Talk:SpaceX Starship (spacecraft)

improvements

1. 1 Please make sure all dates get years. Especially in the older parts of the history, but also newer facts, it's totally unclear when what happened, like "As of June 8, S29 is the largest artificial object to reenter Earths atmosphere" - this will most likely stay here for years and nobodywill then know that it refers to 2024.

1. 2 The List of Starship prototypes should give the version. If I understand right, Ships 36+ will be V2.

1. 3 All the different articles about Starship, Starship (Spacecraft), SpaceX_Super_Heavy and many more are extremely irritating, as they duplicate a lot, link to and back extensively, are in different states of actuality and maintenance, and help more to confuse the general readers than to help understand the topic. Need better structuring and removing of old, now unimportant info (or move that to extra areas).

47.67.199.63 (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

1: This was decided against earlier.

2: That is included in the article.

3: Notable rocket stages get their own article. Just look at the Shuttle: it's OMS system has its own article! Redacted II (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

1. Where? By whom? Despite that, the criticism is still valid. How will you avoid the confusion that already happens? Or, organise the sections by year.

2. But NOT in the list. Are readers supposed to look through the whole lenghty article, while the list includes much less important info?

3. I wrote about duplications and outdated info, not about removing articles. You don't read.

You just put down all recommendations without really reading them, and not arguing with facts either. Obviously, you think you own this article and don't want to cooperate in any way. Not WP style. 47.64.131.12 (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

1: They were removed on Super Heavy. I forgot what editor. Context does make it clear.

2: Its not as important as the info in the list

3: Go look at similar articles. Its not an issue.

I put down all recommendations because they will not improve the article. They will make it worse. Redacted II (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Your sole opinion. I thought WP was common work. What gives you the right to decide to "put down recommendations"? 47.69.68.190 (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Editors can reject edit requests.

Thats how Wikipedia works. Redacted II (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Who promoted you to be "THE editor" of this arcticle? 47.69.68.190 (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Editor: anyone with an account Redacted II (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

So you promote a 2-class wikipedia, that is hogwash. Nowhere is stated that only account holders are allowed to judge what is written in an article. Don't always try to fool people, but try to work in community for once. 47.69.68.190 (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Read this: Edit requests

An editor can reject an edit request, provided that they have a reason for doing so. My reasoning is above.

And your comments here and in the topic below are well past personal attacks. Redacted II (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:OWN 47.69.67.6 (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, read on edit requests.

You made an edit request. I rejected it. Any other editor can (and likely would) have done the same. Redacted II (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Infobox change proposal

If Starship’s failures and losses can be shown, then the successes should be shown as well. The main Starship page shows it in this way already (Successes: 2 and Failures: 2). Here, it would be adding IFT-4 as a success while leaving IFTs 1 and 3 as ship losses and IFT-2 as ship failure (so exactly how they are now). Similar changes should also be done to the Super Heavy page regarding this.CaptHorizon (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. Successes are not listed in Spacecraft Infoboxes, and its actually impossible to add.

I'm less opposed to adding it to Super Heavy, but I do not believe it is necessary. Redacted II (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. Argument is valid, and information is valuable enough to put into infobox for first glance. 47.69.68.190 (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, its impossible to implement. There is no way to add it to the Spacecraft Infobox. Redacted II (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

"there is no way" is the killer phrase of the unwilling and unimaginative... 47.69.68.190 (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Except, its not possible. Go check for yourself. The "flight data" section of the template lacks an option for success Redacted II (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Templates can be changed, as seen on the SpaceX Starship (spacecraft) page. You always try to take others for fool just to cover that you lack real arguments. 47.69.68.190 (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Your not understanding what I'm saying. Obviously, the infobox can be changed. But the template itself... no.

There is no precedent for listing success, either, so even if it was possible, there isn't any reason to add it. Redacted II (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

You are the one not listening. I gave the example just in the last post. Again: WP:OWN 47.69.67.6 (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

You gave a nonexistent example. If there's something I'm missing, please provide a Dif.

