Talk:SpaceX Starship/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Reception of Starship

Should a new paragraph be added to the reception heading talking about criticism of the environmental reviews because they slow down development? according to [1]https://spacenews.com/federal-agencies-caught-in-environmental-crossfire-over-starship-launches/ Ted Cruz, said environmental reviews lead to "asinine delays," and "I’m not advocating for a wholesale repeal of our environmental laws or NEPA. I’m just arguing for them not to be applied in a dumbass way that slows down commercial space." I think this should be added as currently the section: reception of starship has details are mostly negative. Explodingtnt30 (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

That would generally be because reception in the local community has been largely negative. The local community has repeatedly complained and criticized SpaceX and Musk for developing starship there. There are actual environmental concerns with the location Musk chose. IFT-1 destroyed protected wildlife and set a fire that burned down several hectares of protected wildlife reserve I believe. Not great, and certainly worth saying.

If you have a reliable source about positive community reception please add it, but you'd need a reliable source. There's reliable sources for the negative community reception.

It didn't help when Starship blew up in IFT-1 and spread some type of particulate matter over a town. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Chuckstablers "has been largely negative" if you're going to claim that kind of thing you need a source. The reception in the local community has been overwhelmingly positive. A couple of media reporters have done vox populi type interviews trying to find the random person who's against it. Ergzay (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

If you're going to claim the reception in the local community has been overwhelmingly positive you are going to need a source. Chuckstablers (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Chuckstablers You're also several objectively false things. IFT-1 did not destroy protected wildlife, nor did it set fire to anything of note. Also Starship blowing up in IFT-1 did not spread any particulate matter over the town. Like I don't know how you can say so many incorrect things so quickly in a row despite being a common editor on this page. Ergzay (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ergzay Here's a response to what you've said.

1.) "SpaceX did not destroy protected wildlife"

Here's a photo of a bird nest that was destroyed due to the launch. https://abcbirds.org/news/spacex-lawsuit/. So sure looks that way.

Here's another source showing that, months after the launch, a bloomberg report showed that " A group of blue land crabs and seven bobwhite quail eggs were "incinerated" by the launch" - source

Bobwhite Quail are considered endangered species by some governments and near threatened by other groups

So we have a reliable source saying IFT-1 destroyed an endangered bird species eggs. So by definition, YES, it did destroy protected wildlife.

2.) "Nor did it set fire to anything of note".

"And on Wednesday, Bloomberg reported that the Texas division of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said debris was scattered across 156 hectares at the SpaceX facility and Boca Chica State Park. On top of that, a one-and-a-half hectare fire was sparked south of the pad." - Seems pretty clear to me? [2]https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/spacex-starship-success-1.6823172

Here's the US fish and wildlife service saying SpaceX's IFT-1 set a 3.5 hectare fire. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/26/spacex-starship-explosion-caused-3point5-acre-fire-us-fws-says-.html

3.) "Starship blowing up in IFT-1 did not spread any particulate matter over the town. "

SpaceX Starship Explosion spread particulate matter for miles Google is your friend.

If you'd like to continue this discussion, please return with reliable sources countering these. I'm slightly annoyed at the lack of effort and aspersions cast here. You don't think there's any sources? Then look for them. Chuckstablers (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Chuckstablers

The picture of the eggs in that image are of the Northern bobwhite, which is not a protected species. It even states that in that third article you linked, only the masked variant is protected. And your second source just quotes the first source, so they're not independent sources. And as a side note, that third source is from Canada, and it's old and archived, so it's both out of date and completely irrelevant to US law. Blue land crabs as far as I can read are similarly not protected given that limited hunting of them is allowed.

Small grass fires are common after any rocket launch. As is noted in the fish and wildlife services report the fires are of similar size to the common prescribed burns that regularly are initiated by humans in this area. So yes, nothing of note was set fire to. One and a half hectares is 0.015 square kilometers. It's a very small area of grass in the area right adjacent to the launch site. As a comparison, that grass area is smaller than the area of the launch site itself.

For your third paragraph you're not reading what I said, nor reading beyond the headline of the article you linked. The Starship explosion happened out over the ocean. None of the debris from that explosion spread over any land whatsoever. They all fell into the ocean. Ergzay (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

"The picture of the eggs in that image are of the Northern bobwhite, which is not a protected species."

According to Texas Parks and Wildlife Code Chapter 43.021 "protected wildlife" means all indigenous mammals, indigenous birds, indigenous reptiles, indigenous amphibians, indigenous fish, and other indigenous aquatic life the taking, collecting, holding, possession, propagation, release, display, or transport of which is governed by a provision of this code other than this subchapter or by a commission rule adopted under any provision of this code other than this subchapter and includes endangered species.

It literally lists Northern Bobwhite as a species as a protected wildlife species under Texas Law, under 2.) Birds, non migratory game birds, Bobwhite Quail. Pretty clear that you're wrong on this one.

"It even states that in that third article you linked, only the masked variant is protected.."

Only the masked variant is an endangered species, the third link literally just lists them as a species as nearly threatened and endangered depending on the organization classifying them. None of the links get into the masked distinction as far as I'm aware. Doesn't even matter given I was correct, that in Texas they are protected wildlife....

"Blue land crabs as far as I can read are similarly not protected given that limited hunting of them is allowed".

Again, I'd suggest looking into Texas law with respect to the definition of protected wildlife. It is not in fact a synonym for endagered species.

"Small grass fires are common after any rocket launch. As is noted in the fish and wildlife services report the fires are of similar size to the common prescribed burns that regularly are initiated by humans in this area. So yes, nothing of note was set fire to."

Do you think it's okay to regularly set fire to a protected nature reserve? If so that's fine, you're entitled to your beliefs, but this is the second time they've done this. I guess at least this time they only burned 3.5 acres instead of 68 acres. Source for the 68 acre burn which killed wildlife on a protected reserve

"For your third paragraph you're not reading what I said"

I quoted the entirety of what you said on that, so weird take.

"nor reading beyond the headline of the article you linked."

How non specific and unhelpful! Do you have a specific issue with the source that you'd like to bring up?

"None of the debris from that explosion spread over any land whatsoever. They all fell into the ocean."

