Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 00:28, 18 January 2025

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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.

SpaceX Starship was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result September 14, 2021 Good article nominee Listed September 24, 2021 Featured article candidate Not promoted October 11, 2021 Peer review Reviewed October 12, 2021 Guild of Copy Editors Copyedited October 21, 2021 Featured article candidate Not promoted November 21, 2021 Good article reassessment Kept December 2, 2021 WikiProject A-class review Not approved January 24, 2022 Peer review Reviewed March 12, 2022 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 17, 2022 Good article reassessment Delisted June 6, 2022 Peer review Reviewed June 16, 2022 Good article nominee Not listed January 13, 2023 Good article nominee Not listed A fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 9, 2021.The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that SpaceX's reusable Starship launch vehicle has twice as much thrust as the Apollo program's Saturn V? Current status: Delisted good article

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Rocketry High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Spaceflight: SpaceX working group High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by SpaceX working group. Astronomy: Mars / Moon / Solar System Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Mars task force (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by Moon task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Mid-importance). United States Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Travel and Tourism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Travel and TourismWikipedia:WikiProject Travel and TourismTemplate:WikiProject Travel and TourismTourism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Other talk page banners

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. The contents of the Super Heavy (rocket stage) page were merged into SpaceX Starship on 8th September 2021. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Space.com, Teslarati, Futurism, Futurity, Teslamanian, Inverse, Daily Mail, most YouTube videos, blogs (including Universe Today) are NOT reliable. However, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS applies. NASASpaceFlight.com, generally reliable but need some check to separate speculation from reported facts, as with the case of freshly reported news. Eric Berger at Ars Technica is generally reliable but biased towards SpaceX. See this RfC for reference. Is SpaceX's Starship the loudest ever rocket? (BBC) This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: April 16 to 22, 2023

Uncourced claim of sat clearance

by Thistheyear2023. Where is the sense of protecting an article when users may put every unsourced nonsense in thile IPs can't even put an "citation needed" flag up? Same nonsense was in Flight Test 7 article where @RickyCourtney removed it; please do so here. 47.64.128.79 (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Article was protected due to heated dispute regarding IFT success v.s failure status.

There was a lot of edit warring, so the page was protected.

However, I am not sure why that was included.

@Thistheyear2023 do you have a source regarding Starship being cleared to begin deploying payloads? Redacted II (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes from this article: https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/11/the-key-moment-came-38-minutes-after-starship-roared-off-the-launch-pad/

” That's when Starship reignited one of its six Raptor engines for a brief burn to make a slight adjustment to its flight path. The burn lasted only a few seconds, and the impulse was small—just a 48 mph (77 km/hour) change in velocity, or delta-V—but it demonstrated that the ship can safely deorbit itself on future missions.

With this achievement, Starship will likely soon be cleared to travel into orbit around Earth and deploy Starlink Internet satellites or conduct in-space refueling experiments, two of the near-term objectives on SpaceX's Starship development roadmap.“ Thistheyear2023 (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Will likely soon be cleared ≠ was cleared. RickyCourtney (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree, this doesnt mean a anything Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Wonder why all the Starship articles became playgrounds for people who watch and read lots of videos and websites, but then seem to understand not properly and put halfbaked info as facts into articles that even the source rates as mere guessing... 47.69.168.221 (talk) 08:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Probably because Starship has garnered the attention of more youngsters,who will then watch clickbait videos not knowing the Info isnt correct. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Fehér Zsigmond-03 That's what I think, too. Even worse, all the Original Research coming from false/doubtful interpretation of some vague facts. Lots and lots of them lately. Most recent example is the ongoing discussion in several places whether a flight was actually orbital. They look up some raw flight data from an unsources third party private website (wp:rs non-reliable sources), compare with the one definition of "orbit" (out of many = cherrypicking) they like best, and then insist that this flight therefore (wp:or) was orbital or suborbital and to put that as fact into the article. Why can't anyone stick to the official statements or wait for them to come up? Might it be mere satisfaction for a know-it-all to be the first to have discovered a tiny new fact? Serious work on an encyclopedia should work differently... 47.69.168.221 (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I belive in the past there were arguments here about the flights being trans-atmospheric or suborbital too. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of a complete removal, it should be changed to "Potentially enabling Starship to begin orbital flights", which is backed by a source. Redacted II (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It would be fine to be put it somewhere on the page but it’s not notable enough for inclusion in the intro to this page. RickyCourtney (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed.

Maybe in the IFT-6 mini-section? Redacted II (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Speculation by some third party about what might happen in the future should not be part of the main area of an article in principle. In an article about a movie, it would belong in the "reception" section. No such thing is in any rocket related article. So kindly wait until FAA really clears sat deliverance and not jonjecture around. Does not help the article at all, only flatters some ego. 47.69.168.221 (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

While you do not bother to reply to valid arguments, maybe because you have nothing to contribute, you instead chose to tamper with other peoples comments.

Note: It is extremely rude and uncooperative to change someone else's edit.

Be reminded of Misplaced Pages:Talk_page_guidelines:

• Comment on content, not on the contributor
• Behavior that is unacceptable: Generally, do not alter others' comments

WP:TPO - Exception: Sockpuppets. Any proof?? Or another falce accusation? 80.187.75.118 (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Removing WP:PA.

"Flatters some ego" is a clear WP:PA violation

(Also, you've misused the Trout on my talk page) Redacted II (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

About the clutter of the Starship topic and all the ramifications with which it has grown like a malignant tumor.

It is unnecessary to state the reasons in a long text. Everyone is a witness to what is happening. There is hardly any other rocket and space system, or an entire space program, with such a dedicated space for information (in the English version). There is hardly any subtopic for every bolt, nut and tube and when these fasteners flew. If my way of describing entertains you, you can always use an appropriate emoticon. But I cry, my eyes water when I have to read everything, which takes a long time. ГеоргиУики (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? Redacted II (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not hiring as I would have to write an entire scientific paper for the purpose. But what I mean is so obvious, why do you want a justification? ГеоргиУики (talk) 07:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, I can give something as an idea. I think a single template representing a table of all SpaceX Starship launches is sufficient, instead of whole article for each. There is currently a separate article for each integrated test flight(IFT). ГеоргиУики (talk) 07:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The List of Starship launches article is already quite large. And will only grow larger (just look at the List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches article as an example).

Having a template instead makes no sense.

(Also, saying you don't need a justification for your complaints severely reduces the validity of your argument) Redacted II (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

That's the problem. I see no reason to describe in detail every event related to SpaceX Starship(and falcon 9 too). That was also the reason I ironically blurted out that there is hardly a record here of everything that happens with bolts, nuts and pipes. This looked like, not an article on Misplaced Pages, but a detailed chronicle, the way the king's retinue of courtiers create thick biographical volumes for his majesty with descriptions of everything he has done, almost the exact time and date of every time he visited the toilet and what he "produced" in it. ГеоргиУики (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

There is an extremely large precedent to list every launch. Redacted II (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Ha, it seems to be more common than I thought. Do you think it is of any use? ГеоргиУики (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, sice spacex change smth for every launch, there is always smth new to include,wich is enough to write an article about Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 11:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

By the way, as I saw in the examples you mentioned, there is no separate article for each test flight, in the way that there is an article for SS IFT1; SS IFT2 and so on. ГеоргиУики (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Not all flights require an article. But the intial flight tests of a fully reusable Super heavy-lift launch vehicle are incredibly notable. I'm expecting each flight to get an article until either payload deployment begins or reflight of both stages. But IDK. Redacted II (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I can actually see most Starship launches after the first reflight of both stages not getting an individual article.

Starlink or Starshield missions would only appear on "List of launches" type articles.

The Starship Arthemis missions likely would include all tanker launches and the launch containing the lander in a table on a single article.

Early Mars missions could have a table similar to the one for the Starship Arthemis missions. AmigaClone (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll comment here only on the narrow part of the discussion dealing with articles on each launch. Today, each Starship test flight is so different, and each is so widely covered in both U.S. and international secondary-source media, that of course each flight will, and should, have its own article. This has been the norm for launch coverage on Misplaced Pages for 2+ decades. When that ceases to be the case for Starship, as someday it likely will if a high-launch rate is achieved, there will no longer be a justification for one-article-per-launch. When that day arrives, some editor will likely create that article for the nth Starship launch, and that article will then, at that time, get AfD'd, and ultimately, not survive the AfD. That day is not now. N2e (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

There has been no specific PROPOSAL made, so the above discussion is necessarily vague and not straightforward to discern consensus. If someone has a specific proposal to make, go for it. N2e (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I have a few different proposals.

Proposal 1.

Wait until each flight stops significant coverage (From CNN, NPR, NSF, ect, ect). This may take awhile, but it obeys notability rules. If a flight gets massive coverage (for any reason), add an article.

Proposal 2.

Wait until successful reflight with recovery. Its likely that every single flight until this point (and likely a few after) will be test flights with significant media coverage.

Proposal 3.

Wait until each flight stops significant coverage (From CNN, NPR, NSF, ect, ect) and reflight (with recovery being successful, meaning both stages are not obviously incapable of reflight). This will take longer, but it obeys notability rules. If a flight gets massive coverage (for any reason), add an article.

Proposal 4.

Wait until Starship begins deploying payloads (and no, the banana does not count).

Proposal 5.

Wait until Starship is flying twice a month consistenly (this is more than Arianespace + ULA combined have ever achieved in a single year).

Personally, I favor Proposals 3 and 4. I also think we should begin making an article for the starship prop transfer demo launches, as it has already received significant coverage. Redacted II (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with a combination of Proposals 3 and 4. I also think we should begin making an article for the starship prop transfer demo launches, possibly along the lines of Falcon 9 first-stage landing tests.

Some notes:

• One of the first payloads to be deployed will likely be the Starship version of Starlink. That payload would likely only need an edit to the header of List of Starlink and Starshield launches and adding couple of lines in the table describing the launches.

• The Starship missions to the moon could be in the form of one article containing a short table with all the tanker, HLS, and other launches needed for that mission.

• Initial Starship missions to Mars could be in the form of one article containing a short table with all the tanker, HLS, and other launches needed for a mission. AmigaClone (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on all of your points.

I already have a draft of the Prop Transfer Demo Article in my sandbox (I'll upgrade it to an official draft sometime soon), though its closer to the current flight test articles than the F9 landing test article. Redacted II (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

About proposal 5. For next year FAA decided to give 15 starts to SpaceX Starship. Maybe from 2026 number of starts will be enough to average of 2 or more per month? ГеоргиУики (talk) 06:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Source?

Last I heard they only had permission for 5/year (but are aiming for 25 in 2025). Redacted II (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Ups, yes my bad memory. Up to 25 and for 2025 and still not permitted. ГеоргиУики (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

SpaceX Starship Statistics template changes

Recently, @Redacted II asked for the separation of block 1 and block 2 data in the template. I have made some (quite dramatic) changes and improvements to the template:

• Data is now separated into block 1 and block 2
• Starbase now has 2 pads, and added recovery counts, as the old version was made around flight 3
• Removed expended counts as that is redundant (expended = total - recovered)
• All the old parameters have been replaced with new parameters, which means we will have to go through every single article that uses this and change the parameter calls.

The added benefit of all of this hassle is that the charts used in List_of_Starship_Launches#Launch statistics could probably use this template now.

The proposed template can be found here. Please provide feedback, thanks! Stoplookin9 Hey there! Send me a message! 01:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Another thing: if there are any Misplaced Pages template conventions I'm violating (like last time, when I forgot to use {{FULLPAGENAME}}, let me know immediately so I don't get this. Stoplookin9 Hey there! Send me a message! 01:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you forgot to list the parameters Redacted II (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Expended counts actually would be (expended = total-recovered-lost).

