what the rocket was. It wasn't an orbital correction maneuver, it was an insertion by a third stage required to place the spacecraft in orbit. The Energia did not have the ability to launch the Polyus, so they ATTACHED a third stage to Polyus. Two out of three isn't a success. Nationalism? Really, going straight to Hitler? The launch was not successful, therefore pretending that it was by picking nits and technicalities helps nobody. "How about all those third-stage Soyuz failures? Going to call those successful launches too? --Winged Brick (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

You are the one that brought up some cockamamie accusation of, apparently, me being a Russian apologist trying to do...something? Let me be blunt: how fucking dare you. If you think my editing was anything other than a neutral statement of facts, you are the one with issues, not I. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

You mixed up Buran and Space Shuttle with IUS. Polyps didn’t have stages. It was about to use own engines. Elk Salmon (talk) 11:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Further and to the point, the FGB orbital insertion system was not part of Energia, and its failure cannot be held against the launch system. Again, Energia did its duty. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I can only agree with Huntster about the Polyus case. Regarding nationalism, that's absurd: we call the Zuma launch a success for Falcon 9, although the satellite reportedly failed to separate and fell back into ocean. Goose, meet Gander. — JFG ^talk 04:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Why is NG-2 in but not N1?

Nergaal (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Not in? It's listed under "Cancelled designs". It never had a successful launch. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

And NG 2-stage won't reach the 50t EVEN IF it successfully launches. N-1 at least went a few km up several times. Nergaal (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

BFR is not expendable

Some people keep adding the hypothetical payload of an hypothetical expendable configuration of the BFR. This. 👏 Does. 👏 Not. 👏 Exist. 👏 The whole rationale for BFR is to have a fleet of vessels that can be flown hundreds of times each, otherwise they would never get built. I will remove it once again, and I hope this note helps form consensus that we should not propagate this myth here. — JFG ^talk 05:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

This isn't really accurate. With orbital refueling a StarShip could us all of it's fuel to launch a single ~300 mt object into orbit then be refueled by a second StarShip so that both can land safely. This is a capability that other existing or in development launch vehicles do not have and it's worth pointing out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.187.174.15 (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree at a different angle -- the BFR is an unproven rocket at this point. Sure, it's gone up and down once without crashing... but when it does what it's supposed to do and has been certified safe, add it then. Hanyou23 (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

if we did this we would need to remove all of the rockets that hare still in development. -Arch dude (talk) 04:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

It's now 2023. In addition to random Elon tweets, we now have formal documentation on the SpaceX website that SpaceX intends to provide a partially-expendable version with a payload mass to orbit of 250 tonne in addition to the fully-reusable version with a payload mass to orbit of 150 tonne. I will update the table. -Arch dude (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

When S24/B7 launch, would that be the first flight of Starship reusable or starship expendable? Redacted II (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

New Armstrong fully reusable?

It currently says "Partially or Fully". It's well known that Blue Origin is making its first stages reusable, but I haven't seen any indication or hint from anything like an official source that there are plans to make the 2nd stage reusable. Can anyone shed some light on that? Thanks. (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Illustration

@Thorenn: Many thanks for your illustration of the various super-heavy rockets side by side. Your recent update, however, looks a bit cramped. You should either make the picture wider, or display fewer rocket, in particular we don't need to display all SLS variants. I would keep only Block 1, Block 1B crew, and Block 2 cargo, showing the performance progress with 95, 105 and 130 tonnes. The 1B cargo version is not flying until 2027, and may be skipped for block 2 cargo by then. What do you think? — JFG ^talk 06:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, you did it with the new File:Select super heavy-lift launch vehicles.png, thanks! — JFG ^talk 09:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Super heavy-lift launch vehicles.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The "Proposed designs"

In the existing "Proposed designs" top-level section, I don't see the Super Heavy/Starship. It is mentioned in the table elsewhere, but not in the article prose like the other proposed designs. Is this intentional? Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Energia not reusable

I will quibble about the statement "partially" for the reusability of Energia. Buran was intended to be reusable, but there are no engines on the Buran orbiter; it is not part of the Energia launch system. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes Buran does not make Energia reusable, but there were Energia proposals for winged flyback boosters and for the core to also fly back to a runway. Maybe that would count as a different configuration. - Rod57 (talk) 09:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Also the initial version of the boosters was intended to be reusable. The fairings should have contained parachutes and landing gears, though not installed in the two actual flights. 178.255.191.2 (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Confusion of payload with mass to LEO

In the table, the payload column has high figures for Space Shuttle and Saturn V with notes explaining that that was not all useful payload. Starship has a planned payload with a note saying it does not include the dry mass lifted to orbit. If we had room my preference would be to have two columns : mass-to-LEO, & payload (not used to reach orbit) - so they could each be sorted. To get space for more columns the Nationality column could be deleted or folded into the Organisation column ? - Rod57 (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The Space Shuttle and the Buran should be removed from this page altogether, since they had a payload capacity of 27,5t and 30t, respectively. In Space, nobody cares about how much your rocket stage weighs. The customer wants to know how much they can put into orbit. TheSkalman (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC) The Saturn V should be downrated to its actual payload. Anything else is confusing and unjust. The first sentence of this wiki literally reads: A super heavy-lift launch vehicle (SHLLV) is a launch vehicle capable of lifting more than 50 tonnes (110,000 lb) of payload into low Earth orbit (LEO). TheSkalman (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• No, Space Shuttle and the Buran are reusable payloads. In the case of the Space Shuttle sometimes it came back with the same cargo load it took up.Telecine Guy (talk) 03:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, it all comes down to the definition of payload. I'd define it as 'useful' mass to orbit, so the Shuttle orbiter has to be included, very much like an Apollo CSM or a Soyus craft – we don't just count the mass of the crew and their life support. Does it matter for payload whether it's reuseable? It's useful, so it's counted. --Zac67 (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

It's amazing hou some people think they can flout a Wikipedia core content policy: WP:No original research. The dictionary definition of payload is "the load carried by a vehicle exclusive of what is necessary for its operation; especially : the load carried by an aircraft or spacecraft consisting of things (such as passengers or instruments) necessary to the purpose of the flight". (Merriam Webster). That does not include the Shuttle orbiter. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

"the load carried by a vehicle exclusive of what is necessary for its operation" of a Saturn V would have been three men and their equipment. "the load carried by an aircraft or spacecraft consisting of things (such as passengers or instruments) necessary to the purpose of the flight" of the Space Shuttle system would include most of the orbiter. Hmm... If the Shuttle system's "purpose of flight" is to put the orbiter in LEO, that makes the latter payload (what I refered to as "useful mass"). In reverse, you could argue that the Apollo CSM is the fourth stage of the Saturn V, making it "necessary for its operation". I'm just trying to see both sides and there's a gap in the definition. --Zac67 (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Cost figures

Are the listed cost figures accurately pre-launch? For example, the high cost on SLS also includes support equipment, if there were more frequent launches, it would've been likely cheaper. And why is the category there anyway if no other rocket comparison table has it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.80.126.39 (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Super heavy-lift launch vehicles.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Buran nitpick related to boosters in orbit re-entering uncontrolled

With China's CZ-5B being in the news, it's important to note that Energia's booster never entered orbit. The article currently says "It relied entirely on the disposable launcher Energia to reach orbit." That's almost true. Buran did a little burn to actually reach orbit, and Polyus was lost because that little burn failed.

This is topical because of today's SLS launch: SLS's booster almost took it to orbit, and the ICPS upper stage burned briefly after stage separation to actually reach orbit. Greg (talk) 09:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Energia success rate

Both launches of the Energia were successful if we talk about the rocket. The overall failure of the first launch (with the Polyus satellite) was caused by a software error in the payload, that performed the final insertion burn the wrong way. The rocket itself performed correctly. 178.255.191.2 (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

starship

did not go orbital in 2022. somebody want to change this to 2023 or TBD? 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:3112:9AB7:34AE:ADE1 (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is SLS listed as launching a >50t payload

As of this writing, SLS has launched once, carrying Orion and the ESM for a combined mass of ~26,000 kg If you're generous and include the LAS that gets you to ~34,000 kg, but you're still well short of 50,000. If the idea is to include propellant residuals, then the metric effectively just becomes first flight, as rockets are not launched partially fuelled. 2607:FEA8:1BC0:EA00:C474:F8D0:C62E:776C (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

That column is "mass to LEO". SLS does not launch its "payload" to a stable LEO, but rather to a very highly elliptical EO that intersects the Earth before the first orbit. Since this particular orbit requires as much energy as a stable LEO, we conventionally call it an LEO. The "payload" includes the fully-fueled ICPS, so the 95 tonnes is justified by this reasoning. It's legit because SLS COULD have launched that "payload" into a nearly circular stable LEO. Unfortunately, we have no equivalent reasoning for Starship or other launchers. -Arch dude (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

None of the Artemis-1, SLS, or Orion articles even mention these mass details. I had to enter a talk page to understand the reasoning. At minimum a blurb should be added to Artemis-1 with the masses involved, AND a footnote should be present in the table stating this rationale for a future curious reader. 194.102.58.14 (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The problem is finding reliable sources that explain this. All sources seem to repeat the NASA party line that SLS can lift 95 tonne to LEO, without explanation. If you can find other sources that do not require you to do WP:OR to compute the LEO payload, then please do so. -Arch dude (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Starship payload mass and launch cost?