Correct, I worded my earlier comments poorly. It doesn't help community perception of SpaceX when their houses, cars, and entire community get covered by sand, soil, and other particles . It also doesn't help when the community had their peaceful enjoyment of property negatively affected, with the doors to the elementary school shaking.

Again; I'm providing sources here. If you have issues, be specific.

Chuckstablers (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

It literally lists Northern Bobwhite as a species as a protected wildlife species under Texas Law, under 2.) Birds, non migratory game birds, Bobwhite Quail. Pretty clear that you're wrong on this one.

Included in that list is literally wild turkeys, species that are basically considered pests. It's considered a "game bird", in other words a bird that can be shot with a license. This is how all birds anywhere in the US are treated. A standard hunting license is needed. This is exactly how deer hunting is treated all across the US. You're stretching the definition of the term to an extremely legalistic one beyond the common understanding of a "protected species". Half the articles on wikipedia are incorrect if this definition is used. This is not the conventional understanding of a "protected species". Here's the hunting guidelines for said quail. https://tpwd.texas.gov/regulations/outdoor-annual/regs/animals/quail It's legal to kill 15 per day per person, up to 45. I doubt SpaceX killed even 15 quail given that they only ever found one nest.

Do you think it's okay to regularly set fire to a protected nature reserve? If so that's fine, you're entitled to your beliefs, but this is the second time they've done this.

And they'll keep doing it as it's legal to do so and within their approved environmental plan.

Page 24 of the Written Re-evaluation:

Evaluation of the fire damaged area shows that the fire resulted in a temporary reduction of upland shrubs, in particular Sophora tomentosa (Hicks and Contreras 2023). Based on the vegetation recovery from past fires in the area documented to date, habitat function and ecosystem services should return to pre-burn levels within one to two growing seasons (Hicks and Contreras 2023). Changes to terrestrial habitat structure due to fires in small areas near the launch pad was evaluated in the 2022 PEA and 2021 BCO, and effects were found to be temporary and not significant.

How non specific and unhelpful! Do you have a specific issue with the source that you'd like to bring up?

Don't engage in this kind of snark just because you were wrong. The issue is brought up exactly in that paragraph that you replied in the following line and admitted that I was correct on.

It also doesn't help when the community had their peaceful enjoyment of property negatively affected, with the doors to the elementary school shaking.

I'm not sure what you're complaining about here. This happens to all the residents of nearby towns in Florida every Falcon 9 launch, which happens multiple times per week. The residents will get used to it with time. That's just how launch sites work. The first time SpaceX returned a booster to land, they got 911 calls all across the state from the sonic boom. Now it's not even newsworthy. What you're linking to is the same type of reporting where people report on things that are unusual. After it happens a half dozen times, articles won't be written anymore as it'll become normal. Ergzay (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

As a side note, "its" shows possession (analogous to "his" and "hers"), while "it's" is a contraction of "it is". Lots of your edits have this mistake. Ergzay (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The articles describing it as "particulate matter" or "silt" are generally WP:RSBREAKING articles that "often contain serious inaccuracies." Sources like the Houston Chronicle have the benefit of time and analysis from actual scientists.

"“We can conclude it was definitely not any kind of health hazard. It was just ordinary beach sand,” said Philip Metzger, a planetary scientist at the University of Central Florida."

Again from WP:RSBREAKING "Claims sourced to initial news reports should be immediately replaced with better-researched and verified sources as soon as such articles are published, especially if original reports contained inaccuracies" This weighs in favor of preferring the newer sources. I think it's fine to include the original articles, but they should be worded through the lens of understanding it was just sand, even if they state otherwise. Foonix0 (talk) 05:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Why just talk about community reception? I get there is a lot of negative reception from the community, that doesn’t mean positive reception should be excluded Explodingtnt30 (talk) 06:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

There is a second talk on a large focus on criticism in the reception section, and I think perhaps this topic should be merged with that. I am pretty new to Wikipedia so I don’t know how to do that though. Explodingtnt30 (talk) 06:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

This discussion is also completely off topic. We are talking about the reception, not the environmental impact, and regardless of the environmental impact, we should add positive and negative reception of the topic Explodingtnt30 (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Too much focus on criticism?

With the ever growing "Reception" section focusing on criticism from years ago, and little in the article talking about the benefits Starship will bring I wonder if there's some amount of WP:NPOV going on and/or Wikipedia basically getting too much content from critical articles because the media tends to over-represent anything critical. There's a problem here in that the media doesn't have the technical know-how to properly write on the subject, and the people who do, are doing it in personal blogs, which generally aren't allowed. I think probably, at the minimum, we need to pare down and summarize old/outdated criticism/negative word choices throughout the article. Ergzay (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Boldly tagging the section with NPOV with a reference to this discussion. User3749 (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

"There's a problem here in that the media doesn't have the technical know-how to properly write on the subject, and the people who do, are doing it in personal blogs, which generally aren't allowed. "

Correct, we use reliable sources on Wikipedia and not personal blogs. Your personal views on the expertise of people writing blogs compared to those writing reliable sources is irrelevant to how things should be.

"and little in the article talking about the benefits Starship will bring I wonder if there's some amount of WP:NPOV going on"

From the NPOV policy you cited.

"Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process."

If you believe the information is biased, Wikipedia's policy is clear on what to do as per the normal editing process. Find reliable sources that have the so called benefits to the local community you are discussing and add that information. If the issue is they don't exist then there's nothing to put into the section that is consistent with our editing policies.

"I think probably, at the minimum, we need to pare down and summarize old/outdated criticism/negative word choices throughout the article."

There are many issues with this proposal. The first is that as per our NPOV policy we "Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased." As I've already said; we add other reliable sources with differing viewpoints to balance things out.

We also do not go through the article and remove "negative word choices" unless those word choices are inconsistent with the manual of style words to watch section. If you believe there is wording currently inconsistent with the MOS, then feel free to change it to bring it in line with the MOS.

"Outdated criticism" is your opinion on the criticism. Why is it outdated? Do you have a new up to date source that directly contradicts the piece of criticism that you have in mind? Chuckstablers (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Correct, we use reliable sources on Wikipedia and not personal blogs. Your personal views on the expertise of people writing blogs compared to those writing reliable sources is irrelevant to how things should be.

