Talk:SpaceX Starship

Misleading lead

I'm not so happy with various wordings in the lead which sound quite misleading to me:

• Reading the lead suggests to a casual reader that the SpaceX starship is something like the extremely wellknown starship enterprise. Alalch_E. added a footnote, but it's quite late and will be missed by most readers.
• The sentence "Starship is the largest and most powerful rocket ever flown, surpassing the Soviet N1 rocket, the Saturn V of the 1960s Apollo Program and the SLS of the current Artemis Program" is somehow misleading, too. While "flown" is technically correct, it suggests to casual readers that it surpasses the successes of these other space vehicles, while in reality the Saturn V and SLS have flown astronauts into orbit and beyond, while the SpaceX Starhip hasn't yet.

Especially taken together it suggests to readers which are not familiar with the details that the SpaceX Starship made the Star Trek starships reality.

Let me make the following proposal. It's only slightly longer than the current lead, and would solve the mentioned problems. But of course I'm also open for other solutions.

Starship, named after the theoretical spacecraft capable of interstellar travel, is a super heavy-lift space vehicle under development intended for flights to earth orbit, moon and mars by SpaceX. Currently the first and only test flight reached 50 km height. At 120 metres (394 feet) in height and with a liftoff mass of 5,000 metric tons (11,023,000 pounds), Starship is the largest and most powerful rocket ever built, surpassing the Soviet N1 rocket, the Saturn V used for the first moon landing and the SLS of the current Artemis Program.

Any thoughts? Zae8 (talk) 10:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Zae8 (talk) 10:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The "named after the theoretical spacecraft capable of interstellar travel" part is absolutely unnecessary so early in the lead. The next sentence says Starship is a rocket. I think it's relevant, but later in the lead. It shouldn't be a note (most readers don't check notes), probably just a sentence "but despite its name not interstellar travel" or something along this.

I also don't understand why you and others want to keep on adding information about other rockets such as the SLS or the Saturn V in the lead of the Starship page, there is no point in specifying Saturn V reached the Moon. The title of the page is "SpaceX Starship", not "Comparison of super heavy lift launch vehicles". CodemWiki (talk) 10:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the "starship" issue, I'm definitely open about other solutions. I agree that this specific wording is not necessary, but I think it is necessary to resolve that problem in the first sentence somehow. Far more people know Star Trek starships than SpaceX starship.

I don't want to add information about other rockets in the lead. It is already present right now, and I didn't delete it. I'm absolutely fine with removing this whole sentence.

What about the following more compact version?

Starship, named after theoretical interstellar spacecrafts, is a super heavy-lift space vehicle under development by SpaceX intended for flights to earth orbit, moon and mars. Currently the first and only test flight reached 50 km height. At 120 metres (394 feet) in height and with a liftoff mass of 5,000 metric tons (11,023,000 pounds), Starship is the largest and most powerful rocket ever built.

Zae8 (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand the reasoning behind specifying SpaceX Starship is named after starships? It seems obvious and unnecessary - and definitely not compact. Also SpaceX has never really talked about it because it's really not relevant. It's also not what people that read the article are looking for. A simple sentence saying Starship is a planned for trips to the Moon, the Mars etc but despite its name not interstellar travel is plenty enough.

A lead sentence should be concise and get the main points straight instead of wasting a whole sentence worth of words on obvious details.

I'm not sure what the lead sentence should be, I think the current one is a decent compromise - with maybe too much focus on Starship surpassing other rockets but that's about it.

I agree with your idea that one of the first lead sentences should specify "Starship is intended for flights to earth orbit, moon and mars.". Maybe add to that sentence, something along "but despite its name, not interstellar travel"? CodemWiki (talk) 11:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the reasoning behind the name is not important, as long the common misperception is avoided.

Therefore, based on your proposal, what about simply the following?

Starship is a super heavy-lift space vehicle under development by SpaceX intended for flights to earth orbit, moon and mars, but despite its name not designed for interstellar travel. Currently the first and only test flight reached 50 km height. At 120 metres (394 feet) in height and with a liftoff mass of 5,000 metric tons (11,023,000 pounds), Starship is the largest and most powerful rocket ever built.