Starship does not fit neatly into this table. There are basically three classes of SS launch, with variants, and there are no definitive reliable sources for this classification, so adding it here would be OR. But leaving it alone is misleading enough to make it almost useless. In all cases Starship launches on a reusable Super Heavy. Classes are:

• fully reusable: This is the base case. A Starship delivers a payload to LEO, and returns to earth for reuse.
• partially expendable: Starhip delivers a payload to LEO and is then expended.
• functional Starship: Starship is used for a long-term mission other than merely delivering cargo and does not return to Earth.

I think we can treat the first two cases "normally" here, but not the third case. The cost problem is that our only contractual cost numbers are for the HLS Option B development contract that includes 5 reusables, two functionals, and some development costs.

The payload mass problem is similar. The first two cases are (sort of) normal, with 150 t for fully reusable and 250 t for partially expendable. The third case is the strange one. What is the payload mass for launching the functional Depot or HLS?

Thoughts? -Arch dude (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I would argue this is sort of a redundant argument. Since Starship is not yet operational, it probably shouldn't be in the comparison table yet. It belongs (and already is) in the following section on proposed designs. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Scjessey: for consistency, we should therefore remove all entries for rockets that have not flown. Is this what you propose? -Arch dude (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Arch dude: Yes. I would include test flights or unsuccessful flights as "flown" (though not parts of rockets, such as Starship without its booster). -- Scjessey (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Scjessey:I disagree, unless you propose to move the unflown LVs into a separate table. If you do, don't forget the SLS block 1B and SLS Block 2. The "flown" table will become quite short. maybe others will chime in here? I also think you should wait a month on the off chance Starship flies, just to save yourself some work. -Arch dude (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Arch dude: I just think anything marked in the operational column as "development" should, at the very least, be commented out until such time as they become operational. This is not a hill I'm going to die on though, so I'll let others decide. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Keeping models which have kind a clear roadmap (including Starship having a NASA contract) is fine for me, as long as the difference between successfully used rockets versus earlier development stages is clear. What I'm more worried about is comparing real solid facts with, well, very optimistic Elon Musk "predictions" and "plans", e.g. regarding reusability and launch costs.Zae8 (talk) 08:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Zae8: This is not sourced to a crazy Elon tweet. SpaceX is the most successful space company in the world, having performed about a third of the world's orbital launches in 2022 and launching about two-thirds of the world's payload mass to orbit in 2022. The planned partially-expended 250 tonne version is listed on the SpaceX web site. I feel that this information is considerably more credible than the dates and payload masses being provided by NASA and the Chinese. In particular, it is doubtful that SLS Block 2 will ever fly. -Arch dude (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

It is sourced to the equivalent of a crazy Elon tweet though. Why have the cost per launch in the table of Starship at $10m when Falcon Heavy is $90-150m per lauch? There is no factual basis for the $10m Starship launch cost. Porcuchemist (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Porcuchemist: Even a "crazy Elon tweet" is still a source. Each time a Falcon Heavy launches, all three cores need extensive refurbishment and the upper stage is always expended. It also requires special attachments to hold it together and caps for the outer cores. Starship is radically different, with all parts being fully reusable and supposedly requiring no refurbishment of any kind (although I have my doubts). The cost of a launch (which is not the same as the price of a launch, I might add) is basically just the cost of its fuel, which is far less than $10m. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

So shouldn’t the “launch cost” columns be standardized as some appear to be cost while other prices? Especially in regards to government programs where it is not a commercial endeavor. Porcuchemist (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