We don't cite random news articles for the details of how quantum theory works. Personal blogs of scientists are somtimes used on such pages. Similarly, personal blogs of engineers should be allowed. There's a strange obsession with exclusively using "pop" news media organizations that some people have, including yourself. These articles are rarely written on subjects, but when they are they seem to be viewed as the number one most validated opinion on a topic, when in reality it's only a measure of popularity rather than accuracy. Ergzay (talk) 02:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Please see physics pages for how they cite pages on quantum theory. It definitely isn't personal blogs. What you're saying here comes down to the fact that you don't like WP:RS. I'm sorry you feel that way, but our policies aren't changing. Chuckstablers (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

"A fully fueled starship could launch 100 tonnes anywhere in the solar system"

The idea that Starship when fully fueled in orbit can launch a 100 tonne payload anywhere in the solar system is factually wrong and easy to disprove using basic math. Moreover, it's sole source does say this, but cites another source which definitely doesn't say this. It's a Physics Today article.

Starship, fully fueled, has a mass of 1300 tonnes. Plus 100 tonnes of payload. It's max delta v is 7.2 km/s that it can impart to a 100 tonne payload. That is not sufficient to place a 100 tonne observatory anywhere in the solar system. That's not even enough for a Hohman Transfer to Neptune, which requires about 8.2 km/s of delta v from LEO around earth.

And the source cited is this? Which cites another source? Which doesn't mention Starship at all? This is just silly. Chuckstablers (talk) 05:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Unless someone can justify such a bold claim that defies the laws of physics I'm going to remove it. Starship fully fueled doesn't have enough Delta V to do a hohman transfer to Neptune, let alone to do an orbital insertion. Chuckstablers (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I can't find a good RS for the claim, but from statements here he is counting intermediate fuel stops ("planet hop") to reach the outer solar system. It's an incredibly far reaching claim, but may not totally defy physics. Foonix0 (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Better source MIT Tech review article mentions intermediate refueling. "Starship could also enable more extravagant missions to other locations, either via a direct launch from Earth or perhaps by using the moon and Mars as refueling stations" Foonix0 (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

This is Original Research. Just because it may be wrong doesn't mean we should remove it, due to the statement being sourced. If the source is unreliable (or a more reliable source counters the stated source), then the statement can be removed.

No other rocket requires insertion around the planet in question for it's payload capacity. Don't include that double standard.

Furthermore, gravity assists can reduce required dV, so this further backs the statement.

Finally, an expendable starship will be lighter, and will almost certainly be able to conduct 8.2 km/s. Redacted II (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, the source says Almost anywhere in the solar system. Not everywhere. Redacted II (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Redacted II

"This is Original Research. Just because it may be wrong doesn't mean we should remove it, due to the statement being sourced. If the source is unreliable (or a more reliable source counters the stated source), then the statement can be removed."

Please fully read our policy on sourcing and our policy on original research. You are misunderstanding what the prohibition on original research actually is and when it applies. You're also misunderstanding how we determine whether a source is reliable. It's not all or nothing. See quotes from our actual policies below.

"This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards...The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be verifiable in a reliable, published source"

In this case, we follow the criteria for evaluating whether or not a source is reliable for the statement we're using it for. From our reliable source policy:

"The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content...The very same source may be reliable for one fact and not for another. Evaluation of reliability of a source considers the fact for which the source is cited"

In this case, this source is NOT reliable for this fact, as it can be disproven given basic undergraduate physics. You mention gravity assists in passing, but you can't use them to get to the outer planets if you want to stay. There's a reasonplanned missions to the outer planets beyond saturn use direct hohman transfers.

The fact remains that Starship, with it's current delta-v numbers, is incapable of launching observatories to Neptune, Uranus or Pluto with a mass of 100 tonnes (regardless of whether they stay or not). There's no way around the rocket equation. You are advocating for misleading our readers about the actual capabilities of Starship and I don't find that acceptable. Chuckstablers (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

"You mention gravity assists in passing, but you can't use them to get to the outer planets if you want to stay. There's a reasonplanned missions to the outer planets beyond saturn use direct hohman transfers."

The mission you linked had the options of Gravity Assists, as of this version.

"There's no way around the rocket equation"

Gravity Assists.

"You are advocating for misleading our readers about the actual capabilities of Starship and I don't find that acceptable"

I'm not advocating for misleading our readers. I'm providing proof for their claim. Redacted II (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@Redacted II

You seem to be under the impression gravity assists are magic. There are good reasons why Neptune Odyssey plans on a direct trajectory; because using gravity assists to get there means far greater injection delta-v's required to enter orbit around Neptune. There is a tradeoff between flight time and V_infinity upon arrival at Neptune. Please see actual trajectory analysis studies on this. See https://www.e-ndst.kiev.ua/v8n2/7(23).pdf. Can you get trajectories using gravity assists without the issue of high V-infinity upon arrival? Yes, if you want to have an complicated mission design to an outer planet with 5 gravity assists, a 25 year travel time, 8 burns requiring several km/s of post-earth departure delta-v, the requirement to design a spacecraft to survive space for 25-30 years in a thermal environment as diverse as 0.72 au's all the way to neptune, and a launch window that lasts about a month occuring every 40 years. With only like 60% of the total pre-neptune delta-v being done at the earth-departure burn (requiring Starship to somehow magically avoid cryogenic boiloff).

Like I said; relax mission parameters infinitely and you can reach anywhere with near zero delta-v. I even explained why earlier and you ignored it. This is going to be my last reply to you on this topic for reasons that I hope are obvious to anyone reading. Namely; Starship lacks the Delta-V to deliver a payload on a direct trajectory to any planet beyond Saturn. That alone is enough to justify not saying that Starship can "deliver a 100 tonne observatory anywhere in the solar system". Chuckstablers (talk) 06:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

"You seem to be under the impression gravity assists are magic. There are good reasons why Neptune Odyssey plans on a direct trajectory; because using gravity assists to get there means far greater injection delta-v's required to enter orbit around Neptune. There is a tradeoff between flight time and V_infinity upon arrival at Neptune. Please see actual trajectory analysis studies on this. See https://www.e-ndst.kiev.ua/v8n2/7(23).pdf. Can you get trajectories using gravity assists without the issue of high V-infinity upon arrival? Yes, if you want to have an complicated mission design to an outer planet with 5 gravity assists, a 25 year travel time, 8 burns requiring several km/s of post-earth departure delta-v, the requirement to design a spacecraft to survive space for 25-30 years in a thermal environment as diverse as 0.72 au's all the way to neptune, and a launch window that lasts about a month occuring every 40 years. With only like 60% of the total pre-neptune delta-v being done at the earth-departure burn (requiring Starship to somehow magically avoid cryogenic boiloff)."

