Talk:SpaceX Starship
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SpaceX Starship article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 30 days ![]() |
![]() | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated, especially about the status of the recent test flights. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting on that topic. Restarting a debate that has already been settled constitutes disruptive editing, tendentious editing, and "asking the other parent", unless consensus changes. |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Other talk page banners | ||||||||||
|
Do not classify IFT-1, 2 and 3 as success or failure
editDiscussion around IFT-1, 2 and 3 have demonstrated that classifying these launches as either "success" or "failure" is a bit simplistic. Rather, it would be better to classify them as "development test flights", and leave success/failure classification for actual payload missions. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support The launch vehicle design hasn't been finalized yet. I think it'd also help avoid all the debates every time there's a launch. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. The IFT launches can be labeled as v1, like Falcon 9.Redacted II (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support. iT would help alleviate the conflicts between editors and reduce vandalism IMO. Norovern, bro! (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- I would support such a move based on the same grounds as my comment for IFT-2 - in summary, these aren't actual production launches, but rather test flights for development phases. This is also different from most other test flights that do get counted into the Infobox because those test flights are for the final vehicle, not for development. It would also solve this issue where we would have an entire debate each time there is a test flight, considering most of the comments and !votes I've seen aren't that policy/previous consensus-based. User3749 (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support per my (now archived) comment (formerly) above. Quoted here:
Success or Inapplicable. Given that the whole purpose of the launch/flight/mission was to find potential points of failure in the vehicle/system any outcome that doesn't cause collateral damage is either a successful search for failures or not quantifiable as a success or failure. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC) Largely Legible Layman
(talk) 16:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC) - Strong support enough editor time has been wasted on this trivial point. Those are development flights and it is clear that this topic requires more nuance than a "success/failure" binary option. {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 17:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose. Other aerospace companies spend a lot of time making sure that everything is done right the first time around, before they put together and launch a complete vehicle. Rockets failing on the first try is the exception, not the norm, and there's no logical reason why SpaceX should be treated as "special" in some way. DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 17:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support. I came to close the above RfC, took a brief look at the complex arguments and analyses, and immediately thought: "This is why we normally only include simple details in infoboxes!" —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Since all but two editors here (me and DASL51984) have supported the motion, I believe this topic should transition to what we are going to call the launches, if anything at all.
- My proposal is this: Under other outcomes, list: V1 Test Flights: 3 (and a note to explain why they are excluded from success vs failure, similar to what exists on the Space Shuttle article) Redacted II (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. I think doing this will finally enable us to work on more productive things rather than writing kilobytes over kilobytes of debates. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Should we add it in now, or wait until the RfC is closed? Redacted II (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Let's wait until the RfC is closed :) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Should we add it in now, or wait until the RfC is closed? Redacted II (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. I think doing this will finally enable us to work on more productive things rather than writing kilobytes over kilobytes of debates. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support — these were test flights, with the goal for the company to flight test on an integrated vehicle things they could not completely test in ground tests, or under conditions that exist on the surface of Earth. No one, and no engineer on the SpaceX development team, knows how far one of these test flights will go, where thousands of sequential events have to go right to even get to the later parts of a flight test. There was no commercial objective for these test flights: e.g., like "place the xyz payload into orbit". It is just wiki-original research to try to simplify into "Success" or "Failure" when many tens of major test objectives are in play. N2e (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support — as SpaceX itself publishes only informal launch objectives and post-launch summaries we end up in endless and needless discussions after every IFT launch. IlkkaP (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Now that the IFT-3 RfC has been closed, and that only two editors (myself and DASL51984) have expressed opposition to not classifying IFT flights as Success, partial failure, or failure, I believe it is fair to say a consensus has formed in favor of this option.
- I have already made a proposal for a new classification, which I will repeat here:
- Under other outcomes, list: V1 Test Flights: 3, with a note saying "V1 Test Flights are not included with other flights due to significant differences between vehicles, and the iterative flight plans of the various launches" Regardless of the outcome of IFT-4, 5, 6, or 7, they would be included under this category as well.
