Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:SpaceX Starship

Former good articleSpaceX Starship was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 14, 2021Good article nomineeListed
September 24, 2021Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 11, 2021Peer reviewReviewed
October 12, 2021Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
October 21, 2021Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 21, 2021Good article reassessmentKept
December 2, 2021WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
January 24, 2022Peer reviewReviewed
March 12, 2022Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 17, 2022Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 6, 2022Peer reviewReviewed
June 16, 2022Good article nomineeNot listed
January 13, 2023Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 9, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that SpaceX's reusable Starship launch vehicle has twice as much thrust as the Apollo program's Saturn V?
Current status: Delisted good article

Uncourced claim of sat clearance

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

Article was protected due to heated dispute regarding IFT success v.s failure status.
There was a lot of edit warring, so the page was protected.
However, I am not sure why that was included.
@Thistheyear2023 do you have a source regarding Starship being cleared to begin deploying payloads? Redacted II (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes from this article: https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/11/the-key-moment-came-38-minutes-after-starship-roared-off-the-launch-pad/
” That's when Starship reignited one of its six Raptor engines for a brief burn to make a slight adjustment to its flight path. The burn lasted only a few seconds, and the impulse was small—just a 48 mph (77 km/hour) change in velocity, or delta-V—but it demonstrated that the ship can safely deorbit itself on future missions.
With this achievement, Starship will likely soon be cleared to travel into orbit around Earth and deploy Starlink Internet satellites or conduct in-space refueling experiments, two of the near-term objectives on SpaceX's Starship development roadmap.“ Thistheyear2023 (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will likely soon be cleared ≠ was cleared. RickyCourtney (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, this doesnt mean a anything Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wonder why all the Starship articles became playgrounds for people who watch and read lots of videos and websites, but then seem to understand not properly and put halfbaked info as facts into articles that even the source rates as mere guessing... 47.69.168.221 (talk) 08:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because Starship has garnered the attention of more youngsters,who will then watch clickbait videos not knowing the Info isnt correct. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fehér Zsigmond-03 That's what I think, too. Even worse, all the Original Research coming from false/doubtful interpretation of some vague facts. Lots and lots of them lately. Most recent example is the ongoing discussion in several places whether a flight was actually orbital. They look up some raw flight data from an unsources third party private website (wp:rs non-reliable sources), compare with the one definition of "orbit" (out of many = cherrypicking) they like best, and then insist that this flight therefore (wp:or) was orbital or suborbital and to put that as fact into the article. Why can't anyone stick to the official statements or wait for them to come up? Might it be mere satisfaction for a know-it-all to be the first to have discovered a tiny new fact? Serious work on an encyclopedia should work differently... 47.69.168.221 (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I belive in the past there were arguments here about the flights being trans-atmospheric or suborbital too. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps instead of a complete removal, it should be changed to "Potentially enabling Starship to begin orbital flights", which is backed by a source. Redacted II (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be fine to be put it somewhere on the page but it’s not notable enough for inclusion in the intro to this page. RickyCourtney (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.
Maybe in the IFT-6 mini-section? Redacted II (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speculation by some third party about what might happen in the future should not be part of the main area of an article in principle. In an article about a movie, it would belong in the "reception" section. No such thing is in any rocket related article. So kindly wait until FAA really clears sat deliverance and not jonjecture around. Does not help the article at all, only flatters some ego. 47.69.168.221 (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While you do not bother to reply to valid arguments, maybe because you have nothing to contribute, you instead chose to tamper with other peoples comments.
Note: It is extremely rude and uncooperative to change someone else's edit.
Be reminded of Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines:
  • Comment on content, not on the contributor [not even in the edit summary!]
  • Behavior that is unacceptable: Generally, do not alter others' comments
WP:TPO - Exception: Sockpuppets. Any proof?? Or another falce accusation? 80.187.75.118 (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removing WP:PA.
"Flatters some ego" is a clear WP:PA violation
(Also, you've misused the Trout on my talk page) Redacted II (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Can you elaborate? Redacted II (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not hiring as I would have to write an entire scientific paper for the purpose. But what I mean is so obvious, why do you want a justification? ГеоргиУики (talk) 07:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I can give something as an idea. I think a single template representing a table of all SpaceX Starship launches is sufficient, instead of whole article for each. There is currently a separate article for each integrated test flight(IFT). ГеоргиУики (talk) 07:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The List of Starship launches article is already quite large. And will only grow larger (just look at the List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches article as an example).