At the end of the day, the only source we have for the cost/price of a Starship launch is Elon's tweet. It's not exactly the gold standard of sourcing but it's what we have. The numbers are all over the place for these costs/prices anyway, and I would actually favor removing the costs from the table completely. The recent national security launch of a Falcon Heavy was over $300m, considerably more than price quoted in the table. The SLS is laughably quoted as $2.2bn when the real number is well in excess of $4bn. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The default version is reusable so we should focus on this I think. We can split it if other versions start launching more than 150 tonnes. --mfb (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mfb: Then please also remove SLS Block 2, since there are no plans to actually use it. -Arch dude (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? It's far away but it's still planned to be used for Artemis 9 or so. --mfb (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mfb: NASA distinguishes "planned" from "proposed". "Planned" means that there is money in the budget. Block 2 is not "planned". Your perspective may differ, but I don't see a difference between a "proposed" NASA project and a statement on the SpaceX web site. My gut feeling is that Block 2 will never happen, but expendable Starship will happen if there is a customer that needs it.-Arch dude (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

It's significantly different from the other blocks, it's something NASA wants to have in the future, it got significant media attention. I think we should keep it. Expendable Starship is a pretty minor variation (SpaceX skips some steps in assembly) and it's a less clear plan. We should get several Starship variations (crew, Starlink, satellite launcher, HLS, depot, tanker) but I think we don't have enough information to make many entries at the moment. --mfb (talk) 06:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Expendable Starship is a pretty minor variation - I would argue that a jump in up mass from 150 tons to 250 is not "minor" by any stretch of the imagination. While the assembly is simplified (except, perhaps, the configuration of the payload bay) the change in mission profile is quite a dramatic variation. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mfb: SLS 1 --> 2 goes from 95 tonne to 130 tonne, a 37% gain. Starship reusable --> expendable goes from 150 tonne to 250 tonne, a 67% gain, so it's a bigger deal for its users. SLS 2 has not been fabricated. An expendable Starship (ship 26) has already been fabricated and will probably be one of the first three launches, although its mission does not require 250 tonne. -Arch dude (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Super heavy-lift launch vehicles.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Unexplained reverts

User:Mfb, please can you explain why you reverted my edits? Why do you consider them as "unconstructive"? For example, you seem to insist Falcon Heavy being "super heavy", do you have a reference for that? Also, what are your objections to the clarification that the SpaceX Starship requires fueling supporting missions, which others don't need? I would consider this useful information for the reader. Zae8 (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

For FH it's a statement by the CEO and multiplication of the fully expendable payload by 0.9. Where is your reference for it being heavy-lift? The table only lists the LEO payload where Starship doesn't get refueled. Where would you expect a refueling to happen, mid launch? A discussion of refueling would be necessary for payload to the Moon of course but currently we don't list that in the table. The table lists launch costs, using a contract that includes development work to calculate a price based on some estimated number of flights is both OR and the wrong metric anyway. --mfb (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

So do I understand you correctly that you are suggesting to remove the whole "launch costs" columns, because they are OR? Would be ok for me, because right now these columns are quite misleading. Zae8 (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Another issue: Do you consider "a statement by the [SpaceX] CEO" as RS? Are there any other sources supporting this "statement"? Zae8 (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

No I'm not suggesting removing the whole cost column. Just the strange calculation you attempted there. Statements made by the CEO are statements by the company. If you want to remove all rocket manufacturers as sources from spaceflight articles, good luck finding consensus for that. --mfb (talk) 11:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

All 13 Saturn V launches were successful

The Saturn V LV launched payload to orbit successfully 13 times. On one launch, (Apollo 13) the payload had a problem(!) This caused a mission failure, not a Saturn V launch failure. -Arch dude (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Apollo 6 was not considered a "success" because of problems with both the second and third stages of the Saturn V. It is listed as a "partial failure" at our Saturn V article. As such, an argument can be made for reverting this edit. Thoughts? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Scjessey: OK, I was wrong. I'll fix it. -Arch dude (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

It was supposed to launch things to the Moon but only reached an elliptical Earth orbit. --mfb (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Starship Launch Date and Thrust

The current entry for Starship's takeoff thrust differs from the official SpaceX value (74000 kN vs 75900 kN). Also, the article lists the launch date as being yesterday? Maybe that should be corrected to 2023 (planned), to match the format of the other launchers? Redacted II (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I've instituted the planned edits to the Starship Entry. 2603:7081:4F40:E200:99D3:39:9244:D45 (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Maiden flight N1 vs Starship

Is there a reason why the maiden orbital flight column says 2023 for Starhip, but "None" for N1? Both were designed to reach orbit, but both didn't reach orbit (yet), but only approximately 40 km. Zae8 (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I added a clarification. Zae8 (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The N1 got cancelled.

Starship wasn't.

The label of "NONE" is because an N1 will never fly. Even if some (arguably insane) organization decided to resurrect the N1, it would not be the same N1 design that flew in the 60's and 70's.