- Until a new classification is decided, the infobox should remain unchanged. Redacted II (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- In other articles, including Falcon 1 (Flight 1-4 were tests, Flight 5 was operational) and Space Shuttle (STS 1-4 were tests, STS 5-135 were operational), test flights are counted. Consensus should still respect precedents and standards, and must only overrule them with proof that the precedents and standards were erroneous. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note to closer - While I closed the previous RFC, I explicitly did not override consensus on this discussion, wherever it lands. If the consensus here is not clear cut, I recommend reading the previous RFC's discussion, as multiple editors there discussed removal without repeating those arguments here. Soni (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose The only argument supporting this is to avoid further debates, but this is misguided and I hope that experienced editors here can avoid rushing to that conclusion, consensus can't be mere arbitrary majority. Every other article on the topic, such as Falcon 1, Falcon 9, Saturn V, include this information. The standard is that every rocket, both SpaceX and NASA, successes and failures are recorded, and laypersons like me can readily understand it. I don't believe there will much more debates for three reasons, first that we agreed upon the upper limit of failure in IFT-2 and the lower limit of success in IFT-3, second that we find each of these supported by reliable sources and not original research, third that we have every reason to expect that most future launches are more likely to be successful, please wait until IFT-4, IFT-5, IFT-6 before deciding to omit this information. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Starship follows a very different approach compared to traditional rockets, wherein failures are expected as part of the development process. It would be unfair for Starship to classify IFT1, IFT2 and IFT3 as failures when they met their respective goals of testing different aspects of the vehicle, and it would be unfair for other rockets to classify them as success when their respective vehicles very clearly suffered unintended catastrophic failures. Even IFT4, which was the first to reach all of its stated flight plan, is not a complete success because of the heavy damage suffered during reentry that would probably preclude it from being reused in an operational flight (if it didn't land on water of course). In my view the only option here is to list test flights in a different category. Agile Jello (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just to correct something, the final RfC consensus was IFT-3 was a success. Redacted II (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Strongly support. Every time there’s an IFT an edit war starts and this can finalize that problem by acknowledging that these are tests. CaptHorizon (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Spacecraft and booster article cutouts.
editI feel like they are too long, and overly detailed. For example: the booster part talks quite extensivley about how musk said it will weigh this much. This is quite boring to a reader who wants basic information. If they want to know the mass, they could look up the actual page. In general, this musk said this and that should be remowed, or rephrased. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. Redacted II (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Statements that read like news or press releases should be taken out and in turn should be re-written within the lens of an encyclopedia, which is purely knowledge-based in spirit. Unfortunately, due to the fast paced nature of this program and SpaceX related content in large, i find its almost inevitable that some of the content will read like news. Its just the nature of the beast right now. But definitely there's value in rewriting both articles, especially for youth who will be referencing these articles in the future, for many SpaceX is their first exposure to spaceflight. It will take an individual with a unique mix of sufficient knowledge about Wikipedia content standards, spaceflight, and writing prowess to be able to turn these from passable to great articles. Thistheyear2023 (talk) 07:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- The issue isn't with the articles, just the sections shown here. Redacted II (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Statements that read like news or press releases should be taken out and in turn should be re-written within the lens of an encyclopedia, which is purely knowledge-based in spirit. Unfortunately, due to the fast paced nature of this program and SpaceX related content in large, i find its almost inevitable that some of the content will read like news. Its just the nature of the beast right now. But definitely there's value in rewriting both articles, especially for youth who will be referencing these articles in the future, for many SpaceX is their first exposure to spaceflight. It will take an individual with a unique mix of sufficient knowledge about Wikipedia content standards, spaceflight, and writing prowess to be able to turn these from passable to great articles. Thistheyear2023 (talk) 07:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Replace non-free image of Starship versions table with text
editFor accessibility (WP:IUP#FORMAT) and copyright reasons (WP:NFCCP) I'd change the format of this slide to wikitext:
Flight 3 | Starship 2 | Starship 3 | |
---|---|---|---|
Payload to Orbit (t) | N/A | 100+ | 200+ |
Booster Prop Load (t) | 3300 | 3650 | 4050 |
Ship Prop Load (t) | 1200 | 1500 | 2300 |
Booster Liftoff Thrust (tf) | 7130 | 8240 | 10000 |
Ship Initial Thrust (tf) | 1250 | 1600 | 2700 |
Ship SL Engines | 3 | 3 | 3 |
Ship VAC Engines | 3 | 3 | 6 |
Booster Height (m) | 71 | 72.3 | 80.2 |
Ship Height (m) | 50.3 | 52.1 | 69.8 |
Total Height (m) | 121.3 | 124.4 | 150 |
However, I couldn't find the primary source for the slide, which is currently not really readable at File:Starship Versions.jpeg. HLFan (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Way better then what currently is! Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- I can cite it Redacted II (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2024
editThis edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The date of IFT-5 should be updated according to newer information provided in the "SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 5" page.
On this page, in the Fifth integrated flight test paragraph it is written: As of May 2024, IFT-5 is expected to occur in late June.
On the "SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 5" page it is written: Based on comments from Elon Musk, the fifth flight test is expected no earlier than late July 2024. With the reference:
@elonmusk (June 15, 2024). "Aiming to try this in late July!" (Tweet). Retrieved June 15, 2024 – via Twitter. AlainFournier (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Twitter is not considered a reliable source. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- The "reliable source" cited for the late June date points to a ValleyCentral.com article from May 14th (before IFT-4) and gives a "after Memorial Day weeekend" date for the next launch, which means that date is for IFT-4, not IFT-5. No late June date is given in the cited article.
- Therefore, the source cited is phony. @elonmusk being SpaceX's boss, I think in this case a tweet from him can be considered a reliable source. It is at least better than a phony source for the June date. AlainFournier (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- As the person who included that source, RGV Aerial (IIRC) claimed that IFT-5's date was stated in that interview.
- So, I used that source.
- But this is irrelevant: the article has been updated already. Redacted II (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Wrong citation
editIn the "Fifth integrated flight test" section it is written: "As of May 2024, IFT-5 is expected to occur in late July." with a reference to citation 171: "SpaceX aims to launch Starship after Memorial Day". KVEO-TV. 14 May 2024. Retrieved 21 May 2024."
The correct citation is 172: Musk, Elon [@elonmusk] (15 June 2024). "Aiming to try this in late July!"(Tweet).
But citation 172, is already given for the next sentence. I think in this case we can have the reference given only once at the next sentence. AlainFournier (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'll fix the citation Redacted II (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
100-150 T to orbit in right hand info box
editShould the article state that the vehicle is capable of delivering this mass to LEO when the vehicle has not yet done that? In the article itself, it correctly states that this is the purported mass to LEO. The right hand info box should also make this clear. 184.175.54.203 (talk) 01:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- 100% yes.
- For example, Falcon Heavy has never flown a 63.8 ton payload into LEO. But that's what its capable of, so that's what its listed payload capacity is. Redacted II (talk) 03:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Requested move of SpaceX Starship flight test pages
editThere is a requested move discussion at Talk:SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 4, impacting all of the SpaceX Starship integrated flight test pages, that may be of interest to followers of this page. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Direct link to discussion here. Redacted II (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Different articles for Starship 1, Starship 2, and Starship 3.
editThere is precedent for different versions of a launch vehicle to have dedicated articles. For example, Falcon 9's versions are:
Therefore, Starship 1 should have a dedicated article, followed by an article for Starship 2 (and maybe Starship 3). Redacted II (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that's a good example. In retrospect, I'm not convinced that individual articles for each Falcon 9 variant was the best approach. These are not total redesigns like say Ariane 5 vs Ariane 6.
- A single, comprehensive article covering all Falcon 9 variants would have provide a more cohesive understanding of the rocket's evolution.
- The problem is that well meaning editors created the Falcon 9 v1.0, Falcon 9 v1.1, and Falcon 9 Full Thrust articles amid the excitement when they were the new shiny rockets. But as the rockets matured, the pages languished. Note that a Falcon 9 Block 4 article was never made and the quality of the article for the Falcon 9 Block 5 (arguably the most important variant of the class) is lower than the others.
- The other issue I foresee is that unlike the early days Falcon 9 program, which was largely in support of the COTS and CRS programs, which meant NASA published a lot of public documentation... that does not exist to the same level for Starship, which will make it even more challenging to create standalone pages for its variants.
- By focusing on a smaller number of well-written, in-depth articles, we can allocate our editorial resources more effectively and ensure a higher overall quality of content. Also, remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or a crystal ball, which means that our content should be weighted towards covering things that happened in the past, not things happening now or in the future (although those things do get covered). It's okay to wait, see how things play out in the arc of history and create pages accordingly. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- There were substantial redesigns between Falcon versions, and between Starship 1 and Starship 2.
- V1.0 -> V1.10 is by far the most visually obvious: new aft design (May be present on Starship 2), stretched tanks (Present on Starship 2), uprated engines, and both landings legs + grid fins (Starship 2 has redesigned forward flaps).
- V1.10 -> Full Thrust introduced super-cooled propellant, an upgraded structure (Present on Starship 2), stretched tanks, new interstage (According to SpaceX's renders, present on Starship 2), and additional upgrades to the engines.
- Full Thrust -> Block 5 has more engine upgrades, upgraded heat shield (Present on Starship 2), new grid fins, and redesigned COPVs.
- That alone makes the differences worthy of dedicated articles, according to precedent. But for further precedent, Atlas I and Atlas II. The differences were solely stretched tanks, upgraded engines (According to SpaceX's renders, present on Starship 2), and the option to have up to four Castor 4A SRBs.
- There is substantial documentation of Starship 1 and Starship 2. Finding sources won't be a challenge.
- The reason Block 4 doesn't have a dedicated article may be because it was a transition design between Block 3 and Block 5. This is why I'm not proposing an article for a Starship 2 ship on a Starship 1 booster (Currently planned for at least Flights 7 and 8, FAA documents indicates up to 20 more flights of Starship 1's booster).
- (All the above information is taken from Wikipedia articles)
- As for WP:Crystal Ball, Starship 2 is not a "future design". There is a fully stacked Starship 2 upper stage in Mega Bay 2 right now (Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuJYUqzKE5Q). Redacted II (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- My point is, those design changes can be covered on a single, comprehensive article. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- But historically, they have not. And it would be a massive strain on this article to feature all of Starship 1, Starship 2, and Starship 3 to a substantially greater extent than Falcon 9 does for V1.0, V1.10, ect, ect. Giving each version a dedicated article will enable us to, as you put it "allocate our editorial resources more effectively and ensure a higher overall quality of content". Redacted II (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- My point is, those design changes can be covered on a single, comprehensive article. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agreeing with RickyCourtney that no separate article needed, and with Falcon it would probably have been better to have a single article only. Vast majority of Wikipedia readers don’t differentiate between different Starship (or Falcon) models and would get confused what is the right article to search information. IlkkaP (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Furthermore, the links to Starship 1, Starship 2, and Starship 3 under the Launch History, Vehicle variants section are broken. They are pointing to "Version_1", "Version_2", and "Version_3" rather than "Starship_1", "Starship_2", "Starship_3". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexden12 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- The launch history is taken from List of SpaceX Starship Launches, which is not protected - but I fixed the links there, thanks. The different Falcon variants all delivered payloads to space and they have tons of known differences. For now we don't have an equivalent to that with Starship. v1 and v2 look like just steps in the development process, v1 is not expected to carry payloads to orbit at all. --mfb (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- V1 is the largest rocket ever flown, and it will be until Starship 2 flies. That makes it extremely notable. Redacted II (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)