Zae8 (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Zae8 (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

" but despite its name not designed for interstellar travel" is still too early in the lead in my opinion. And we should probably have the opinion of others users when discussing changing the lead.

My opinion is still that this revision was really great and we shouldn't change much beyond that. Sorry. CodemWiki (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

That version does not solve the two issues with the lead I mentioned at the beginning. The lead shoult not suggest that we are talking about something like the Star Trek starships here. Ok, I think I go with the uncontroversial changes first, and then let's see. Zae8 (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I changed the lead to address the discussed problems with hopefully non-controversial changes. CodemWiki, I didn't include your change from the "really great" version, since this seemed to be controversial and was reverted by another author. What do you think about the current versions? Feedback and suggestions for further improvements from anyone else? Zae8 (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Current version is clean, I like it. I'm not a deletionist however for lead sections, less is often better. CodemWiki (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

No, that's Star Trek fantasy world again. Zae8 (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here. The article clearly states the purpose of the vehicle in the lead. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Nobody seems to be under the impression that the vehicle is a sci-fi interstellar voyager. It's clearly a launch vehicle, for pete's sake. The version you restored contains information non-critical for the first paragraph and is also grammatically poor. You are also the only one arguing this point here. Sub31k (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks like we have a stable version in the lead now. I would like to point out that SLS hasn't flown astronauts yet, contrary to the claim in the first comment here. "Flown" does not imply anything about crewed flights anyway. --mfb (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Comparison to Other Vehicles in lead

The purpose of stating the other vehicles it surpassed is to provide context. Removing that comparison weakens the article. Saying it's "the most powerful" means very little without saying what was previously the most powerful.

In other words, breaking a record is meaningless if the previous record doesn't have a stated value. Redacted II (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Understandable. But we should stay at "Starship is the largest and most powerful rocket ever flown, surpassing the thrust of the NASA Space Launch System and Saturn V, as well as the Soviet N1, which had previously held the record[2]" and not keep on adding fluff.

Do you mind if I write an invisible comment on the page saying "do not change this sentence without discussing it with other users (per talk page)"? CodemWiki (talk) 07:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I think thats fine. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure.

To be honest, the inclusion of the Space Launch System and the Saturn V feels unnecessary, so would this be acceptable?

"Starship is the largest and most powerful rocket ever flown, surpassing the thrust of the N1, which had previously held the record[2]" Redacted II (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thats also fine for me, i just want a comparison. Given that the n1 is pretty similar in some cases, jt makes sense. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, maybe add the Saturn V as it is historically and culturally significant. However, a comparison with the Space launch System is already present on the page under "Design", it is not necessary to mention it in the lead. CodemWiki (talk) 12:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Then, how about:

"Starship is the largest and most powerful rocket ever flown, surpassing the thrust of the Saturn V, as well as the N1, which had previously held the record" Redacted II (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Honestly "Starship is the largest and most powerful rocket ever flown, surpassing the thrust of the NASA Space Launch System and Saturn V, as well as the Soviet N1, which had previously held the record[2]" was fine, I just don't think anything should be added to it beyond that. CodemWiki (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Choose the formulation you think suits the best. CodemWiki (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed that the Saturn V and N1 are also mentioned in design.

A comparison to SLS is entirely unnecessary, except if we state that "Starship has often been compared to the Space Launch System (and the N1)" Redacted II (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Change lead image

Personally, I think that the image in the lead should be changed, per the following two reasons:

• The Starship vehicle isn't clear on that picture
• Nearly all the other rocket articles show the rocket with the launch pad still in the frame; doing so here as well would keep that consistency

Does anyone have any objections, or ideas for what picture to use instead? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The image is the best that we have, for a few reasons:

1: The rocket is in flight. As far as I know, this is the only photo Wikipedia has of an integrated Starship in flight.

2: The vehicle is "modern" The only other photo's Wikipedia has are of B4S20, but again, I could be wrong here. While S24 and B7 weren't the most modern prototypes, even at the time of flight, they were about six months younger than B4S20, and far closer to any "operational" version.