I hope this was helpful. Redacted II (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Separating Starship V1 and V2

As SLS Blocks 1, 1B, and 2 are separated in the comparison table, should Starship V1 and V2 be separated as well? Redacted II (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

IFT-3

Yes, IFT-3 was technically not orbital, @CtrlDPredator.

But if we exclude almost orbital flights, then that would violate a precedent on this article: the Energia launches.

The 1987 launch, which is listed under the first successful orbital launch, had a perigee of -15 km, and an apogee of 155 km.

The second flight had a slightly higher perigee: -11.2 km.

Neither of these flights were orbital, so if IFT-3 is removed, so should Energia.

Redacted II (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

If the Energia launches are categorised incorrectly or the definition of what a "Maiden successful orbital flight" isn't clear enough, then lets start a process to correct those. More than happy to work collaboratively on proposals to help do that.

IFT-3 was a sub-orbital launch, it is obvious that isn't in dispute, and even a successful sub-orbital launch is clearly not a "Maiden successful orbital flight". It is just incorrect of us to have IFT-3 listed as a orbital launch. CtrlDPredator (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but there wasn't any debate over Energia, so at least to me, it makes very little sense that, because Starship is listed, now there is an issue.

IMO, the best thing to do is to do nothing: leave IFT-3 and the Energia launches listed. Classifying them as suborbital is, while technically correct, misleading. Redacted II (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

With Energia is a much more complicated case, would need to consider if "Maiden successful orbital flight" means that the flight successfully resulted in it's payload in orbit (which you could argue the 1987 flight didn't do but 1988 flight did), or if the launch was successful regardless of payload outcome (which becomes ambiguous since the payload needed to boost itself to orbit), or if the payload is considered part of the launch vehicle itself, with Energia–Polyus and Energia–Buran being different configurations. There are lots of different conflicting interpretations and I am not surprised that it has ended up the way it is, but none of those situations apply to IFT-3.

We all know that IFT-3 was sub-orbital, labelling it as an orbital flight is misleading. CtrlDPredator (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

"With Energia is a much more complicated case, would need to consider if "Maiden successful orbital flight" means that the flight successfully resulted in it's payload in orbit (which you could argue the 1987 flight didn't do but 1988 flight did)"

But the 1987 flight is listed as the first, so if that is listed, then there is no reason to not list IFT-3. Redacted II (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a very good reason not to list IFT-3 as an orbital flight, which is that it was sub-orbital. The Energia flights don't give IFT-3 a pass. CtrlDPredator (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Prior precedent: this was discussed with Energia here.

So why is there an issue with keeping IFT-3 when a very similar launch was kept? Redacted II (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

IFT-3 is not similar to Energia-Polyus, not sure how many different way that needs to be explained. CtrlDPredator (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

You have never explained why its different in a way that impacts IFT-3. Redacted II (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I have talked about it above and I have pointed out how problematic the Energia-Polyus mission were. I have offered to try and resolve the issues around the Energia launches, but I can't do that if we are going to spend days on end going around in circles trying to prove that sub-orbital ≠ orbital. CtrlDPredator (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

"I have talked about it above and I have pointed out how problematic the Energia-Polyus mission were"

Yes, there are several issues with the Energia-Polyus mission, but those issues (IMO) also exist for IFT-3.

"I have offered to try and resolve the issues around the Energia launches"

My issue with this is that there wasn't an issue with it before. "Fixing" the Energia mission just because of IFT-3 doesn't seem like the right thing to do.

"can't do that if we are going to spend days on end going around in circles trying to prove that sub-orbital ≠ orbital"

I can't speak for Scjessey, but I'm not trying to prove IFT-3 was orbital (because it wasn't). However, putting it in the same category as New Shepard is very misleading, due to the almost order of magnitude difference in velocity. Redacted II (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The Energia missions need clarification regardless of IFT-3.

The issues that need clarification with the Energia missions have nothing to do with IFT-3's sub-orbital mission.

That you are unhappy that IFT-3 was a sub-orbital mission and want it to be considered an orbital mission instead for this column is unjustified and dishonest.

Like I have said before, velocity itself doesn't define an orbit, apogee and perigee do. I know that you know this. CtrlDPredator (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

"That you are unhappy that IFT-3 was a sub-orbital mission and want it to be considered an orbital mission instead for this column is unjustified and dishonest."

First, try to assume good faith. This is an issue for everyone right after a Starship launch, as the debates get heated.

