Talk:SpaceX Starship

Do not classify IFT-1, 2 and 3 as success or failure

Discussion around IFT-1, 2 and 3 have demonstrated that classifying these launches as either "success" or "failure" is a bit simplistic. Rather, it would be better to classify them as "development test flights", and leave success/failure classification for actual payload missions. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Support The launch vehicle design hasn't been finalized yet. I think it'd also help avoid all the debates every time there's a launch. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. The IFT launches can be labeled as v1, like Falcon 9.Redacted II (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Support. iT would help alleviate the conflicts between editors and reduce vandalism IMO. Norovern, bro! (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I would support such a move based on the same grounds as my comment for IFT-2 - in summary, these aren't actual production launches, but rather test flights for development phases. This is also different from most other test flights that do get counted into the Infobox because those test flights are for the final vehicle, not for development. It would also solve this issue where we would have an entire debate each time there is a test flight, considering most of the comments and !votes I've seen aren't that policy/previous consensus-based. User3749 (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Support per my (now archived) comment (formerly) above. Quoted here: Success or Inapplicable. Given that the whole purpose of the launch/flight/mission was to find potential points of failure in the vehicle/system any outcome that doesn't cause collateral damage is either a successful search for failures or not quantifiable as a success or failure. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC) Largely Legible Layman (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Strong support enough editor time has been wasted on this trivial point. Those are development flights and it is clear that this topic requires more nuance than a "success/failure" binary option. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Other aerospace companies spend a lot of time making sure that everything is done right the first time around, before they put together and launch a complete vehicle. Rockets failing on the first try is the exception, not the norm, and there's no logical reason why SpaceX should be treated as "special" in some way. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 17:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose your opposition. SpaceX does just the necessary to get FAA approval, and their prototypes are guaranteed to fail, and sometimes get intentionally destroyed. So, SpaceX instead of taking their time to make a good prototype, they launch an uncompleted prototype. And I disagree of test flights being in the safety record of rockets. 2800:E2:4A80:DCB:3D98:4ABE:5591:3E06 (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I came to close the above RfC, took a brief look at the complex arguments and analyses, and immediately thought: "This is why we normally only include simple details in infoboxes!" —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Since all but two editors here (me and DASL51984) have supported the motion, I believe this topic should transition to what we are going to call the launches, if anything at all.

My proposal is this: Under other outcomes, list: V1 Test Flights: 3 (and a note to explain why they are excluded from success vs failure, similar to what exists on the Space Shuttle article) Redacted II (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I think doing this will finally enable us to work on more productive things rather than writing kilobytes over kilobytes of debates. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Should we add it in now, or wait until the RfC is closed? Redacted II (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Let's wait until the RfC is closed :) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support — these were test flights, with the goal for the company to flight test on an integrated vehicle things they could not completely test in ground tests, or under conditions that exist on the surface of Earth. No one, and no engineer on the SpaceX development team, knows how far one of these test flights will go, where thousands of sequential events have to go right to even get to the later parts of a flight test. There was no commercial objective for these test flights: e.g., like "place the xyz payload into orbit". It is just wiki-original research to try to simplify into "Success" or "Failure" when many tens of major test objectives are in play. N2e (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support — as SpaceX itself publishes only informal launch objectives and post-launch summaries we end up in endless and needless discussions after every IFT launch. IlkkaP (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Now that the IFT-3 RfC has been closed, and that only two editors (myself and DASL51984) have expressed opposition to not classifying IFT flights as Success, partial failure, or failure, I believe it is fair to say a consensus has formed in favor of this option.

I have already made a proposal for a new classification, which I will repeat here:

Under other outcomes, list: V1 Test Flights: 3, with a note saying "V1 Test Flights are not included with other flights due to significant differences between vehicles, and the iterative flight plans of the various launches" Regardless of the outcome of IFT-4, 5, 6, or 7, they would be included under this category as well.