If you have a candidate image, I'd love to see it. But until then, I cannot support any motion to change the image. Redacted II (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Launch Statistics Bar Graph

Would anyone be opposed to separating prototype failures from failures of the "actual" vehicle, in the Bar Graph present in the Launch Statistics section, and not in the Infobox? Redacted II (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I completely support this. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I have a "prototype chart", do you have any objections to this?

3

'23

'24

'25

'26

•   Prototype Failure
•   Failure
•   Prototype Success
•   Success
•   Planned Prototype
•   Planned

Redacted II (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm against it, since the vehicle that launched on 20 April was supposed to be a functional vehicle, even if it was a prototype. I think the majority of people who got caught up in those intergalactic nuclear wars that broke out earlier this year would probably say the same thing. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 00:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

A "prototype" vs. "everything else" classification has been rejected over and over again, but a handful of editors will keep trying to add it everywhere and forever. For now I think we don't need a graph at all. Once we have a handful of launches we can add a graph and maybe distinguish between prototypes and different versions of operational vehicles (Starlink launcher, tanker, ...). --mfb (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

WHY IS IT A PROBLEM. TELL ME. BECAUSE ITS NEW?!? Sorry, i got carried away. It wasnt fully functional, and it is still changing. Just like falcon nine block four and five. different, but similar.

(btw i need some judging for my idea under this cooment(s)) Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Prototypes are a distinct "version", very different from what any potential "functional" or "operational" vehicle may be like.

The graphs in Falcon 9 distinguish between the different versions (they even differentiate between new and reused boosters).

There are five graphs in the Falcon 9 article. One of them is for "Rocket configurations". Adding a similar graph needs to be done.

(oh, and Fehér Zsigmond-03, please calm down). Redacted II (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The graphs in the page for Falcon do not distinguish prototypes from operational vehicles. Stop trying to argue that any of these graphs somehow should as it's been explained to you numerous times before.

The ship has already sank (literally), so stop trying to insist that it's unsinkable. Beating this dead horse over and over again constitutes a waste of people's time. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 14:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

They distinguish versions of the vehicle. Prototype is a version. Therefore, in order to be consistent with that article, the different versions need to be clearly separated.

I am not saying Starship is unsinkable, and I honestly have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

Can we agree that S24 and B7 are radically different from any future operational vehicle, given the differences between B7 and B9? Redacted II (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

None of these articles specifically say "prototype", so neither should this article. Other articles distinguish between variants of operational vehicles, not between prototypes and operational vehicles, so neither should this article. I myself and others have explained this to you an uncountably infinite number of times in the past.

This is not a trivial difference. Do you not understand this, or do you wilfully ignore it? DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 14:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Please try to avoid personal attacks.

That being said, I consider "prototype" to be a version of the vehicle.

If you want prototype to not count, sure. But that means the # of launches in the infobox should say 0. After all, it was a prototype, and not an operational vehicle. Falcon 9 doesn't include the Grasshopper, so why should Starship include S24/B7? Or the next set of vehicles?

So, if prototype launches DO count as launches, then therefore, they must be variants of the operational vehicle. Redacted II (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, we're not going to change every other rocketry article to reflect what is, quite frankly, a flawed way of doing things.

Secondly, I never said that they "shouldn't count". They should, but other rocketry articles lump in prototypes with operational vehicles; they don't list them separately. Starship should be no different. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 14:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Other articles don't record prototypes and operational vehicles together.

Please, provide some examples (other than this article). But, just to rule out a few:

Falcon 9 v1.0 (not prototype, not even on the first flight)

Atlas V's first flight used an identical vehicle to what launched November 10th, 2022/

Delta III was intended on being the successor to Delta II, so not a prototype.

If you disagree with any of these examples, then I'd love to discuss that. Redacted II (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of whether prototypes are lumped in or not listed, other articles don't list prototypes separately when counting vehicular success or failure rates, and neither should this article. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 15:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

This isn't in regard to the infobox. This is regarding the bar chart (which is an excerpt from list of SpaceX starship flight tests).