"Like I have said before, velocity itself doesn't define an orbit, apogee and perigee do. I know that you know this"

Yes. I know IFT-3 was suborbital. I am not disputing that fact, but my objection is to classifying it in the same category as a New Shepard launch, due to the almost order of magnitude difference in velocity.

While doing that would be technically correct, I believe it is very misleading to readers. Redacted II (talk) 13:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

This isn't about good faith, you are trying to say something you know is false to push a non-neutral point of view.

This has nothing to do with New Shepard and telling the truth her is not misleading readers.

Continuing this conversation isn't going to be productive or constructive. CtrlDPredator (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

"This has nothing to do with New Shepard and telling the truth her is not misleading readers"

This is a case where a label is technically correct, but misleading. I mentioned New Shepard because its the first suborbital vehicle that came to mind, and is likely what a casual reader will think of.

"Continuing this conversation isn't going to be productive or constructive"

Well then, agree to disagree? Redacted II (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

ICBMs are suborbital and reach higher velocities than IFT-3.

It would be misleading to label IFT-3 as an orbital spaceflight. Redraiderengineer (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The ICBM article mentioned velocities between 4 and 7.8 km/s, so while the upper bound is above IFT-3, the majority is below. Still, good point.

My issue with labeling IFT-3 as suborbital, as stated above, is because it categorizes it with vehicles like New Shepard, which is misleading Redacted II (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

How is it misleading? This isn't categorizing Starship as a suborbital vehicle.

Velocity isn't a defining criterion, and as you've agreed, it fits the definition. "A sub-orbital spaceflight is a spaceflight in which the spacecraft reaches outer space, but its trajectory intersects the surface of the gravitating body from which it was launched." Redraiderengineer (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It is misleading because IFT-3 was extremely close to orbital velocity. Placing it in the same category as New Shepard or sounding rockets is misleading, because of the vast difference

I'm not disputing that it was suborbital. It was. But I'd rather have a technically incorrect statement that doesn't mislead than a technically correct statement that does. Redacted II (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

If you (this is a thought experiment) threw a ball at the zenith with a velocity of 30,000 km/h, would you consider the ball orbital if its apogee was 101 km? Redraiderengineer (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

100% yes. And I'm willing to bet the average reader (excluding those who don't know how fast orbital velocity is) would agree.

(also: thanks for using metric instead of imperial) Redacted II (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a simplified example, but the horizontal velocity of the ball is zero (projectile motion equations). The ball comes straight back down and isn't orbital.

Velocity alone doesn't determine an orbital spaceflight (an object "is placed on a trajectory where it could remain in space for at least one orbit"). The velocity is related to orbital energy, which is more relevant to "reaching orbit."

This isn't an attempt to categorize Starship as a suborbital vehicle, and I think the Starship article is clear on the goals of the vehicle. When Starship has a successful orbital flight (probably later this year), this will be a clear yes. Redraiderengineer (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

"This is a simplified example, but the horizontal velocity of the ball is zero (projectile motion equations). The ball comes straight back down and isn't orbital."

If you shot a ball straight up at 30k kph, I don't think the ball should be considered orbital (but you did just give me something to simulate, so thanks). Since the vast majority of IFT-3's velocity was horizontal, and it's perigee was close to the surface, I think its closer to orbital than a suborbital.

"Velocity alone doesn't determine an orbital spaceflight (an object "is placed on a trajectory where it could remain in space for at least one orbit"). The velocity is related to orbital energy, which is more relevant to "reaching orbit.""

You don't have to explain how orbits work (at least to me).

"This isn't an attempt to categorize Starship as a suborbital vehicle, and I think the Starship article is clear on the goals of the vehicle"

I know. I'd be making very different arguments if this was.

"When Starship has a successful orbital flight (probably later this year), this will be a clear yes."

Agreed. IFT-5 or IFT-6 should make this discussion a just matter of what the 2024 number links to. Redacted II (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

IFT-3 can't be closer to orbital than sub-orbital when it is by definition and your own admission sub-orbital.

If I fly in a commercial airliner at 1000km/h, which is sub-sonic, I don't then say I was on a super-sonic flight because 1000km/h is closer to the speed of sound 1235km/h than walking speed. In the same vein, you don't label that commercial flight as super-sonic when it is not just because you are concerned that people might be mislead into thinking it was similar to a zeppelin or hot air balloon trip. CtrlDPredator (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I get your point, but when most people hear suborbital, they don't think "perigee below 0 m". They think of New Shepard (and maybe sounding rockets).