EDIT: Just curious, 47.69.67.6, are you the same user as the other IPs in the above discussion? While I'm sure it isn't malicious, you do have to make it clear if you are using the different accounts (especially in the same discussion). Redacted II (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Just found this, as you are once more changing discussion posts later to your convenience. As declared in your (dismissed) file against me of being disruptive, it is quite normal to get slightly different IPs automatically by the provider. Implying that is trying to appear as different persons is either a big gap of knowlegde on how providers work, or intentional attempt to discredit me. Feel free to give another explanation... 47.64.203.33 (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The last edit to this page by anyone other than you (not counting the archival bot or this post) was: July 14.

So, again, baseless accusations.

And again, that wasn't an accusation: I was curious, but also requesting that you make it clear to any user entering the discussion) Redacted II (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

S33 x2

Parts of the first Block 2 ship have been seen. Labeled S33.

How are we going to reduce confusion when discussed two different ships... with the same name? Redacted II (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Simply using the official names, and not deduction names from third party sources or own guessing... 47.64.203.33 (talk) 10:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

S33 is the official name of both ships.

But I believe it now clarifies in both the table and the rest of the article. Redacted II (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Says who, where is the proof!?

In the section "Ships 33–38", the only reference is a tweet by (dubious) @csi_starbase.

First, it does NOT say "the original S33's components were scrapped", but only the "aft section": "Ship 33 aft section was scrapped a few days ago. With S28-32 being the last of version 1 we should expect all components of S33+ to be deleted." Thus, there are/were other components that we have not heard from being scrapped, and "we should expect" is not describing facts either.

Second, it also not stated where they got the name S33 from (I guess, they were guessing). Thus, I don't see that this scrapped piece to metal was ever officially named "S33", and no sources at all given.

Once more a very bad example of sloppy source work and "educated guessing", which is not good enough for WP.

Third, is was you(!) who put that in on 1st Dec 23 without any source(!) in the first place, then someone added urgent "Citation needed", and on 12th dec 23 you added this current insufficient source.

Conclusion: more pseudofacts without sources, "original research" and guesswork. 47.64.203.33 (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Your ignoring the second source.

"While the nosecones were the most visible things to be scrapped, nearly all of Ship 33's barrel sections, including the forward, common, and aft dome sections, were all scrapped." Redacted II (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

What "second source"? In the discussed "Ships 33–38" section, there are 2 references, the first that I aldready dissected and does not have any additional facts, and the second being a worthless Musk tweet just stating "Four more Starships, the last of V1" withour ANY names, numbers or anything supporting your ridiculous claims. Your citation is nowhereto be found in the discusses section, and if it exists, it is missing there, as you don't even bother to state where it is from. You once more stick to your well-known method: Diverting from the topic by throwing in pseudofacts that don't help in any way but seem to distract the flippant reader. Does not work once more! 47.64.203.33 (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect.

Source 1: CSI Starbase tweet.

Source 2: RingWatchers article.

Check the actual article. Redacted II (talk) 11:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Apart from you still ignoring all my arguments and laid down facts above, your great source "ringwatchers.com/article/v2-ship-apr-2024" clearly states: "This article is more speculative than normal, and we'll make it clear what's extra speculative, but this is essentially all we know." and "While it's fun to speculate about these revisions, much of the following is only our best interpretation of imagery and trends". They make clear they are speculating while you present it here and in the article as pure facts. That is actually hardly more than spreading fake news, and it's hard for me after all that happend and you got cought making original research yourself, not to see that being intentionally.

There is no, absolutely no evidence for these parts ever to have been S33+ officially, that is all guesswork and even declared original research by the source itself.

Again: Stop distracting from facts, finally do good source work, no charry-picking, misapplying facts and wild guessing. 47.64.203.33 (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Speculative parts of the article:

V2 design.

Nonpseculative parts of the article:

that the parts of those ships were scrapped. Redacted II (talk) 14:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You still don't read or want to understand. Or try to distract with half-truisms again on purpose. I give up with you, it is just ridiculous. 47.64.203.33 (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)