Talk:SpaceX Starship - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Full Shunyata (talk | contribs) at 03:49, 21 April 2023 (→Success or Failure 20-Apr-2023: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:49, 21 April 2023 by Full Shunyata (talk | contribs) (→Success or Failure 20-Apr-2023: Reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

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: 3 months

Article history

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 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.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Rocketry High‑importance

	Rocketry portal 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.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Spaceflight: SpaceX working group High‑importance

	Spaceflight portal 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: Solar System

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Solar System task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States Low‑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.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Other talk page banners

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.

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.

There is a draft for this page located at Draft:SpaceX Starship.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Is it fully reusable?

In the Header is written „it is fully reusable“. As of right now it is not. It is INTENDET to be fully reusable. 2A02:1210:8ACF:FB00:1CF4:C3DB:DF64:4C6A (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

You are right. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

"intendet" really? are all fans of this project Ralph Wiggums? 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:3112:9AB7:34AE:ADE1 (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

As of now (April 4th 2023 ~ A week from launch) The flight with change all of the the tenses, also note, this WILL be FULLY REUSABLE, if you've seen the SN15 launch flight, they WILL be doing a fully reusable launch with the second stage (SN24) landing near Hawaii *fact check*. Anyways, I wish the editors luck with changing all the tenses to "has" or "launched" overall info seams accurate. 104.48.56.111 (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

This is incorrect. The system under development is to be fully reusable. Certain test launches will be deliberately landed in the ocean expended as part of the tests. An "expendable" booster is not landed with its engines and an expended second stage is left in space. Separately, expendable variants MAY be developed, but not initially. This is stated in the Teslarati reference. The expendable version will be developed only if there is customer demand for payloads that exceed the capability of the fully-reusable version. -Arch dude (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Arch dude, the test campaign will include water landings and future upper stage versions may be designed without reuse provisions, that doesn't change the fact that the intention for the program is full rapid reusability. Scottd521 (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Masses appear incorrect

Misplaced Pages's presentation of "mass" (in the right margin table) appears erroneous, listing: 10,000,000 lbm total "mass"... while the propellant alone (i.e., neglecting hardware) adds up to more than 10,000,000 lbm (i.e., listed as 7.5M lbm + 2.65M lbm)... leaving the hardware to weigh a "negative" 150,000 lbm. 97.101.194.114 (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

You're correct. Fixed that to 11 million pounds. CactiStaccingCrane 03:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Reusable

User:Zae8, you keep reverting my changes by claiming that the Starship is not only "planned" or "designed" to be full reusable, but "is" reusable. Do you have a reference for that? The only reference I see is the Space X advertisement website, which I would not consider being a reliable source, and I think Misplaced Pages should not just blindly copy-paste marketing claims. More in general, the statement that it is "planned" to be reusable is obviously a precise and correct description, so what problem do you have with that? Zae8 (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Zae8: by this reasoning, it is not yet a super-heavy launch vehicle, or even a launch vehicle at all, since it has not launched. The wording "in development" covers all of this. It's not just "planned". "Planned" has the connotation that no real hardware work has yet been done. "In development" is therefore more precise in this context. This is a matter of editorial judgement, and we should try to arrive at a consensus instead of just complaining at each other. Please note that this is far more than just SpaceX advertisement. We can actually see that SpaceX has installed TPS tiles on the Starship, that they have successfully undertaken a landing from a height of several kilometers, and they have spent a whole lot of money on their crazy chopsticks system. -Arch dude (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Arch: Sorry, I didn't want to complain about you.

Well, WP:CRYSTALBALL "Misplaced Pages does not predict the future.". See "Biden is serving a second term" versus "Biden is planning to serve a second term". Which is correct and which is not correct?