That article also separates prototype and operational launches into different sections (Prototypes v.s Future operational flights).

So, in order to be consistent with other articles, the bar chart has to be changed to separate "operational" and prototype launches as different versions of the same vehicle. Redacted II (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I know this isn't in regard to the infobox.

Secondly, it's true that the article you mentioned discusses prototypes and operational launches separately, but that's not what we're talking about here.

Thirdly, the bar charts on other rocketry articles with bar charts don't list prototypes separately. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 15:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

"First of all, I know this isn't in regard to the infobox."

I just wanted to make sure, due to what you have often called "the intergalactic nuclear war".

As for "Secondly, it's true that the article you mentioned discusses prototypes and operational launches separately, but that's not what we're talking about here."

Actually, it is. You said "other articles don't list prototypes separately when counting vehicular success or failure rates", and I was providing counter evidence, that also happened to be from the article that the debated chart is an excerpt of.

"Thirdly, the bar charts on other rocketry articles with bar charts don't list prototypes separately"

I consider prototypes (in this case) to be a version of the vehicle. And my logic regarding this has been listed in earlier discussions.

But you have made some very excellent points, and I would be more than happy to modify my proposal based on those points. Redacted II (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Those articles have separate sections discussing the prototypes and operational vehicles, but the graphs do not list prototypes separately.

If you want to stay out of trouble, I would suggest retracting this proposal completely and moving on. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 15:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

"If you want to stay out of trouble, I would suggest retracting this proposal completely and moving on"

Why retract it? So far, 50% are in support.

"Those articles have separate sections discussing the prototypes and operational vehicles, but the graphs do not list prototypes separately."

The proposal is to change the graphs, so saying that the graphs in that article (which the graphs here are an excerpt of) don't separate prototypes from other vehicles is irrelevant.

And like the last comment, I'm shifting this over so we don't have an increasingly narrow chain of replies. Please don't move it. Redacted II (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Your sample size is way too small to be able to safely say whether people support or oppose this change. I recommend retracting it because you're beating a dead horse.

If prototypes were listed separately, it wouldn't be consistent with other rocketry articles with such graphs. So this point of mine is absolutely relevant. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 16:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

"Your sample size is way too small to be able to safely say whether people support or oppose this change. I recommend retracting it because you're beating a dead horse." The sample size is limited, I agree with you on that. I never said people support it. I only said it's not opposed (1:1 ratio). And given that it's unrelated to the "intergalactic nuclear war", it is in no way beating a dead horse"

"If prototypes were listed separately, it wouldn't be consistent with other rocketry articles with such graphs. So this point of mine is absolutely relevant."

I gave an example of an article that separated them. And as I said, the proposal is to change THIS graph. I interpreted that complaint as you stating "the graph in the article you mentioned doesn't back your statement". Well, they are the same graph, therefore, that graph (not the organizational structure of the article) is irrelevant. I was not trying to say that the lack of prototypes being separated in other graphs is irrelevant. Redacted II (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

> And given that it's unrelated to the "intergalactic nuclear war", it is in no way beating a dead horse

It is, since both of these are covering attempting to distinguish between prototypes and operational vehicles.

> I gave an example of an article that separated them. And as I said, the proposal is to change THIS graph.

Exactly, and I recommend you abandon this before it turns into another war. Please, just move on.

DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 16:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

"It is, since both of these are covering attempting to distinguish between prototypes and operational vehicles."

Which is an important distinction. It's like saying Falcon 9 1.10 had a failure because F9R Dev 1 exploded. Or Block 5.

"Exactly, and I recommend you abandon this before it turns into another war. Please, just move on."

I have no intention of abandoning this. There was even a week long period where it had 100% support. I could have implemented it then. But I didn't, because I didn't want to start another huge debate.

We can discuss this peacefully, and come to a solution that we both approve of (or at least don't disapprove of), while being consistent with other articles.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your main objection is that you don't believe prototypes count as a variant of the vehicle, while I do.

But (at least from my perspective), if prototypes are not a variant of the vehicle, why is one being counted as a failure, or a launch at all?