The claim was "A fully fueled starship could launch 100 tonnes anywhere in the solar system". You are adding the requirement of a direct trajectory.

"Like I said; relax mission parameters infinitely and you can reach anywhere with near zero delta-v. I even explained why earlier and you ignored it."

Yes, because it doesn't matter. If it can launch a probe on an indirect trajectory to anywhere in the solar system, that still means it can launch that probe to anywhere in the solar system.

"Namely; Starship lacks the Delta-V to deliver a payload on a direct trajectory to any planet beyond Saturn. That alone is enough to justify not saying that Starship can "deliver a 100 tonne observatory anywhere in the solar system""

Direct is not a requirement. Voyagers 1 and 2 weren't delivered on a direct interstellar trajectory (unlike New Horizons). They used gravity assists. And I don't think anyone would say they aren't interstellar probes because they used gravity assists.

" This is going to be my last reply to you on this topic for reasons that I hope are obvious to anyone reading"

And this will be my last reply. Redacted II (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, should have been removed a while ago. CodemWiki (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 23:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

More up to date images

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

As you all have probably seen, many articles like SpaceX Starbase have out-of-date images. I am looking on gaining access on more recent pictures that we could use to illustrate various recent developments at Boca Chica. Here is what I'm thinking of sending to Maurico from RGV Aerial Photography (I just drafted this in 5 minutes so any grammar-related things would be appreciated :))

Hi Mauricio

I am writing on behalf of the Wikipedia community focusing on the coverage of SpaceX-related developments concerning the SpaceX Starship at its launch site in Boca Chica.

As you have probably seen from images currently used as part of the articles, many lack details and date back to several years ago. We are looking to get access to some pictures (maybe up to a few months old) depicting various things [need some ideas for what to list there]

[Could tell him to disclose it or put it on Wiki Commons itself]

Any thoughts?

Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: in square brackets are just my own comments. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Ping people for their thoughts @Redacted II, @Gtoffoletto, @CodemWiki, @CactiStaccingCrane, @Jarrod Baniqued Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit optimistic, but worth a try. Ideally we'd need someone to drive down to Boca Chica and take pics for Commons. Unfortunately I'm a student on the other side of the pond. CodemWiki (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

We're desperate for pictures! I can't drive there either :-). If anyone has any other ideas or has been to Boca Chica before, we'd love to get some up-to-date pictures for commons! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Though as the Starship program progresses (and as long as quails don't nest to close to the pad), NASA involvement is inevitably going to bring at least a few copyright-free pictures one way or another. CodemWiki (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes! Can't wait for that, especially to get some good HLS pictures!! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I can ask NSF, but that probably won't work... Redacted II (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure! You could try that! I guess we could also try What About It? and Lab Padre or even Starship Gazer, they have some pretty good pictures too. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

All of them are copyrighted. CodemWiki (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I know! But what if they accepted to disclose a few? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Still worth a try, at least. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely CodemWiki (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Here is what I sent:

Dear Mauricio,

I am writing on behalf of the Wikipedia community working on the coverage of the development of everything that is related to SpaceX Starship at its launch site in Boca Chica.

As you have probably seen from images currently used as part of the articles, many lack details and date back to several years ago.

We are doing our very best at updating the pages with appropriate images, but getting our hands on licensed-free images that show recent developments for the readers has been quite hard. We are looking to get access to some pictures depicting various things, like the Starfactory, a picture of S25/B9 stack and the new High Bay, or even an aerial shot of the layout of the production site (they do not need to be too recent).

We would of course completely understand if that is something that is not possible for you.

However, if you would like to give us a hand, you can always feel free to upload some pictures on Wikimedia Commons, where the community would be more than glad to add more content on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, feel absolutely free to reach out!

Thank you in advance, and have a beautiful Star-day,

Cocobb8, editor on the English Wikipedia.

Feel free to copy that email to send to other photographers you can think of!

I will let you all know once/if I get a reply. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Well done, good letter. I'd also suggest reaching out to Jenny Hautmann (https://instagram.com/jennyhphoto?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== )if she's got any recent pics, which she definitely does. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 07:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm on it. Emailing her right now. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, @Jarrod Baniqued

Here are the other photographers that might have great images too:

• Sent @Cocobb8 - RGV Aerial Photography
• Sent @Cocobb8 - What about It!?
•  Task complete. @Jarrod Baniqued - Jenny Hautmann
• ✗ Fail: No response as of November 3 Jarrod Baniqued - Space Scout
• Sent @Cocobb8 - Starship Gazer
• Sent @Cocobb8 - NSF
• Can't find email... @Cocobb8 - Lab Padre

If you would like to send en email, please do so by changing the appropriate status template on my comment above. Please only start working on those with a blue checkmark. Also feel free to add more people there! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 10:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, still working on it. I'm glad to say that Ms. Hautmann has given me a trove of images from March and April this year via Gmail and Google Drive, however, she's pointed out that I'd need to contact her employer Supercluster to see if they can release them into the Creative Commons. I'll copy Mauricio's email soon, and I'm replying to Jenny right now with a link to this talk page topic. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

 Great! I just emailed What About It!? as well. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Here's what I've written:

Hello, I’m a member of the Wikipedia community. I’ve been authorized (refer to the last link below) to see if your leadership can release images by Jenny Hautmann (specifically, I have chosen images 7633, 7683, 7894, 6326, 6456, 2161, and 2062 for maximum informational value) to the Creative Commons to allow for their potential display on Wikipedia. She has given them to me of her own accord.

