Talk:SpaceX Super Heavy/Archives/ 1

Operational/Prototype

I have a problem with the "operational/prototype" label. This was an operational super heavy booster. It might end up being an early model, but it was still an operational booster. It had operational engines, flight controls, software, computers, etc. Implying otherwise is misleading in my opinion, and is contrary to what's on the infobox in the actual starship article. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

After reading the talk page on the main article, I believe this is going to be merged into the main article anyways. If so then please disregard. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Allow me to explain why b7 was far from operational:

Operational Booster (as of 2023) B7

Engines 33 raptor 3s 33 raptor 2s

Recovery Catch by "mechazilla" robotic arms Water Splashdown

Avionics  ?  ?

Flight Control ETVC HTVC

Antenna Location Chines HPU

(Also, the infobox in the main Starship article, is, IMO, misleading, but please, let's not have that argument spill over to this article) Redacted II (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Operational: "in or ready for use.".

Was the booster in or ready for use? Yes. It was used. It was operational. What you mean is that it might not be it's final version, but it is operational by definition. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

The vehicle was a prototype (not regarding the label, but what it actually was). If you disagree with that, then please say so.

So far, we have two categories for Super Heavy Boosters: prototype and operational. If your simply objecting to the wording of operational, then another label can replace it. If you have any suggestions, please share them here (before editing the infobox).

But it wouldn't have conducted an operational Super Heavy flight even IF the flight was a 100% success. It would have sunk in the gulf of Mexico, and not get caught. Redacted II (talk) 10:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Test tank inclusion?

Why are the test tanks included in this article. Booster test tanks I can understand, but the Ship test tanks as well?

Maybe that table should be moved over to the SpaceX Starship Article? Redacted II (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Partial Failure / Success for IFT2

Should the IFT2 flight be regarded as a partial failure (a catagory used for other rockets) or success, since it deliver the upper stage to stage separation, which is the primary purpose of any first stage? 86.26.101.55 (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

No, as the booster (Boostback/landing isn't required for a successful flight, according to precedent established by Falcon 9) had a 100% successful flight.

The failure in the infobox is for IFT-1 Redacted II (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Technical Issue

If you look at the page statistics page, it lists a bug on the link for Chines (uses external link instead of Wikilink). However, I looked at the source code, and it uses a wikilink.

Anyone know why it's listing that as a bug? Redacted II (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

SubHeading 3

Adding a SubHeading 3 for every single booster decreases the quality of the article, given that some boosters have only 1-2 sentences dedicated to them. Redacted II (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@97.117.109.239 warning has been sent to stop edit warring. Continuing to add Sub Heading 3 will result in a report here.

I have found 0 articles that use Sub Heading 3. There is no reason to add one for every vehicle Redacted II (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Commonality with SpaceX Starship (Spacecraft)

@The Page Maker 2.1, can you repeat the reformatting of the development table here in order to match SpaceX Starship (spacecraft). I'd do it myself, but I don't trust myself to make that large of a source edit. Redacted II (talk) 12:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Done The Page Maker 2.1 (talk) 02:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Redacted II (talk) 03:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Booster 2

The list goes Booster 1--> Booster 3. Whatever happened to Booster 2? It was referenced in this Musk tweet cited in the article.

References

Scuba 23:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:FORUM

It was converted into a test tank. Redacted II (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Bad sourcing

The latest edit SpaceX_Super_Heavy&diff=1251140364&oldid=1251119109 is once more with a completely insufficient source. User Redacted II likes to watch dubious videos and puts everything stated there as facts into SpaceX-related articles. Over and over. This time, this youtube video is about another topic (Europa Clipper) - does he want us to carefully watch a 2 h 45 min video to maybe find a single sentence mentioning the FTS (by some layman)? This is impertinence, against all citation rules and disregard of all careful editors and readers. 47.69.107.97 (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Its against 0 rules to use a source that states "X" to support a mention of "X", where in this case X is the removal of B12's FTS.

(Also, timestamp is 2:10:10: "they are now removing the flight termination system of booster 12") Redacted II (talk) 01:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Ever read Wikipedia:Video_links ?? "When citing books or unusually long journal articles, an editor should specify the page number(s). Similarly, some means of specifying the location of the referenced content from a video, called a timecode, is strongly encouraged. For YouTube videos, one can specify the start location's timecode by appending to the URL: &t=0m12s, described in more detail in various online posts." Boasting that somewhere in a 3 hr mostly unrelated video there is some mentioning of some fact is infamous. Like giving the bible as source without any details, asking everybody who wants to validate the source to read through. This is just disrespect for readers and other editors. And as you do this regularly and after much complaint, I have to assume you do this on purpose to disguise your dubious sources. 47.67.225.78 (talk) 06:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Is the Aft Bay of Super Heavy a Nacelle?

The definition of a Nacelle is "a streamlined container for aircraft parts such as engines, fuel or equipment."

The aft bay of Super Heavy extends outside of the hulls 9 meter radius, and is heavily streamlined. So, does it qualify as a Nacelle, or is that incorrect? Redacted II (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the nacelle page it seems to me that a nacelle is more enclosed and detached than what super heavy has? I think fairing might be more accurate, but I'm not sure. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks for the quick response! Redacted II (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Re-entry data?

With one successful return Starship_flight_test_5 documented, it would be nice to know how much fuel was onboard when the booster B12 fell from space. And how much was left when the engines were shut off, sitting on the tower. With some numbers for height, speed, duration. Which winds speeds can the system handle? 217.250.249.149 (talk) 08:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:Forum

(Though I really wish we had the fuel load data) Redacted II (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)