Until a new classification is decided, the infobox should remain unchanged. Redacted II (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

In other articles, including Falcon 1 (Flight 1-4 were tests, Flight 5 was operational) and Space Shuttle (STS 1-4 were tests, STS 5-135 were operational), test flights are counted. Consensus should still respect precedents and standards, and must only overrule them with proof that the precedents and standards were erroneous. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note to closer - While I closed the previous RFC, I explicitly did not override consensus on this discussion, wherever it lands. If the consensus here is not clear cut, I recommend reading the previous RFC's discussion, as multiple editors there discussed removal without repeating those arguments here. Soni (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Strongly oppose The only argument supporting this is to avoid further debates, but this is misguided and I hope that experienced editors here can avoid rushing to that conclusion, consensus can't be mere arbitrary majority. Every other article on the topic, such as Falcon 1, Falcon 9, Saturn V, include this information. The standard is that every rocket, both SpaceX and NASA, successes and failures are recorded, and laypersons like me can readily understand it. I don't believe there will much more debates for three reasons, first that we agreed upon the upper limit of failure in IFT-2 and the lower limit of success in IFT-3, second that we find each of these supported by reliable sources and not original research, third that we have every reason to expect that most future launches are more likely to be successful, please wait until IFT-4, IFT-5, IFT-6 before deciding to omit this information. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Strongly oppose this opposition. O.

ther companies take an approach of taking their time, and avoid explosions, but Spasometimes intentionally blows up prototypes to ensure success as fast as possible.ceX , Yukielgato (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Support. Starship follows a very different approach compared to traditional rockets, wherein failures are expected as part of the development process. It would be unfair for Starship to classify IFT1, IFT2 and IFT3 as failures when they met their respective goals of testing different aspects of the vehicle, and it would be unfair for other rockets to classify them as success when their respective vehicles very clearly suffered unintended catastrophic failures. Even IFT4, which was the first to reach all of its stated flight plan, is not a complete success because of the heavy damage suffered during reentry that would probably preclude it from being reused in an operational flight (if it didn't land on water of course). In my view the only option here is to list test flights in a different category. Agile Jello (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to correct something, the final RfC consensus was IFT-3 was a success. Redacted II (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Strongly support. Every time there’s an IFT an edit war starts and this can finalize that problem by acknowledging that these are tests. CaptHorizon (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Strongly support, why you would dirt a safety record with test launches? After all Starship is under development. Yukielgato (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It would be better to include them, and label them as developmental launches.

Such as Failures 2 Block1: 2.

This should be done the moment S33 flies. Redacted II (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

100-150 T to orbit in right hand info box

Should the article state that the vehicle is capable of delivering this mass to LEO when the vehicle has not yet done that? In the article itself, it correctly states that this is the purported mass to LEO. The right hand info box should also make this clear. 184.175.54.203 (talk) 01:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

100% yes.

For example, Falcon Heavy has never flown a 63.8 ton payload into LEO. But that's what its capable of, so that's what its listed payload capacity is. Redacted II (talk) 03:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move of SpaceX Starship flight test pages

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 4, impacting all of the SpaceX Starship integrated flight test pages, that may be of interest to followers of this page. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Direct link to discussion here. Redacted II (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Different articles for Starship 1, Starship 2, and Starship 3.

There is precedent for different versions of a launch vehicle to have dedicated articles. For example, Falcon 9's versions are:

Falcon 9 v1.0

Falcon 9 v1.1

Falcon 9 Full Thrust

Falcon 9 Block 5

Therefore, Starship 1 should have a dedicated article, followed by an article for Starship 2 (and maybe Starship 3). Redacted II (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a good example. In retrospect, I'm not convinced that individual articles for each Falcon 9 variant was the best approach. These are not total redesigns like say Ariane 5 vs Ariane 6.

A single, comprehensive article covering all Falcon 9 variants would have provide a more cohesive understanding of the rocket's evolution.