I am requesting that their licenses be changed to CC-BY-SA 4.0 (

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode.en

), which constitutes most of Wikipedia’s content.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1177764583&title=Talk:SpaceX%20Starship#More_up_to_date_images

My colleagues and I totally understand if you don’t want to release them into the CC. We thank you for your time. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Awesome! It's good to mention under which license they should be released. I'll use your email as a template if I get any answers back from other people. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@Redacted II Did you email NSF? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Not yet. Redacted II (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I emailed their business main email. Would you like to also try one person specifically? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Not really.

Thanks for emailing them, though. Redacted II (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I have a suggestion, Space Scout: https://www.spacescout.info/?s=SpaceX

They're a news site of almost all volunteer photographers. I will start emailing them using almost the same email meant for Mauricio. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 09:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure, go for it. Redacted II (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Got a response from them: they didn't have any applicable photos. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 04:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Here we go, I got a reply from What about It:

Felix Schlang

11:57 AM (0 minutes ago)

to me

Thank you so much for reaching out! I hope everything is going smoothly on your end! We are totally on board with supplying everything you need!

I do want to share a little concern we have - it seems that we’ve had a bit of difficulty establishing a page on Wikipedia, which has been a bit disappointing. It appears our page was not considered notable enough, even though we’ve noticed smaller reporters with local news stations have been able to secure their own pages.

Perhaps we can find a mutually beneficial solution? If it would be possible to help us establish a page on Wikipedia, we’d be more than happy to provide all the images you require! What do you think? Could this work for you?

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and finding a way to make this collaboration fruitful for both parties!

Best regards,

I don't really know about that though. I was planning to work on an article on Wikipedia, but I suppose it would be against the rules to do that like this? Any thoughts, @CodemWiki, @Jarrod Baniqued, @Redacted II? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I could also tell him that his page couldn't be created because of COI and that I'd be more than glad than to help him publish it. What do you guys think? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Go ahead and tell him what you just wrote.

As for me, I still haven't heard back from Supercluster. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm considering invoking WP:NONFREE and WP:NFURG and using a historical importance rationale since there's been little action. I won't do it now: I'll wait till Monday Eastern Time to hear back from them on whether they agree with the license or I should act on it. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no rush. Please, wait at least another week. Redacted II (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree, there is no deadline. We can easily give her a week or two. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Good news: Got a response from Jenny. Medium news: She and her employers are not quite sure how to go about adding the CC license. I've explained to them their options (add the license info to HTML, or upload to Wikimedia Commons/Flickr/500px and let them handle it). I also sent them the CC organization's mission statement and more info about the licenses. I’ve just told them that they can take as much time as they want and can consult legal or technical counsel if necessary. Everything's smooth sailing from here Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, how is everyone else handling this? In my case, the trove of photos was shared as Google Drive folder URLs, so the upload process might be quite tetchy (there’s still uncertainty over whether it will be me or her actually uploading the images; if me, then should I upload a screenshot of proof of them appending the license?). Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I mean, you can go the full way with using what wikipedia wrote here. Though a note stating you have permission from the author with a link to a screenshot of the proof e.g. like you said, is plenty enough IMO CodemWiki (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

About the images we are given, I don't know how many images they sent you, but PLEASE only upload a selected few to wikimedia, not more that you'll use on articles (so i.e. I would avoid a gallery, which is also what advises WP:GALLERY). Any image with the CC license is absolutely GOING to be used by other entities, youtube channels, etc to make profit, and for a long time. Think of all the Elon Musk/Starship-focused AI-generated automated bullshit channels on youtube. It's just going to happen, as images with that license are going to move up Google Image's algorithm because of their license and relevance, and are going to be scraped automatically by algorithms in the intent to make money. I really don't think a media news/small company/whatever won't to be reminded everyday that other people are making money using their work just because they were kind once. So keep it limited, relevant, and simple. So that at least if when the other entities do that, they only have a handful of images to work with and get tired quickly. And also the company will recognize the images just by seeing them since they're always the same few ones. The CC license is powerful. CodemWiki (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

That is great news! Yes, if you have written permission then you can go ahead and upload a few. As for me, I haven't heard back from WAI. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cocobb8@CodemWiki Thanks for the advice, but I didn’t need to follow through on them. Turns out she uploaded them herself. Let’s take our picks! There are fourteen in total, which may be too many (I had the final say over the number, so if anything happens re: illegal copying, it’s partly my responsibility and I apologize in advance), but I think it was an appropriate amount to show the diversity of the infrastructure. There are also August 2021 pictures for historical purposes in case anyone wants them. Here’s the link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/JennyHPhoto&ilshowall=1

It’s go time. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

That is awesome! Time to update those articles :) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh ok then CodemWiki (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for sending the emails CodemWiki (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think WAI should have a dedicated article. It's definitely notable. I'm quite shocked that it doesn't already.

You have my support for creating a WAI article/draft, but I'd like to consult and Admin first, so we don't get in trouble if it does violate some rules. Redacted II (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia works in a disaggregated ways and editors who review article creations are not likely to be the same to contribute on similar articles, and not proceeding that way might be considered a conflict of interest (which could result in penalties for the involved users). Although helping Wikipedia is unfortunately not a valid criteria for article creation, we could however create a draft for What about it!? and see if we can get a better chance at getting it accepted than him, in a legit way. CodemWiki (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure. I'll tell him that we're starting work on a draft and will keep in touch of any further developments. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Sent Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:What_About_It!%3F Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I recall a time where I created an article just by moving it; is that something we could do too? I don't think we'd have to go through the whole AfC process, would we? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I didn't have to go through the process when making SpaceX Super Heavy. Redacted II (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The AfC process guarantees the page not to be deleted in the future if you're not sure your article is okay for Wikipedia. But yeah, it's true that not all pages have to be drafts first. CodemWiki (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm yeah that makes sense. As long as we get good sources we should be fine. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I heard back from Space Scout, and they're sending photographers not only to Boca Chica for the lunar eclipse next week, but also to Kennedy for the Psyche launch. Expect 10 or so images from each event. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Awesome! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