Having a template instead makes no sense.
(Also, saying you don't need a justification for your complaints severely reduces the validity of your argument) Redacted II (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem. I see no reason to describe in detail every event related to SpaceX Starship(and falcon 9 too). That was also the reason I ironically blurted out that there is hardly a record here of everything that happens with bolts, nuts and pipes. This looked like, not an article on Wikipedia, but a detailed chronicle, the way the king's retinue of courtiers create thick biographical volumes for his majesty with descriptions of everything he has done, almost the exact time and date of every time he visited the toilet and what he "produced" in it. ГеоргиУики (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is an extremely large precedent to list every launch. Redacted II (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, it seems to be more common than I thought. Do you think it is of any use? ГеоргиУики (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sice spacex change smth for every launch, there is always smth new to include,wich is enough to write an article about Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 11:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, as I saw in the examples you mentioned, there is no separate article for each test flight, in the way that there is an article for SS IFT1; SS IFT2 and so on. ГеоргиУики (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all flights require an article. But the intial flight tests of a fully reusable Super heavy-lift launch vehicle are incredibly notable. I'm expecting each flight to get an article until either payload deployment begins or reflight of both stages. But IDK. Redacted II (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can actually see most Starship launches after the first reflight of both stages not getting an individual article.
Starlink or Starshield missions would only appear on "List of launches" type articles.
The Starship Arthemis missions likely would include all tanker launches and the launch containing the lander in a table on a single article.
Early Mars missions could have a table similar to the one for the Starship Arthemis missions. AmigaClone (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll comment here only on the narrow part of the discussion dealing with articles on each launch. Today, each Starship test flight is so different, and each is so widely covered in both U.S. and international secondary-source media, that of course each flight will, and should, have its own article. This has been the norm for launch coverage on Wikipedia for 2+ decades. When that ceases to be the case for Starship, as someday it likely will if a high-launch rate is achieved, there will no longer be a justification for one-article-per-launch. When that day arrives, some editor will likely create that article for the nth Starship launch, and that article will then, at that time, get AfD'd, and ultimately, not survive the AfD. That day is not now. N2e (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have a few different proposals.
Proposal 1.
Wait until each flight stops significant coverage (From CNN, NPR, NSF, ect, ect). This may take awhile, but it obeys notability rules. If a flight gets massive coverage (for any reason), add an article.
Proposal 2.
Wait until successful reflight with recovery. Its likely that every single flight until this point (and likely a few after) will be test flights with significant media coverage.
Proposal 3.
Wait until each flight stops significant coverage (From CNN, NPR, NSF, ect, ect) and reflight (with recovery being successful, meaning both stages are not obviously incapable of reflight). This will take longer, but it obeys notability rules. If a flight gets massive coverage (for any reason), add an article.
Proposal 4.
Wait until Starship begins deploying payloads (and no, the banana does not count).
Proposal 5.
Wait until Starship is flying twice a month consistenly (this is more than Arianespace + ULA combined have ever achieved in a single year).
Personally, I favor Proposals 3 and 4. I also think we should begin making an article for the starship prop transfer demo launches, as it has already received significant coverage. Redacted II (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with a combination of Proposals 3 and 4. I also think we should begin making an article for the starship prop transfer demo launches, possibly along the lines of Falcon 9 first-stage landing tests.
Some notes:
• One of the first payloads to be deployed will likely be the Starship version of Starlink. That payload would likely only need an edit to the header of List of Starlink and Starshield launches and adding couple of lines in the table describing the launches.
• The Starship missions to the moon could be in the form of one article containing a short table with all the tanker, HLS, and other launches needed for that mission.
• Initial Starship missions to Mars could be in the form of one article containing a short table with all the tanker, HLS, and other launches needed for a mission. AmigaClone (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on all of your points.
I already have a draft of the Prop Transfer Demo Article in my sandbox (I'll upgrade it to an official draft sometime soon), though its closer to the current flight test articles than the F9 landing test article. Redacted II (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About proposal 5. For next year FAA decided to give 15 starts to SpaceX Starship. Maybe from 2026 number of starts will be enough to average of 2 or more per month? ГеоргиУики (talk) 06:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source?
Last I heard they only had permission for 5/year (but are aiming for 25 in 2025). Redacted II (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ups, yes my bad memory. Up to 25 and for 2025 and still not permitted. ГеоргиУики (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceX Starship Statistics template changes