And that is what I want to avoid. Ideally, the suborbital category can be divided further to avoid any confusion on near-orbital. Redacted II (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Even if you invent some new category, it still isn't orbital, still doesn't satisfy the column for orbital flight.

Most people are well aware that Starship is not a sounding rocket and are not going to be mislead by seeing that IFT-3 didn't reach orbit, they are going to be correctly informed. Doing otherwise would be misleading, completely unnecessary and staying into violating NPOV. CtrlDPredator (talk) 12:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

"Even if you invent some new category, it still isn't orbital, still doesn't satisfy the column for orbital flight."

Yes, I'm aware. You don't need to convince me of that.

"Most people are well aware that Starship is not a sounding rocket"

Agreed, but that isn't my concern. I'm concerned that people will come to the conclusion that IFT-3 wasn't even close to orbital spaceflight, or be confused as to why it isn't listed here.

I would love to be proven wrong, though. Redacted II (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@CtrlDPredator: I disagree that it is clear cut that IFT-3 was a sub-orbital launch. It easily reached an orbital velocity, and it easily reached an orbital apoapsis. Its periapsis was deliberately set to make sure it had a ballistic trajectory that would end its flight in the Indian Ocean, so it is technically sub-orbital only if you are splitting hairs. I suggest we include IFT-3 as a successful maiden orbital flight, but clarify the meaning of the table heading to include flights such as this. It is quite common for so-called "orbital" rockets to have de-orbiting/aerobraking trajectories. Sources say "successfully reached orbit" (example). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

"I disagree that it is clear cut that IFT-3 was a sub-orbital launch. It easily reached an orbital velocity, and it easily reached an orbital apoapsis"

Yes, but it's perigee was negative, so technically, it was sub-orbital.

"Its periapsis was deliberately set to make sure it had a ballistic trajectory that would end its flight in the Indian Ocean, so it is technically sub-orbital only if you are splitting hairs. I suggest we include IFT-3 as a successful maiden orbital flight, but clarify the meaning of the table heading to include flights such as this."

Well said, and I think this is the best path forward. Redacted II (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

IFT-3 was sub-orbital and intended to be sub-orbital, there is no splitting hairs about it. CtrlDPredator (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it was suborbital, but that is putting it in the same category as New Shepard, which is absurd. It was going ~7-8x as fast as New Shepard does, and was far closer to Orbital than Suborbital. Redacted II (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Saying a sub-orbital flight is an orbital flight is absurd. Saying that it was closer to orbital than sub-orbital is also absurd. It doesn't matter how fast it was or wasn't going, it's periapsis was below the surface of the Earth, it was sub-orbital, even SpaceX themselves acknowledge that.

We shouldn't be dishonest here and consider the flight as an orbital flight just because you are worried about how that might reflect on the perception of Starship. This whole thing really shouldn't be that difficult. CtrlDPredator (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

"Saying that it was closer to orbital than sub-orbital is also absurd"

What is closer to 26500: 27000 or 3600?

It is misleading to put it in the same category as a New-Shepard or sounding rocket launch. Because it is much closer to orbital. Redacted II (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what speed it was travelling at, it's perigee was below the surface of the Earth which makes it sub-orbital, you know that. That you are not comfortable with the perception of that is irrelevant to the facts at hand and we should not lie about a fundamental fact because you want to shape the perception of the launch. CtrlDPredator (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@CtrlDPredator please revert your edit.

The status quo is whatever was in place before the discussion. In this case, that makes including IFT-3 the status quo, and therefore, until a consensus to remove it has been reached, it should remain in the article. Redacted II (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I asked for this discussions to try and avoid similar issues from when you reverted @Smeagol_17 and @Zae8's changes to the status of Starships orbital flights, yet it has proven to not to be a productive process.

@Redraiderengineer stated that it would be misleading to label IFT-3 as an orbital spaceflight, and I can't state how strongly I agree with this, and I feel this is enough to close this trivial matter given that there isn't a substantive justification for your change.

We should not have to spend any more of our time or effort, or anyone else's for that matter, on something where we all agree on the facts. CtrlDPredator (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

There currently is no consensus. So far, 2 editors are in favor of keeping it, and 2 are in opposition.

Therefore, until this changes, we should maintain the status quo. Redacted II (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

You agree that IFT-3 was suborbital. What is the policy/guideline that supports your rationale to incorrectly categorize IFT-3 as orbital? Redraiderengineer (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I've stated this before: fear of misleading viewers.