20 images total?! Wow! Redacted II (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Apparently, Space Scout didn't follow through on the side trip to Boca Chica, but they did succeed with the KSC launch. However they did not append CC notices. You're welcome to comment on their pages https://www.spacescout.info/2023/10/psyche-and-starlink-set-records-on-the-space-coast/ and https://www.spacescout.info/2023/10/capturing-the-ring-of-fire/ but I think the launch photo for the current page is fine as is. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@CodemWiki@CodemWiki@Redacted IIWell, I tried emailing SpaceX. I mean, wouldn't it be in their best interest to have what they are doing as updated as possible on Wikipedia? Anyways, we'll see what this does :/ Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Anything from them? Its been some time Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Nope, much unfortunately. I emailed their media relations inbox: can you think of any other mail address we could try too? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

No, ive got no idea, but we did get pictures from wai, right? Perhaps that will be enough. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I followed up with WAI but they never got back to me. Do you want to try it yourself? They seemed on-board with providing pictures if we also helped them publish a page on Wikipedia. whataboutit.contact@gmail.com Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

You are saying I should email them? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

You do.

uhhh… not sure, what else could i tell them? That their wikipedia page is under work? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Idk it's just if they're not responding to me maybe from someone else it'd work? But aguess it's fine Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe they are just busy…

but every time a company/large team ignores emails it prolly wont be answered. About me messaging them. Im nowhere near perfect in formal english, and dont know much about how wikipedia works other then editable articles. And it would probably raise some question at my parents if they see who im mailing. Lets just hope they answer. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok then Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 23:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Ngl that was NOT what i expected as a reply. Also, back to wai, they now have orbital photography, something tells me some people would really crave such images. Maybe we could ask them about it, cuz its in partnership with some other company, so not sure if they allow that to be used. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Anything new? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Nope :/ Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Well it seems like they forgot about you or i dont know. Perhaps email the again about an update about their articles Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I already followed up once or twice Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

No idea then Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Nothing new? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Nope, still nothing :( Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Update? Still nothing? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Nope. We're not going to get anything else out of this.

At this point, we should probably archive this topic. Redacted II (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Still weird that they just stopped responding, but you are right. This should be archived now Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 09:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Expendable Starship

@Chuckstablers, why are you removing mention of the Expendable configuration of Starship, despite it's existence and capacity having multiple sources? Redacted II (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Because SpaceX's own user guide doesn't mention it. And the only source for it linked to SpaceX's website, which doesn't mention it.

If you have an RS talking about it's expendable capacity, feel free to add it again. Chuckstablers (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Like we have two sources for the 100-150 tonnes in it's baseline reused configuration, right?

1.) SpaceX's website: only says in reused mode it gets 100-150 tonnes

2.) Starship User's Guide: : Doesn't mention an expendable mode. In fact it just says > 100 tons to LEO, and equal to 27 tons to GTO.

If you have an RS for it, please add it. But I couldn't find one, let alone one of similar importance to the User's Guide SpaceX provided for prospective customers to determine payload capacity. Chuckstablers (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Starships User's Guide is extremely outdated (March 2020).

Tweets from Musk and SpaceX's home page are obviously not ideal sources, but given how much the design has changed in the last four years, they are far more likely to be accurate. Redacted II (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

So far; we have two sources for the payload figures. SpaceX's own website on Starship, which lists figures of 100-150 tonnes but lists no payload figures for an expendable version. The other is the Starship User's Guide from early-mid 2020, which doesn't mention an expendable payload figure.

If you can provide a source from after the Starship User's Guide talking about an expendable version, we can look at it. If it's from Musk, then it would have to go into the article as we can't attribute it to him in the info box (and it would have to attributed to him).

In any case right now, as the article stands, it's an unsourced statement and can't stay per WP:RS. I'm fine re-adding it with a reliable source for that payload figure. Chuckstablers (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Just want to add, per WP:BURDEN. I'm challenging that payload number as unverifiable.

Quoting from the policy, "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Chuckstablers (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

It would make sense to attribute the claim to Musk's statements and clarify they are estimates. As to secondary support, teslarati explains how those claims might be achieved.

Here is the archive page from 202303 (the one you removed was 2020) if you want a primary SpaceX claim. "Starship will be the world’s most powerful launch vehicle ever developed, with the ability to carry up to 150 metric tonnes to Earth orbit reusable, and up to 250 metric tonnes expendable." It seems like someone updated the numbers but forgot to update the archive URL.

Why would they take this down? My guess is the number is still in flux. The user's guide is an older source and uses more conservative numbers like "100+" Foonix0 (talk) 08:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Teslarati is not a Reliable Source. Redacted II (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1678278811186544640 for 200 tons reusable

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1661441658473570304 for 250-300 tons expendable. Redacted II (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Then they'd have to be attributed in the infobox to statements by Elon Musk. Chuckstablers (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay.

Does that mean simply putting them down as a source, or something I'm not aware of? Redacted II (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that we'd need to basically say in the info box "In 2023 Elon Musk said that in Expendable Mode Starship would have X payload capacity". That's gonna be hard to do in the infobox and we can really only do so in the article itself.

I'm opposed to including it in the info box essentially in wiki voice solely on the basis of "well known liar Elon Musk" said so (hyperloop is his idea and going to revolutionize public transport, the boring company can make tunnels at 5% the cost of everyone else, tesla FSD is ready to go today, solar roofs are hyper advanced and can be made at half the price of normal solar panels, i'm going to take tesla private at 420 a share, etc)

I'd be fine with either something from

1.) SpaceX's website, even if it's archived.

2.) Something from a users guide

3.) Any source on the perennial source page that's reliable.

4.) Even something from a website not explicitly listed as an RS on the perennial sources list as long as it's not a blog/fansite or something.

@Redacted II, I'll do a search tonight and check back in here tomorrow, see if I can find anything. If I can't find anything beyond something Musk said then we can go from there? Chuckstablers (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll start my search now.

This is just a restating of Elon Tweets by NSF, so I don't think it qualifies (though it is from a RS, at least): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hukjMVIecdU

If we can't find anything, then we'll go back to 150/250 tons. Redacted II (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Found this for expendable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgqZMK22LEk (Everyday Astronaut N1:Starship video. Given that he'll be flying on it, I think this should count). Redacted II (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

As "Elon Musk said so" is not a reliable source. We need an RS to readd it. Musk is a well known liar when it come to numbers, timelines, costs, etc. Now that I think about it; I don't think you could even attribute it to him in the infobox because the space isn't there.