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

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

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

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

Another thing: if there are any Wikipedia template conventions I'm violating (like last time, when I forgot to use {{FULLPAGENAME}}, let me know immediately so I don't get this. Stoplookin9 Hey there! Send me a message! 01:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you forgot to list the parameters Redacted II (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expended counts actually would be (expended = total-recovered-lost).
I would suggest having a way to keep track of the number of boosters in a certain block from the ships. As is, FT-7 would break the template since it uses a block 1 booster and a block 2 ship. It also would be possible for a booster to be lost while the ship is recovered or the other way around.
So far we would have the following data for orbital launches (IFT1, IFT2, FT3, and FT6):
StarshipShip1Launch: 4 <-- presuming IFT1 and IFT2 were intended to be transatmospheric -->
StarshipShip1Lost: 3
StarshipShip1Expended: 1
StarshipShip1Recovered: 0
StarshipBooster1Launch: 4
StarshipBooster1Lost: 4
StarshipBooster1Expended: 0
StarshipBooster1Recovered: 0 AmigaClone (talk) 03:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suborbital flights should be included as well.
(Also, it was discussed earlier, and I believe general consensus is to list the highest version# as the vehicle version. So IFT-7, IFT-8, and at least IFT-9 will be Block 2)
StarshipShip1Launch: 6
StarshipShip1Lost: 3
StarshipShip1Expended: 3
StarshipShip1Recovered: 0
StarshipBooster1Launch: 6
StarshipBooster1Lost: 3
StarshipBooster1Expended: 2
StarshipBooster1Recovered: 1 Redacted II (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a second reason to keep track of the boosters and ships separately. Especially at the experimental stage there will be different results for the booster and ship. For example, in FT-6 the booster was lost while the ship was expended. AmigaClone (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup Redacted II (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appear to have suffered a severe case of iforgottocopytheactualnewtemplatefromnotepadtowikipediaitis.
Anyways
I'm going to add the above in. Stoplookin9 Hey there! Send me a message! 14:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to add the template to Super heavy-lift launch vehicle, but it just added this: Template:Stoplookin9/SpaceX Starship Statistics. Redacted II (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should be adding {{Template:SpaceX_Starship_Statistics}} instead. The template in my user space is just a sandbox, once I get all the problems ironed out, I will move that over to the main template Stoplookin9 Hey there! Send me a message! 16:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Redacted II (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need a potential missions section?

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

I would say there is a better case for the "Potential Missions" section be divided into three:
• NASA/DoD Missions (containing Arthemis and "Rocket Cargo") - basically those missions where there is a signed contract.
• SpaceX Missions (Containing Starlink, Mars Colonization, Point to Point)
• Potential Missions (The other missions) AmigaClone (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That definitely works. But long term it doesn't make sense to list every single type of mission flown. Redacted II (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

We should follow what reliable sources classify them as. If RS don't definitively state which block a given launch belongs to, we should be silent about the block classification as well, or use "not applicable" or something like that. Indefatigable (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For me it will be interesting whether there will be a final version of the rocket. Don't forget the slogan that Redacted II promoted in a one of previous discussion, that everything Starship that is not final is just test versions. They can remain in one article with all the other test versions, starting with the Starhopper. ГеоргиУики (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources have already called it Block 2.
Personally, I like Block 1.5, but a grand total of 0 sources have called it that.
(This has been discussed earlier) Redacted II (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should see what RS (or SpaceX itself) calls the combination of a booster of a certain block and a ship of another one.
My preference would be something more along the lines of Block 1-2. The first digit indicating that the booster in that example is block 1 and the second digit indicating the ship is block 2. That is closer to what other US launch vehicles have used like the Atlas V, Delta, and Antares. Here it might be best to just state the launch used a Block 1 Super Heavy and a Block 2 Ship. Later there will also be the need to distinguish between the Ship variants in addition it's block
AmigaClone (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something similar is used on List of Starship Launches Redacted II (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HLS derivative work

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

The best solution is to come up with a special name for the complete system of ship+booster, especially since the booster does not fly "to the stars" instead of having to explain the articles about the ship and the complete rocket in brackets. ГеоргиУики (talk) 09:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a violation of WP:OR Redacted II (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want you to come up with a name. Why don't you just interview Elon Musk about the questions you haven't yet clarified? ГеоргиУики (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot interview Elon Musk. Sorry to disappoint. Redacted II (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SpaceX_Starship