The problem is that well meaning editors created the Falcon 9 v1.0, Falcon 9 v1.1, and Falcon 9 Full Thrust articles amid the excitement when they were the new shiny rockets. But as the rockets matured, the pages languished. Note that a Falcon 9 Block 4 article was never made and the quality of the article for the Falcon 9 Block 5 (arguably the most important variant of the class) is lower than the others.

The other issue I foresee is that unlike the early days Falcon 9 program, which was largely in support of the COTS and CRS programs, which meant NASA published a lot of public documentation... that does not exist to the same level for Starship, which will make it even more challenging to create standalone pages for its variants.

By focusing on a smaller number of well-written, in-depth articles, we can allocate our editorial resources more effectively and ensure a higher overall quality of content. Also, remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or a crystal ball, which means that our content should be weighted towards covering things that happened in the past, not things happening now or in the future (although those things do get covered). It's okay to wait, see how things play out in the arc of history and create pages accordingly. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

There were substantial redesigns between Falcon versions, and between Starship 1 and Starship 2.

V1.0 -> V1.10 is by far the most visually obvious: new aft design (May be present on Starship 2), stretched tanks (Present on Starship 2), uprated engines, and both landings legs + grid fins (Starship 2 has redesigned forward flaps).

V1.10 -> Full Thrust introduced super-cooled propellant, an upgraded structure (Present on Starship 2), stretched tanks, new interstage (According to SpaceX's renders, present on Starship 2), and additional upgrades to the engines.

Full Thrust -> Block 5 has more engine upgrades, upgraded heat shield (Present on Starship 2), new grid fins, and redesigned COPVs.

That alone makes the differences worthy of dedicated articles, according to precedent. But for further precedent, Atlas I and Atlas II. The differences were solely stretched tanks, upgraded engines (According to SpaceX's renders, present on Starship 2), and the option to have up to four Castor 4A SRBs.

There is substantial documentation of Starship 1 and Starship 2. Finding sources won't be a challenge.

The reason Block 4 doesn't have a dedicated article may be because it was a transition design between Block 3 and Block 5. This is why I'm not proposing an article for a Starship 2 ship on a Starship 1 booster (Currently planned for at least Flights 7 and 8, FAA documents indicates up to 20 more flights of Starship 1's booster).

(All the above information is taken from Wikipedia articles)

As for WP:Crystal Ball, Starship 2 is not a "future design". There is a fully stacked Starship 2 upper stage in Mega Bay 2 right now (Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuJYUqzKE5Q). Redacted II (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

My point is, those design changes can be covered on a single, comprehensive article. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

But historically, they have not. And it would be a massive strain on this article to feature all of Starship 1, Starship 2, and Starship 3 to a substantially greater extent than Falcon 9 does for V1.0, V1.10, ect, ect. Giving each version a dedicated article will enable us to, as you put it "allocate our editorial resources more effectively and ensure a higher overall quality of content". Redacted II (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreeing with RickyCourtney that no separate article needed, and with Falcon it would probably have been better to have a single article only. Vast majority of Wikipedia readers don’t differentiate between different Starship (or Falcon) models and would get confused what is the right article to search information. IlkkaP (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The already large strain on this article is already bad, but having to condense multiple starship variants into one article would be nothing short of disasterous for the article Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It is true that the article is quite long. However, Version section takes only a few paragraphs. I would remove charts from Launch history (summary level information of the launches in Infobox is more than enough, and if more information needed can visit the separate article). Potential missions and Potential use cases sections could be condensed, there is too much fluff there now. IlkkaP (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

That is a terrible indicator.

Falcon 9 V1.0 section:

"F9 v1.0 was an expendable launch vehicle developed from 2005 to 2010. It flew for the first time in 2010. V1.0 made five flights, after which it was retired. The first stage was powered by nine Merlin 1C engines arranged in a 3 × 3 grid. Each had a sea-level thrust of 556 kN (125,000 lb_f) for a total liftoff thrust of about 5,000 kN (1,100,000 lb_f). The second stage was powered by a single Merlin 1C engine modified for vacuum operation, with an expansion ratio of 117:1 and a nominal burn time of 345 seconds. Gaseous N₂ thrusters were used on the second-stage as a reaction control system (RCS).