What I don't understand is why you object to describing something as "planned" which obviously is not accomplish yet, but, well, "planned". Using that wording is obviously absolutely correct and on spot. So why do you revert that? Zae8 (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Zae8: This is a nuance of the usage of the word "planned" in the English language. "Planned" usually implies that no concrete actions have yet been taken. You "plan" an event. By contrast, "in development" implies that substantial activity is underway, and is therefore a better choice of wording here. The sentence does not predict the future, because the system really is in development and a very large amount of development has taken place. "In development" also means quite clearly that development is not complete yet. Your opinion is that "planned" is more precise, and my opinion is that "in development" is more precise. I am willing to wait for a third opinion. -Arch dude (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

You are right, describing it as a " in development" is the best approach. We do the same with other rockets, too. "The Space Launch System is an American super heavy-lift expendable launch vehicle under development" (before it launched), "Vulcan Centaur is a two-stage-to-orbit, heavy-lift launch vehicle that is under development", "The H3 Launch Vehicle is an expendable launch system in development", ... We don't write that H3 is "planned to be expendable" or Vulcan Centaur is "planned to be a two-stage-to-orbit rocket" because that would be ridiculous, and we should avoid equally awkward expressions here. --mfb (talk) 03:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, I think WP:CRYSTALBALL is quite clear about this. The H3 is not only "planned to be expendable", but expendable and a two-stage-to-orbit right now, so yes, it would be "ridiculous" to describe something as planned if it is already reality. And Biden is serving his first term, so it would be "ridiculous" to say that he is only "planning to serve a first term".

But what you are basically saying is that as soon as Biden's reelection is "in develoment", then it is not only ok to say "Biden is serving is second term", but it is forbidden to say "Biden is planning to serve a second term", because it is "ridiculous" and an "awkward expression". Or in the Space Launch System article we should replace "is designed to launch the crewed Orion spacecraft on a trans-lunar trajectory" by "launches the crewed Orion spacecraft on a trans-lunar trajectory", because the current wording is "ridiculous" and an "awkward expression". And thousands of more examples in Misplaced Pages.

This goes beyond my understanding of reality and logic, I give up. Zae8 (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Starship is reusable in the same way as H3 is expendable. Both are systems in development to have these properties. Your comparison to Biden never made sense. You keep rephrasing it without any success. --mfb (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Let's improve this article!

Launch of the Starship is imminent and we want the article to be as polished and high quality as possible. Let's fix the article! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I've gotten complaints about this article before. The image for starship (labeled as 24/7 wdr) is an image of b4/s20, as an example Redacted II (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

“Commercial and defense” section does not have much on defense

The title should perhaps be changed or section split. As I understand it all the defence work is commercial (ie paid for) except for the Ukraine Starlink which is free. Also perhaps more could be said on defense - for example I understand this makes Starlink technically unshootdownable because the satellites can so easily be replaced. But if Oneweb sats are launched by this rocket does that mean Taiwan won’t use them because China could just threaten to expel Tesla in future? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the best option would be to just remove "and defense" from the section title. Redacted II (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Outer planets?

So is the idea that it would go direct by burning lots of fuel, rather than slowly by slingshots like JUICE? If so I cannot find a cite Chidgk1 (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea. Probably just refueliing in LEO Redacted II (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Future Flights

Starship is soon to fly for the first time. However, this site has no section dedicated to the next prototype flights. Maybe that should be added? Redacted II (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Success or Failure 20-Apr-2023

Did the rocket launch attain all it's goals? No

Did Starship succeed? Maybe

Per https://cnn.com/cnn/2023/04/20/world/spacex-starship-launch-thursday-scn/index.html

"Although it ended in an explosion, Thursday's test met several of the company's objectives for the vehicle.

..."Clearing the launchpad was a major milestone for Starship."

My 2¢ is to call it a partial success. What do others think? Idontno2 (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I think calling it a failure is ignoring what the intentions of launch was. However it definitely wasn’t a complete success. Are we allowed to make a partial success category though? Bugsiesegal (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