I don't want a casual viewer to assume IFT-3 was a 100 km "hop", nor do I want endless discussions of "Why isn't IFT-3 listed?". Redacted II (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm referring to a Wikipedia policy or guideline that supports that rationale. Redraiderengineer (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Does the Energia precedent count? Redacted II (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

As explained before, the Energia launches were very different, with different configurations and payload vehicles and clearly on orbital missions. IFT-3 was on a planned suborbital trajectory.

As I stated before, I am more than happy to work collaboratively on proposals to clarify the Energia launches in this column, but it doesn't give a free pass for any suborbital launches like IFT-3 to be counted as orbital. CtrlDPredator (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

After this discussion, I'd love to clarify the Energia flights (and IFT-3, if it is included), but I do think prior precedent does give a "free pass" for almost-orbital spaceflights. Redacted II (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Energia likely needs further discussion, but that's not a substantive objection to IFT-3 when you admit it was suborbital. The objection comes off as stonewalling.

If we can't reach a consensus, the next step might be RfC. Redraiderengineer (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

"Energia likely needs further discussion, but that's not a substantive objection to IFT-3 when you admit it was suborbital."

Its prior precedent. Both Energia flights were suborbital, and the first one's payload never reached orbit.

"The objection comes off as stonewalling."

That is not my intent.

"If we can't reach a consensus, the next step might be RfC."

I think we'll reach a consensus soon (and most likely for removing it), without an RfC. Redacted II (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Let's wrap up IFT-3, and then we can start a new discussion on Energia with the same orbital standard.

We both agree on: 1) IFT-3 was suborbital and 2) Starship will likely have a successful orbital flight later this year (but hasn't had an orbital flight yet). Without a substantive objection based on a Wikipedia policy or guideline, can you agree this should remain "2024 (planned)" in the table? Redraiderengineer (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

"Let's wrap up IFT-3, and then we can start a new discussion on Energia with the same orbital standard."

Agreed. The sooner this is done, the sooner more productive discussions like Include/Remove Energia can be done.

"We both agree on: 1) IFT-3 was suborbital and 2) Starship will likely have a successful orbital flight later this year (but hasn't had an orbital flight yet)"

Yes, I do agree that IFT-3 was suborbital, and that Starship will likely (but not guaranteed) have a successful orbital flight this year.

"Without a substantive objection based on a Wikipedia policy or guideline, can you agree this should remain "2024 (planned)" in the table?"

Temporarily yes, but that could change depending on the result of the Energia discussion. Redacted II (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

ALL that matters, as with any other Wikipedia article, is what the sources say. The source I linked to above clearly states it was launched "into orbit" and there are many other sources that say the same thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

There are lots of sources too that correctly state it was on a sub-orbital trajectory and the IFT-3 wikipedia page lists it as sub-orbital. Even you acknowledged that it's periapsis was below the surface of the Earth and know that it was sub-orbital.

If you want to re-define the flight as an orbital flight, the most appropriate way to do that would be on the IFT-3 wikipedia page first. CtrlDPredator (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

On Order versus Building

I am confused by the Class Overview headings. Both Falcon Heavy and SLS are listed as On Order but only SLS as Building. What are the criteria for these categories? 86.1.190.147 (talk) 07:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Fixed!

(On Order means its operational, building means its still in dev) Redacted II (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

IFT-3 had a 70 ton "payload"

At engine cutoff, IFT-3 had at least 70 tons of propellant remaining in its main tanks. Does that count as a payload? Redacted II (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

It depends. Normally, I would say it does not count because a payload is something that is meant to be delivered. If the extra propellant was part of the attempt to demonstrate tank-to-tank transfer, I don't think that counts either. However, if the extra propellant was intended to act as a mass simulator, I think an argument could be made to consider it to be a payload. This seems the least likely case though. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The propellant was residual, but was most likely a mass simulator. Redacted II (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

You would probably have to find a reliable source that actually states it was intended to act as a mass simulator. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Starship v1 only can do 40-50 tons

This was in the most recent presentation 72.76.72.238 (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a 100 ton difference between reusable and expendable, as shown on the Starship website.

A statement by Elon Musk claimed that V1 expendable could lift ~200 tons expendable. 200-100=100.

Also, the payload listed was for Flight 3, which was noticeably underfueled, compared to the IFT-1 and IFT-2 vehicles (look at the frost lines).

I hope this was helpful. Redacted II (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Long March 10 NET

The source listed for an edit claiming NET 2025-2026 is unreliable. I have reverted it to 2027, which had a more reliable source. Redacted II (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)