Early attempts to add a lightweight thermal protection system to the booster stage and parachute recovery were not successful.

In 2011, SpaceX began a formal development program for a reusable Falcon 9, initially focusing on the first stage."

The Falcon 9 V1.0 article is 18399 bytes.

The draft I have for Starship 1 is (As of September 4, 11:09 EDT) over 3.5x as large. Redacted II (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

We are probably talking different topics. I am referring to this article and its sections, not Falcon 9 article. IlkkaP (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we are.

The Version section of this article is, as you said, a few paragraphs.

The section of the Falcon 9 article dedicated to V1.0 is a single paragraph.

The Falcon 9 V1.0 article is 18 kilobytes.

The Draft I have for Starship 1 is 64 kilobytes.

There is more than enough on Starship 1 to warrant its own article. Redacted II (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree, starship versions deserve their own article Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 10:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, the links to Starship 1, Starship 2, and Starship 3 under the Launch History, Vehicle variants section are broken. They are pointing to "Version_1", "Version_2", and "Version_3" rather than "Starship_1", "Starship_2", "Starship_3". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexden12 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The launch history is taken from List of SpaceX Starship Launches, which is not protected - but I fixed the links there, thanks. The different Falcon variants all delivered payloads to space and they have tons of known differences. For now we don't have an equivalent to that with Starship. v1 and v2 look like just steps in the development process, v1 is not expected to carry payloads to orbit at all. --mfb (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

V1 is the largest rocket ever flown, and it will be until Starship 2 flies. That makes it extremely notable. Redacted II (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Also the first rocket to attempt at a “catch” landing. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 10:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Rather than having different articles for Starship 1,2,3, because we have different Falcon articles, I think those Falcon articles should be merged. ++Lar: t/c 17:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Merging the articles was proposed and rejected here. But if you want, you can try to get them merged into the Falcon 9 article. Redacted II (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The "Whether to create standalone pages" section of the Wikipedia notability guideline may be useful to help guide the discussion here. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: This article can utilize the most up to date information we have, and older information can go into the block subsections. Having a lengthy description here is better than three stub articles. I'm quite concerned about duplication of information and information being neglected from all four articles. All evidence suggests differences (relevant to WP) between versions will be able to be summarized in a few paragraphs. Narnianknight (talk) 02:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree this is too soon. Let's see how things evolve. The differences at the moment are definitely minor. A real starship 1 doesn't even exist yet. This is still the development phase. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

This is the final form of Starship 1.

Ther will only be one more flight. Ever. After that, they'd have to ready S32, which is behind S33 in assembly (S33 has raceway, complete TPS, and aft flaps). Redacted II (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Article needs version of Raptor engines added

Article needs version of Raptor engines added 184.88.18.214 (talk) 05:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by this? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

That info is on the Raptor article Redacted II (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Duplicated content from sub-articles?

I notice that some of the content in the Description section is a duplication of the sub pages SpaceX Starship (spacecraft) and SpaceX Super Heavy.

I see two options here:

1. Write shorter high level paragraphs to describe each component and then link to the main article
2. Transclude the "Design" sections from the sub articles using the "Excerpt" template so that the content isn't duplicated and is easier to maintain.

Thoughts? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on #2 Redacted II (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I have already worked on shortening them, so i would say #1, but #2 sounds fine aswell Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 06:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with 1. Narnianknight (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Given the recent growth of the Super Heavy article, I no longer favor #2 and will support #1 as well. HLFan (talk) 08:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Derivative Work

Is Starship HLS really derivative work? Its only a variant of Starship, after all. Redacted II (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I think is a dumb idea to consider test flights as successful or failures

This rocket is under development, so, why use test launches for the safety record? Yukielgato (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Given that you commented here, should this topic be closed? Redacted II (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Potential missions and Potential use cases

They're basically the same section.

Shouldn't they be merged? Redacted II (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)