We need an RS per WP:RS to readd the content. An updated Starship User's Guide? Something on SpaceX's website advertising it? I'll take anything; but it has to be an RS. Musk isn't that. Chuckstablers (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Is Musk a liar (at best)? Yes. Is he the best source we have? Maybe.

I might be able to find a source restating the 200/300 ton numbers. But that will take some time. Redacted II (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

It's <noun>

Super minor topic: Redacted II and Chuckstablers keep writing its as it's on Starship pages. It's everywhere on here, and it startles me slightly (this is coming from some kid who learned English out of boredom during the pandemic, regular English speakers might not be bothered - both are great users though, I'm just saying something I've noticed) CodemWiki (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Will avoid that in the future, I'd encourage you to fix it in the meantime? Chuckstablers (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Unsure if you already fixed it or something? I just went through the article, can't find an inappropriate use of it's vs its. You use it's in place of "it is". You use its if it's a possessive word.

"It's is a contraction and should be used where a sentence would normally read "it is." The apostrophe indicates that part of a word has been removed. Its with no apostrophe, on the other hand, is the possessive word, like "his" and "her," for nouns without gender. For example, "The sun was so bright, its rays blinded me."" - Merriam Webster Chuckstablers (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Just reread the title of what you wrote: "its <noun>" is the correct English. It's a possessive form. Notice why I'm using "it's" just then? It's because "it's" is meant for a contraction of "it is", whereas "its" is a possessive form used to show that something belongs to or is associated with something previously mentioned. Examples of correct vs incorrect usage are below.

Correct use:

"It's a beautiful day outside" (short for it is a beautiful day outside).

"the cat closed its eyes" (possessive form)

"Starship lit its engines" (possessive form)

Incorrect use:

"its a horrible day so far" (should have the apostrophe since it's shorthand for it is)

"destroy it's engines" (should have its as it's a possessive form)

"it's Artemis program" (same thing, should have its as it's a possessive form)

Hope that clears it up. Chuckstablers (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes I'm aware of the correct use. You didn't find any instance of the typo because Wikipedia lurkers keep correcting them (here or here or here or here or here among others). But it still happens regularly so I'm just saying for the future. CodemWiki (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

That's fine then, just weird for you to say "its <noun>" in the title given that is literally the correct usage. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Unless your html displays it incorrectly, my topic title illustrates the incorrect usage it's <noun>. CodemWiki (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Weird, but that's fine. Definitely showing its but I believe you.

Just a heads up; this is definitely something that goes on the user talk page, not the article talk page. For so many reasons. Chuckstablers (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure CodemWiki (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Just saw this, I have to agree with Chuckstablers, this belongs on our respective user pages instead of the article itself.

I'll work on correcting my usage on it's vs its, though. Redacted II (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Particular missions

So this section is under "particular missions". I've tried to remove it since it is definitely not a particular mission, but it's been reintroduced a few times now so I thought i'd bring this up here.

"In 2017 SpaceX president and chief operating officer Gwynne Shotwell stated that point-to-point travel with passengers could become cost competitive with conventional business class flights. John Logsdon, an academic on space policy and history, said that the idea of transporting passengers in this manner was "extremely unrealistic", as the craft would switch between weightlessness to 5 g of acceleration He also commented that “Musk calls all of this ‘aspirational,’ which is a nice code word for more than likely not achievable.”"

So here's the issue; this is not a particular mission. All the other things we have there? Starship HLS, the rocket cargo program, the 5 tonne satellite Starship is contracted to launch into GEO? All particular missions.

Point to point travel being competitive with business class flights is a crazy thing said by SpaceX 6 years ago. One that's never developed at all since then. It's not a particular mission; it's a statement of an aspirational goal of Musk's. It should be removed and or merged in some way with the rocket cargo program paragraph I added a while back. Chuckstablers (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

It probably can be condensed and merged with the previous paragraph. It's related enough to the suborbital cargo flights (same idea but "remove cargo, add seats"), but I agree it's not likely to be a significant commercial success. Perhaps the idea significant enough for a mention, but perhaps not enough for its own paragraph.

"In 2017, it was proposed that point-to-point flights could potentially carry passengers, but the idea has been criticized as "highly unrealistic" over passenger comfort and other concerns." (ref existing sources)

Alternatively, the section title can probably be improved or the sections rearranged. For example, starlink v2 launches would be more of an ongoing set of launches rather than a particular launch. Point-to-point cargo includes a particular demonstration mission, but if successful would become a general category of ongoing suborbital operations. Foonix0 (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

We know it’s probably bullshit. Once you read the criticism, you get the idea that it’s probably nonsense (assuming you didn’t know this already or about Musk’s tendency for hyperbolic claims) CoastRedwood (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

That's kind of my point... it is probably BS, and we have sources calling it BS. The idea that strapping a few hundred or a thousand people onto a 5000 tonne stack of fuel, launching them into space with no abort system, and doing re-entry, and somehow having this be cheaper than a business class ticket is somewhat... laughable to anyone in the industry. Which is why they've never mentioned it again, because even for Musk it's a bit too... much.

This comment was largely ignored by the RS's by the way; because it was a bit too much for even the uncritical media. Because it doesn't take much knowledge to seriously question the viability of this. Musk has a history of naive math using best case wildly optimistic scenarios stacked ontop of each other (see "50 billion in profit by 2025" with Starlink lol). Chuckstablers (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I say move the point-to-point CGI stuff to the "Early design and abandoned features" section of the SpaceX Starship design process subpage. The subpage, which is analogous to the one that was created years ago for the Shuttle, should eventually become its own page, once I figure out a way to not make it redundant on the mess that is "SpaceX ambition of colonizing Mars" (which should either not exist, become just a paragraph on the SpaceX page or be entirely reworked IMO). CodemWiki (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Well I just fixed it. Much cleaner now. CodemWiki (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for doing so :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Ift-2 failure reason

After Musks speech about starship, he talked about the reason for the failure for ift2 being the dumping of oxigen mid-flight. I have a few ideas how to write it in but couldnt really find a good source for it. What do you think should we write, and does someone have a good source for it? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 08:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Source: https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/01/rocket-report-a-new-estimate-of-starship-costs-japan-launches-spy-satellite/

Writing:

"During a briefing of SpaceX employees in January 2024, Elon Musk stated that the cause of IFT-2s failure was due to venting liquid oxygen. He also stated that this LOX dump was only conducted due to IFT-2 not carrying a payload." Redacted II (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Had a feeling its gonna be you to answer first, thanks👍 Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2024

In section "Environmental reception" it says "in 2022 after the failed first orbital test flight". It was in 2023. JimboRy (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done

Thanks! Redraiderengineer (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Why is the article (still) semi-protected?