I would suggest having a way to keep track of the number of boosters in a certain block from the ships. As is, FT-7 would break the template since it uses a block 1 booster and a block 2 ship. It also would be possible for a booster to be lost while the ship is recovered or the other way around.

So far we would have the following data for orbital launches (IFT1, IFT2, FT3, and FT6):

StarshipShip1Launch: 4 <-- presuming IFT1 and IFT2 were intended to be transatmospheric -->

StarshipShip1Lost: 3

StarshipShip1Expended: 1

StarshipShip1Recovered: 0

StarshipBooster1Launch: 4

StarshipBooster1Lost: 4

StarshipBooster1Expended: 0

StarshipBooster1Recovered: 0 AmigaClone (talk) 03:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Suborbital flights should be included as well.

(Also, it was discussed earlier, and I believe general consensus is to list the highest version# as the vehicle version. So IFT-7, IFT-8, and at least IFT-9 will be Block 2)

StarshipShip1Launch: 6

StarshipShip1Lost: 3

StarshipShip1Expended: 3

StarshipShip1Recovered: 0

StarshipBooster1Launch: 6

StarshipBooster1Lost: 3

StarshipBooster1Expended: 2

StarshipBooster1Recovered: 1 Redacted II (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a second reason to keep track of the boosters and ships separately. Especially at the experimental stage there will be different results for the booster and ship. For example, in FT-6 the booster was lost while the ship was expended. AmigaClone (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Yup Redacted II (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I appear to have suffered a severe case of iforgottocopytheactualnewtemplatefromnotepadtowikipediaitis.

Anyways

I'm going to add the above in. Stoplookin9 Hey there! Send me a message! 14:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I tried to add the template to Super heavy-lift launch vehicle, but it just added this: Template:Stoplookin9/SpaceX Starship Statistics. Redacted II (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

You should be adding {{Template:SpaceX_Starship_Statistics}} instead. The template in my user space is just a sandbox, once I get all the problems ironed out, I will move that over to the main template Stoplookin9 Hey there! Send me a message! 16:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Redacted II (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Guys, do not use template params to define other params in the same template, it breaks everything

Basically template|a = template|b + template|c will break. Use template|a = template/subpage|b + template/subpage|c

Anyways, I rolled out the new changes, and then realized that because everyone acts conservative with the template I didn't actually have to change the template calls in the actual articles Stoplookin9 Hey there! Send me a message! 01:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Do we need a potential missions section?

The "Potential Missions" section is... unique to this article, and doesn't really add much. Shouldn't it be removed? Redacted II (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I would say there is a better case for the "Potential Missions" section be divided into three:

• NASA/DoD Missions (containing Arthemis and "Rocket Cargo") - basically those missions where there is a signed contract.

• SpaceX Missions (Containing Starlink, Mars Colonization, Point to Point)

• Potential Missions (The other missions) AmigaClone (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

That definitely works. But long term it doesn't make sense to list every single type of mission flown. Redacted II (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

How to classify the upcoming launch(es) of the Starship+Super Heavy system

Flights up until now has been with Block 1 of both Ship and Booster. Flight 7 and presumably some flights after that will be performed with a Block 1 Booster and Block 2 Ship. How should this mixture of block numbers be categorized when referring to the combined system?

Should it just depend on the block number of the ship and flight 7 should be regarded as a block 2 system? Essentially ignoring the booster but keeping it simple.

Or should the launches with block 1 boosters and block 2 ships be categorized as its own thing, e.g. as Starship block 1.5 or something like that to indicate its difference from the pure block 2 system. Lomicto (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

We should follow what reliable sources classify them as. If RS don't definitively state which block a given launch belongs to, we should be silent about the block classification as well, or use "not applicable" or something like that. Indefatigable (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Instead of “not applicable” we should say mixed, to avoid confusion. Thats my preference though Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

For me it will be interesting whether there will be a final version of the rocket. Don't forget the slogan that Redacted II promoted in a one of previous discussion, that everything Starship that is not final is just test versions. They can remain in one article with all the other test versions, starting with the Starhopper. ГеоргиУики (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Sources have already called it Block 2.