"Partial failure" was used by Boeing and NASA for the Boeing Starliner OFT-1 flight. I think that anyone who really cares will look more deeply than the labe we give it and learn about what actually happened. -Arch dude (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Completely reasonable. Though this page might influence the public’s views on the safety of starship in the future. Bugsiesegal (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of the companies "intentions," acrossed spaceflight Misplaced Pages pages, we treat all orbital flights the same, be them test flights of new rockets or the 1200 flight of a Soyuz. Doing so would break the consensus and consistence developed acrossed spaceflight Misplaced Pages. This is simply the nature of iterative design, you will fail. this was an orbital launch attempts, it was destroyed at 39 km. It's not close to a success in the way every other Misplaced Pages article about launch vehicles are done. This argument comes up many times a new rocket fails during launch, and people can't bring themselves to be unbiased and continue with consensus and precedent. Should we reconsider the first flights of the N1 rocket because they too were developmental test flights? Was Falcon 1 Flight 1 a partial success? This test is not partial, that not how we catalogue launches here. If an operational starship mission did the same, would it still be considered partial, even if it was crewed? If this test really is partial, then I expect the same people to push for changing N1 to partial as well. Otherwise it's clear that there's a deviation from precedent and consensus. And we gain nothing from changing definitions page by page. If this is the bar, it's essentially impossible for Starship to "fail". This sets the success criteria for Starship on this page going forward. So it needs to be consistent. Test flight's don't get special success categories, if this flight was carrying satellites to orbit, it would be nowhere near a partial. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

But it wasn’t carrying satellites. And hey if you want to change N1 to a partial success go for it. That rocket was cool. Bugsiesegal (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to change it because that's not objective and not inline with Misplaced Pages spaceflight consensus. Anything to hide the word failure from a SpaceX page.Jrcraft Yt (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a test vehicle, does[REDACTED] have the list of F9s that were lost in developing that vehicle too? No, so why is it here?

108.14.243.103 (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. I agree 100%. I'm the user who cited the ArsTechnica link to verify that this flight was a failure (https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/04/so-what-was-that-was-starships-launch-a-failure-or-a-success/) and I cited it specifically because it states that the mission is failure by the original standards of successful separation, orbital flight, and successful landing. All orbital flights are treated the same by Misplaced Pages and this flight is no different. It's a failure. It's only "successful" in the limited sense of lifting off, but even that is only a partial success at best because it apparently damaged several engines in the process and experienced unscheduled engine-outs and thrust oscillation. The ArsTechnica article addresses the people wanting to talk about what went right while definitively stating this flight is still a failure because it was intended to be orbital. Full Shunyata (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

You cited an article that explicitly describes the event as both a success and a failure, but you then chose to unilaterally declare it is a failure. The entire point of the article, including its title, is that it can be viewed as both. The author, Eric Berger, is IMO a thoughtful journalist with a pro-space bias leaning slightly toward a SpaceX bias, but you should not unilaterally re-interpret the article. I think we need to explain both sides to our readers. This is similar to the situation when sources disagree, but it's in one source. -Arch dude (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I can choose a different article that's more suitable and leaves no ambiguity. One that would be more appropriate for a citation as a failure. Full Shunyata (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Good point. But to me a key consideration is this wasn't planned to be an orbital flight.

https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-first-space-launch

"The flight plan today called for... (a) planned partial trip around our planet... ending with a hard splashdown in the Pacific Ocean not far from the Hawaiian island of Kauai about 90 minutes after liftoff."

So I guess the question I have is do we treat sub-orbital flights the same as orbital?

I totally agree that we should be consistent across all wiki's. But sometimes it's a real head scratcher on whether we should look at what might have been, vs what the key objectives of the launch were. Idontno2 (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I suggest adding a footnote to the failure entry for clarification and to reduce back & forth changes. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

This was intended as an orbital flight, specifically a Transatmospheric Earth Orbit (TAO). Perigee was intended to be around 50 km, with apogee of 250 km. That is a type of orbit. An EFN footnote could be added. That would still make it consistent. I mean, if the bar for success or partial success of the first orbital launch attempt of a new rocket is just lift off from the pad, every single launch no matter the outcome would be at least partially successful. ABl's RS-1 was a failure, Rocket 3 F1 was a failure, Zhuque-2 was a failure, Japan's H3 was a failure. LauncherOne's F1 was a failure. Those aren't debated, and they're just as much a test launch with the explicit intent of reaching orbit as this Starship orbital launch attempt was.Jrcraft Yt (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. As a SpaceX project to generate engineering data, it succeeded. As a launch, it failed, unambiguously. Compare with the Energia/Polyus launch (which has also tri-stated on Wiki between failure/success/mixture), which successfully tested the booster, but failed to launch the satellite. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we should avoid including this distinction. The current text succinctly explains what happened in the test and its objectives. 66.65.55.221 (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Categories: