Talk:SpaceX Starship (spacecraft)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Use of Excerpts

@Redacted II I've used excerpts when appropriate so that edits will propagate to and from the relevant pages.

For example if an edit is made to the table of test flights on the relative article they will automatically show up here requiring less work from editors. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The excerpt you added was missing the "scrapped" label Redacted II (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

If the table is an excerpt to change it you need to edit the article it is transposed from. Do not copy the whole table otherwise the error will remain on the original page. To edit the table go to: SpaceX Starship development#Second stage prototypes and edit it there. It will show up here automatically. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh I see the problem now.... apparently the "scrubbed" label is being lost in the excerpt....weird... I'll ask for tech help {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Until you figure that out, I'll revert the excerpt back to the table I made. Redacted II (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Work is in progress here Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Help/Problem with excerpt?. Please don't edit it while the techies figure it out :) {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

So, you want me to revert back to the faulty excerpt? I can do that. Redacted II (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Duplicate article

How is this not a duplicate of SpaceX Starship? —Alalch E. 02:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

This is about the upper stage. (this) "Starship" and SpaceX Super Heavy form (that) SpaceX Starship, as the two main components. So you can consider this article to be a subtopic. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 04:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The naming is definitely confusing... but it's not our fault! The intro maybe could be more clear? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, very confusing. I'd call Starship an upper stage, personally. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Why forking?

I don't see the point of forking the article out like this, when all of these information is essentially duplicated from SpaceX Starship. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The SpaceX Starship upper stage is a lot more notable than some other stages that have their own articles (like the Delta IV second stage, or atlas V first stage). Therefore, both Starship and Superheavy should (and now have) dedicated articles. Redacted II (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

For reference we use the following articles for Apollo: Apollo Program = Apollo (spacecraft) + Saturn (rocket family) (and various subpages) {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Mission Profile

In the SpaceX Super Heavy page, a section is dedicated to the mission profile of the vehicle. Should we include a similar section in this article? Redacted II (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

There's no single mission profile. Starship HLS is different from Starship Tanker, from Starship Cargo, from Starship orbital tank farm, from Starship Passenger (point-to-point spaceliner), from Starship pez dispenser, from Starship Mars Colonial Transporter, from Starship HLS, from Starship Crew-- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 05:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

We can at least include launch profile, as well as landing profile. Redacted II (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Which are different depending on which Starship you are looking at. The launch profile for HLS on the Moon or MCT on Mars is very different from being launched atop Super Heavy. Landing profiles are also very different for landing on the Moon or Mars; and the orbiting fuel depot will never land; the pez dispenser versions are to be expendeable, so will burn up instead of landing -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think launch profiles are different between different types? Maybe we can include that? Redacted II (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

When you launch off the Moon or you launch of Mars, that is different from launching atop Super Heavy, since you do not use Super Heavy on the Moon or Mars -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm referring to launch from earth, not launch from mars/moon/anywhere else Redacted II (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Information Literacy and Scholarly Discourse-2002

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 18 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Duranandrew6264 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Duranandrew6264 (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Test Tank Info

Currently, the info on the various test tanks is located at the Super Heavy article. As the majority of the test tanks were related to the second stage, I believe it should be moved either to here or in the SpaceX Starship article. Redacted II (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Older ship

The picture shows Ship 20, even though we have more moder ones like 24. Could someone change it? The same has been done on the full rocket site. Fehér Zsigmond (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

If a clear picture can be found, it should be added.

But it would have to follow copyright rules, and be from a legitimate source. Redacted II (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

"Ship 28+" is not an acceptably styled heading

@Redacted II and Cocobb8: It's just unprofessional writing. We shouldn't use symbols like that in headings. Headings are subject to regular naming conventions, and this doesn't look like a conventional title/heading at all. I've changed it to "Ship 28 and subsequent". Do you think there's something wrong with that alternative?—Alalch E. 14:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Nope. While I don't see the problem with the +, you are a much more experienced editor than I am, so I'll defer to your judgement.

(Thanks for doing the same on Super Heavy) Redacted II (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright, if both articles are consistent with each other, I'm ok with it. Cocobb8 (💬 talk to me! • ✏️ my contributions) 16:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

remove column from table?

I removed the "construction site" column from the "test tank" table, and Redacted II reverted my removal without comment. All entries in the column are identical, so I feel it adds no value, while making the table harder to read on narrow displays. It's also unlikely that test tanks will ever be built anywhere other the Boca Chica any time in the foreseeable future, as test tanks are needed only at the development site and BC will likely remain the only development site. If this changes, we can put the column back in. Comments? -Arch dude (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about not leaving a comment.

Removing an entire column is the kind of edit that should be at least discussed before being implemented. Furthermore, the table should be consistent with it's semi-twin at SpaceX Super Heavy.