Maybe we can make a rocket configuration chart instead? The article will need one eventually. Redacted II (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know. What I am completely against is your simultaneous preaching of "consistency" and pushing in favour of something that breaks said consistency.

You can't really say it "had 100% support" since there were never many people involved in the discussion. That's hasty gerneralisation.

Prototypes are a variant of the vehicle, but it wouldn't be fair to give them special treatment because they're prototypes, which is what you're doing.

As long as you don't abandon this, you're wasting everybody's time. I already know what the opinion of most people who visit this page will be. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 18:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not given "prototypes" special treatment. I'm giving them the same treatment as other versions. The Falcon 9 article is the main basis of my arguments. Look at that to see if separating different versions of a rocket is or isn't consistent with other articles. Or Atlas V, to a lesser degree.

The only reason I mention consistency in my arguments is because you have consistently mentioned it in yours. That's how counterarguments work.

And 2/2 is 100%, so there's that.

But please, establish what you think the regular treatment of a vehicle variant is in an article. I'm curious Redacted II (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Redacted II: Can't believe we're revisiting this again. It still has not yet launched a second time. Refer to our conversation on Archive 6 in which you agreed As long as we can agree to revisit this when another vehicle launches, I'm fine with dropping this. Redacted II (talk) 3:32 pm, 18 May 2023, Thursday. On top of which, this graph is ridiculous. What WP:CRYSTALBALL do you have that indicates that the 2023 launches will be "prototypes", and the 2024 and 2025 ones won't be? We only have one launch, and only vague approximate plans for future launches. This launch vehicle is still early and we are miles away from having a hard schedule. Consensus is to describe this first launch as a failure and not a "prototype failure", again refer to archive 6 and archive 7. Please drop the stick. Leijurv (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I did say it was a "prototype" of the graph.

I was thinking that there wouldn't be very hard opposition to updating the graph, but, well, I thought the same about the note, which led to an RFC. I was wrong.

However, thank you for politely correcting me here. Next time, can you leave me a talk page message instead? Redacted II (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

With respect to the infobox, the note, the graph: My guess is that you're a fan of SpaceX (I am too), and you want Starship to be described fairly on Wikipedia (I do too). But we have to be fair. As a fan, I might want to paint it in the best light. For example, I might want all the initial failures to be marked as prototypes, then when it starts working I might want all of those to be marked as the operational vehicle. But, we have to fairly weigh, judge, and evaluate how to describe Starship in a way that's supported by reliable sources. As a part of this editorial discretion, we use consensus among editors to agree. Yes, consensus can change, but it's not enough to just wait a few months. In a scenario like this, you'd want something new to have happened (e.g. another launch), or at least to have discovered some new WP:RS to cite.

To be frank, I think that eventually, years in the future, you'll probably end up getting what you want here. I bet the initial versions of Starship will be generally understood by reliable sources as a separate category, perhaps a "v1", and we'll have a situation just like the Falcon 9 article that you're referring to. However, this hasn't happened quite yet. Starship doesn't really have versions yet. It would be WP:SYNTH / WP:OR to invent versions, and it would be WP:CRYSTALBALL to guess what the versions will be in the future.

With respect to user talk, I suppose I could do both, but generally per WP:TPG, WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, and WP:DETCON, if we're talking about what should go in this article, the discussion should happen here on the talk page for that article, so that others will see and evaluate it. But regardless I will tone it down a bit, I didn't really need to sarcastically ask about your crystal ball etc Leijurv (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Just so you know, I have never seen a more accurate description of any situation. I am very much a fan of SpaceX (though not Elon), and I thought a few months was enough (with a bit of bad timing on when the note RFC was closed).

In regards to asking you to place these messages on my talk page, I was referring to warning messages.

Finally, you have no reason to apologize for your message. Redacted II (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Upgrade listing

Back a few Months ago, in a now deleted conversation, I brought up the idea of listing of potential/happened upgrades. Now that more And more upgrades are happening( such as hot staging, raptor3, etc.), I thought I bring the idea up again. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe as part of the History section? Redacted II (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, but I'm thinking of a separate section. What do others think? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)