The IFT-2 debate and edit wars is long-gone, and IFT-3 isn't until early March Redacted II (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The semi-protection expires on February 20. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 23:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Misspelled name

I have no idea how to successfully edit, so I'll throw this out there - the name "Michael" is misspelled "Micheal" throughout the references parts of the page 131.137.5.113 (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Stoplookin9 :) Send me a message! 15:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Starship orbital launch statistics

I've been working on a template that will contain Starship launch statistics, sort of similar to Template:Falcon rocket statistics. In the future (like 1 year from now), when Starship might be flying often for Artemis, it might be useful to be able to update launch counts across all the pages that need them.

The template is located here: User:Stoplookin9/SpaceX Starship Statistics

Please let me know on the template talk page if anything needs improvement or changes, or if you think the template is ready for implementation! Stoplookin9 :) Send me a message! 15:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Sounds nice! Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Awesome! As Starship develops, it could also be helpful to categorize which flights were orbital, lunar, Martian, etc, as well as how many flights of each version (crew, cargo, Starship HLS, tanker starships, etc.) 184.181.39.72 (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, things like mission counts for various missions like tanker, hls, crew, ect. will be added when they actually start flying. I don't want to be a bit too WP:CRYSTAL, so I'm keeping the template as trim down as possible. Stoplookin9 :) Send me a message! 15:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

SpaceX Starship test flights and SpaceX Starship operational flights will need separate sections

SpaceX Starship test flights and SpaceX Starship operational flights will need separate sections for their failure/success statistics. They aren't the same vehicle as they're not capable of carrying payload. I've mentioned this before but I'll mention it here again as this will need accounting for. People previously shot down the idea given that there haven't been any operational flights, but it will be a undeniable fact that these vehicles were different. Ergzay (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

This isn't necessary at the moment and I don't quite agree with the premises. ITF-2 did simulate carrying a payload in LO2 and many other test flights with payload simulators don't have their launches separated. If in the future there is a major revisional change that warrants a different categorisation, like with Falcon 9, then we can deal with it. CtrlDPredator (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@CtrlDPredator IFT2 did not simulate carrying a payload anymore than any rocket with too much fuel is "simulating" carrying a payload. And there is no "if" given that this rocket as currently built is incapable of carrying a payload. It didn't have any location to mount them, in any of the vehicle launches. Ergzay (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

This has been brought up before, and I don't see the consensus changing. No other vehicle has been classified separately for its test launches. Other vehicles also go through changes throughout their operational life, even going as far as using totally different engines (e.g. Antares). That said (like with Antares), these prototype launches could be considered a different configuration of the same vehicle, with a breakdown of each configuration given (granted, this is difficult given that SpaceX hasn't laid out defined configurations of the vehicle) Gojet-64 (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

> No other vehicle has been classified separately for its test launches.

Because no other vehicle has done this style of development in the history of rocket development. This has even been extensively reported on by the likes of Eric Berger. Ergzay (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Other vehicles have done destructive/iterative testing. One comparable example being the N1. That vehicle also underwent substantial changes between each launch. Blowing up unfinished products is not exactly a new thing in rocket science. In fact, it's how the earliest vehicles were all developed, dating back to the 50s. Gojet-64 (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I've never heard N1 development being described as iterative testing. All 4 launches had satellites on board, something you only do if you're quite sure of success and they weren't dummy payloads either. So no I would not count N1 as being comparable in any way. Ergzay (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

That’s not true. Launching very cheap satellites on a test bed makes a lot of sense: low downside (the loss of cheap satellites) with high upside (an effectively free launch, given it was launching anyway).

I’d want to see a citation for the claim that they were “quite sure of success”. Timtjtim (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't have such a citation, but they did launch some very important payloads (LK lander and Soyuz-LOK) on the IIRC last two launches Redacted II (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

PLEASE WAIT UNTIL V2 FLIES.

I cannot emphasis this enough.

Once v2 is flying, there is no reason to not separate the v1 and v2 launches in the infobox. But until then, the majority of editors will be against this. Redacted II (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:TOOSOON Time will fix this on its own. Let's avoid more useless discussions. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I can settle for that. I still maintain that the page is incorrect as it is now because it misrepresents the early development vehicle as the actual launch vehicle and it's been incorrect ever since the first launch. Correcting this and correctly labeling them development launches would solve a lot of the haggling that goes on every launch and will continue to go on every launch. This is not the same type of thing that has gone on with any previous rocket in history. Ergzay (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

> the actual launch vehicle

what actual launch vehicle? Timtjtim (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The finalized Starship design. Redacted II (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I wasn’t aware they’d finalised the design, I thought they were still in the testing phase? Have I missed something? Timtjtim (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

They haven't finalized the design.

Which is kinda the point of the argument for separating operational and developmental launches: the current vehicle won't have all that much in common with the final design.

But it is TOO SOON to separate prototypes from operational launches, given that none have happened and most likely won't happen for a while. Redacted II (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• I doubt that there will be a clear distinction between test and operational launches. SpaceX does not need to master landing Starship to be able to use Starship to deploy Starlink satellites. They just need to know that they have full control over Starship while in orbit to be able to safely deorbit it to deploy Starlink satellites.

It could be useful to have between "Launch outcome", "Booster landing" and "Spacecraft landing" another column for "Mission objectives". For IFT-3 it had payload door testing, propellant transfer and relighting the engine as Mission objectives and succeeded with two of them. That information would be useful to include. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 16:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

"It could be useful to have between "Launch outcome", "Booster landing" and "Spacecraft landing" another column for "Mission objectives". For IFT-3 it had payload door testing, propellant transfer and relighting the engine as Mission objectives and succeeded with two of them. That information would be useful to include"

That info is for the Starship Flight Tests article. Redacted II (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)