While no test tanks have been constructed outside of Boca Chica, that could happen in the future. Also, starship prototypes have been built outside of Boca Chica, so that should be taken into account as well. Redacted II (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Anything "could happen". To account for all those things, we would need to add an infinite number of columns to all tables on Wikipedia. the site at Cocoa has been decommissioned, and at this point the probability of Starship tank development happening anywhere other than BC is near zero. If it does happen we can then add another column or a separate table if appropriate. From a format perspective, wide table are a nuisance, especially on narrow displays, including smartphones. From a reader comprehension perspective, an unneeded column detracts from the information being presented. -Arch dude (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

You make some (very) good points.

Still, to be 100% honest, I think it looks better with the "Construction site" column. Redacted II (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Copied and pasted from SpaceX Starship and forgot to attribute in edit summary

What do I do now? CoastRedwood (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Move to: SpaceX Starship (upper stage)

I have been so confused by the fact that both the full launch assembly with the booster at the base and the "Starship" on the top is called a "Starship," as well as only the crew capsule portion of the "Starship" is also called a "Starship," that I think that it would be very helpful for both the readers and our editors, if we moved this article over to the new article title that has been proposed here.

Both the first instance of a fully assembled "Starship" and the second instance of the crew capsule only are both spacecrafts are they not? We need to have a title that does a better job of differentiating between the two than merely the word: "spacecraft". Any thoughts about which article title would be clearest to the most readers? Perhaps the fully assembled rocket article could one day be titled something like SpaceX Starship (launch assembly), and the crew capsule only could be titled as SpaceX Starship (upper stage).

All constructive criticism is very much appreciated. All destructive criticism can meet me in the back behind the shed after class.

Just kidding. :-)

Thanks,

Lighthumormonger (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The names are really confusing (Blame Elon Musk for this).

We have almost 0 info on the crew capsule of starship. Dedicating an article to that now seems like a waste. Maybe once we get more info on the internal design, it will need either it's own article. When this happens, moving this article to SpaceX Starship (Stage) would be best, and use the current name for the crewed version.

This article is for the Second Stage, and has a "sister article": SpaceX Super Heavy

The fully assembled rocket is SpaceX Starship.

Any changes to the names of the entire rocket belongs at that article, not now. Redacted II (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know if you noticed or not, but this proposal is not written on the article talk page about what I have called the "Starship Launch Assembly," but instead it was written on the talk page of the article about what has been proposed as the "Starship (upper stage)" page. In other words, we already have a fully developed article about the crew capsule, and that is really the only article that I am proposing to be renamed right now.

I placed this move request here because I thought that it will be a fairly simple matter to just change this article name first to SpaceX Starship (upper stage) for now, then if and whenever it might seem right at some later date, to change the name of what I have called the "Starship launch assembly," then and only then could that be done. Perhaps just moving this article about the crew capsule to a new name the new name of SpaceX Starship (upper stage) would be more helpful, I don't know.

As Wikipedia editors, I think we have the right to use more logical names than the rather conflicted and kooky ones Musk has come up with so far. Musk's rather kooky names have caused my head to spin more than once, and I feel certain I am not the only one. Why can't we just write these articles so that people can easily navigate them regardless of however strong (or weak) Musk's ability might be to come up with good names for his stuff might be? What do you think?

Lighthumormonger (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree the names are confusing. "space habitation module" is not a standard way to refer to the upper stage. Moreover most upper stages will be cargo and tanker spacecrafts, not habitation modules.

"SpaceX Starship (spacecraft)" is already a nice compromise IMO. Alternatives could be "SpaceX Starship (upper stage)", but then we loose the spacecraft aspect of it. We could also drop the brackets for a cleaner look: SpaceX Starship spacecraft.

What I do predict could happen in a distant future is that "Starship" becomes more and more used to refer to the second stage, so the main page would get renamed to any of the following: SpaceX Starship stack, SpaceX Starship (rocket), Starship (rocket), Starship Super Heavy,... But for now it'd be inconvenient. CodemWiki (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I like your proposal to use the title: SpaceX Starship (upper stage) for this article. Yes, it does not suggest that it is a spacecraft necessarily, but that's not on us, that would be on Musk and his marketing department. Let Musk figure out how to untangle his names sometime in the future when he finally has to. Meanwhile I think that I would support a move for the crew capsule module's page to SpaceX Starship (upper stage), just to help people navigate between the two without too much confusion.

Lighthumormonger (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, Musk shouldn't decide the names of Wikipedia pages.

And the crew module has almost no available information. And it's all from ~2020, which was pre raptor v3 (or even v2) hot staging, Starship v2, and a host of other changes, so I don't see how it is notable enough to receive an article. Redacted II (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

True, much of the information is very dated, but there is clearly a keen interest amongst the public in the development of what I will call the "Starship's crew capsule." I know I would like to know every single bit of information that I can about it. Why did you know that, in fact according to one of Musk's earlier predictions, within 12 months (by 12/31/25) a SpaceX Starship will soon be carrying men to the moon! Har har har! It does seem that the article that is attached to this Talk page does have some more current information which I am keen to read. I think there is a definite need for this page.

Lighthumormonger (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

PS: Since there were only two other editors involved here and there didn't seem to be any objections, I took the liberty to change the name of the section to "Move to: SpaceX Starship (upper stage)." Caveat Emptor.

Thanks,

Lighthumormonger (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Ship 26 " for scrapping" is WP:OR

Ship 26 sent "for scrapping" is once more WP:OR. The dubious X source does not even claim that: t.co/zL7f1NSFq4 - "It appears it will be put out to pasture today". Note "appears", and some funny expression that can mean anything but scapping. Would be nice if Stapship related articles could remain free of dubious sources, dubious statements and presumptions that are made into facts in the articles. 47.64.128.79 (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Added presumably.

But the meaning of "put out to pasture" is really, really obvious.

(Also, for your claim that you were not notified of the ANI report, I did place a message here. Within seconds of the ANI report being filed) Redacted II (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

"Presumably" is OR as well. And "really really obvious" even more, this is just your personal understanding. Got you once more boasting presumed pseudofacts from watching some video and putting it into articles as facts. Reverting a revert while discussion is up is very bad habit and very close to edit war and vandalism, as you know. (And I did not have this IP then, thus your message did not reach me, while you were fully aware that I had been given another IP as you state it in the ANI; at least then you could have informed me; more bad habit.) 47.64.128.79 (talk) 08:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Why do you think S26 is getting scraped, as you put into the article? What is going to be scraped off it? Source said nothing like that! 47.64.128.79 (talk) 08:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Its already been scrapped now. I'm just waiting for a more permanent source.

(I misspelled scrapped in the initial edit. Fixing now) Redacted II (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Then,

a) wait for a reliable source before reverting to the poor and incorrect previous state, even without using the summary line! I regard this as uncooperative, disrupting and bossy behaviour. No need to change it back until you have better source! Except, in case you just revert in principle everything you don't like.

b) hopefully you find a more reliable source anyway; you watching some dubious Youtube videos and interpreting them into article text in just not appropriate.

c) be more careful with spelling; your sloppy edit resulted in fake information. 47.64.128.79 (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Waiting for a reliable source to say that it has been scrapped.

Source is clear that S26 was going to be scrapped. Redacted II (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Your insisting of "scrapping" and your "new" source you added here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship_(spacecraft)&diff=prev&oldid=1258778926

seems just pitiable and to be just another distraction.

That "source" is a lenghty video and you do not even bother to give the timestamp in the citation. Should then everybody watch the whole video to find this alleged statement, or look into the summary line from a long forgotten edit?

Nevertheless, at about 00:08:32 as you give it in the summary line, they are talking about nose cones and then Artemis flights, nothing about S26. Error of yours again, or distraction in the hope nobody checks, or what? Nevertheless, even if the chatter in the video would adress S26, three unnamed people nerding about SpaceX launches without giving any proof of what they talk about is no wp:rs reliable source anyway. Please stop your sloppy "video research", this is laughable. 47.69.168.221 (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Read the edit description.

At the T-08:32 mark from the launch, they address the scrapping of S26.

(Also, again, NSF is a reliable source) Redacted II (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Read my remark properly and don't "answer" to things I did not mention or repeat things over and over that I already have falsified. You seem to have no arguments to counter my critic. Seems like more distraction from errors. 47.69.168.221 (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

You: "That "source" is a lenghty video and you do not even bother to give the timestamp"

Edit Descript: "T-00:08:32 mark" Redacted II (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

You know Wikipedia:Video_links#As_references ?

• 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.

You almost never do that, even in your summary line discussed above you do NOT give a timestamp as I requested, but you seem to refer to some superimposition in the video. This is unacceptable and a disgrace for everybody who wants to check the source. But I have told you that several times before.

Also:

• Do not cite as publisher: Youtube: "YouTube does not originate its content, and it should never be sourced as the publisher of the content."

And:

• Editors should not use a video as a citation to present their own interpretation of its content.

And:

• If the material in a video only available on YouTube includes content not previously produced or discussed in other reliable sources, then that material may be undue and inappropriate for Wikipedia.

Maybe you should dive more deeply into videos as a source, as you seem to rely on them to a great extent but often ignore the advices given above. Half of the Starship arcticles' references are meanwhile from Youtube videos of some third-party self-published content of questionable quality. 47.69.162.76 (talk) 10:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

== "Recent and open discussions should not be archived" ==

Misuse of talk page archives to hide "unwanted" comments, although the discussion was still alive, problems unsolved and questions open. 80.187.75.118 (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion was dead, as Ship S26 has since been scrapped and the IP banned for two weeks.

If you have concerns regarding the citations (I can point you to probably about a dozen sources supporting the scrapping of the tileless ship), then open a new topic. Redacted II (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)