Personally, I like Block 1.5, but a grand total of 0 sources have called it that.

(This has been discussed earlier) Redacted II (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we should see what RS (or SpaceX itself) calls the combination of a booster of a certain block and a ship of another one.

My preference would be something more along the lines of Block 1-2. The first digit indicating that the booster in that example is block 1 and the second digit indicating the ship is block 2. That is closer to what other US launch vehicles have used like the Atlas V, Delta, and Antares. Here it might be best to just state the launch used a Block 1 Super Heavy and a Block 2 Ship. Later there will also be the need to distinguish between the Ship variants in addition it's block

AmigaClone (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Something similar is used on List of Starship Launches Redacted II (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

On a more practical note: on the template I am working on (I just took a break from Misplaced Pages due to irl stuff), Block 1 and 2 Starship and Super Heavy are classified separately (duh). However, the params for block 1 launches and block 2 launches don't take into consideration whether the ship's block is different from the booster. So this begs the question of whether flight 7 (and so on) would be classified as block 1 launches or block 2 launches (because different blocks for ship and booster).

I suppose that I could just wait until we get closer to January 10 and see what the news says, but I'm concerned if the situation turns out to be around a 50/50 split of "it's block 1" and "it's block 2". Stoplookin9 Hey there! Send me a message! 23:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Flight 7 is Block 2.

(Sources like NASASpaceflight say Block/Version 2, I doubt CNN/NBC/ect ect will pick up on the difference) Redacted II (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Next Spaceflight (by NASASpaceflight) classifies Flight 7 as Block 1/2. I think it is misleading to call it simply Block 2. In my opinion, we should use Block 1/2 and include a note next to it: "Block 1 booster + Block 2 ship." Max1298 (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

That is one source calling it Block 1/2, with the owner of said source (NSF) calling it Block 2, as well as every other source that cares about the difference Redacted II (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

HLS derivative work

HLS is a Starship second stage, so it feels like a stretch to call it a "derivative". Redacted II (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The best solution is to come up with a special name for the complete system of ship+booster, especially since the booster does not fly "to the stars" instead of having to explain the articles about the ship and the complete rocket in brackets. ГеоргиУики (talk) 09:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

That is a violation of WP:OR Redacted II (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't want you to come up with a name. Why don't you just interview Elon Musk about the questions you haven't yet clarified? ГеоргиУики (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I cannot interview Elon Musk. Sorry to disappoint. Redacted II (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I personally would compare the Starship second stage to an aircraft. A particular aircraft type, say a Boeing 747, can have several different models (B747-100, B747SP B747-200, B747-300, B747-400, B747-8). The equivalent for Starship would be the Blocks (Block 1, Block 2, Block 3).

Within a particular model number, there might be cargo, passengers, or military versions. I would not call those different versions "derivatives" but use the term versions. AmigaClone (talk) 07:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I concur. I think these (Pez, Depot, Tanker, HLS, general cargo) are variants, not derivatives. They did not evolve from "the" existing Starship, so not derivative. They each (more or less) equally began development from the generic design. Block 2 and Block 3 are derivatives, but by convention we don't put them in the list of derivatives because they are described in this same article. -Arch dude (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Fully agree Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• Delisted good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
• Former good article nominees
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles
• B-Class Rocketry articles
• High-importance Rocketry articles
• WikiProject Rocketry articles
• B-Class spaceflight articles
• High-importance spaceflight articles
• SpaceX working group articles
• WikiProject Spaceflight articles
• B-Class Astronomy articles
• Low-importance Astronomy articles
• B-Class Astronomy articles of Low-importance
• B-Class Mars articles
• High-importance Mars articles
• Mars task force articles
• B-Class Moon articles
• Mid-importance Moon articles
• Moon task force articles
• B-Class Solar System articles
• Mid-importance Solar System articles
• Solar System task force
• B-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class Tourism articles
• Low-importance Tourism articles
• WikiProject Travel and Tourism articles
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report