Jump to content

Talk:SpaceX Starship/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Image Debate

While the old image shows the vehicle in more detail, it is showing an outdated set of prototypes (B4/S20). In order to accurately show what the vehicle looks like, the newest set of prototypes should be used. The new image I've added is of B7/S24, the most recent set of prototypes. Furthermore, it shows the vehicle in flight, which is what almost every single rocket's Wikipedia page has as the main image. Redacted II (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the page should show the newer version. It is also important that the image shows the vehicle in flight. However, it is very difficult to make out the Superheavy booster and Starship in the picture. If there is a better image, perhaps use that? 64.67.42.115 (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I do not think B7/S24 has featured any visual differences from B4/S20 that are enough to warrant the image to be removed IMHO; the in-flight image is too small for readers to have an idea of the configuration of Starship. Best way is to use B4/S20 for the time being while a B7/S24 stack image with proper license is found, I am sure one can be found given so many people have visited Starbase in recent months. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 09:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Lets see, 33 engines, a completed heat shield, and chines. Those are some major changes. And the launch pad shown isn't remotely similar to what it was in the moments before launch. We shouldn't put a misleading image in as a placeholder. Better to use a less detailed image instead. Redacted II (talk) 11:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
@Redacted II 173.176.40.172 (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
i have a picture of b7/s24 stacked on the pad the day before flight if you're all interested in that [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 18:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Maybe replace the image of b4/s20 being used in the article with that? The main image should be of the vehicle in flight. But I'd love to see this new image! Redacted II (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

“First intended to be fully reusable”

What about earlier vehicles that received substantial development effort, such as (but not limited to) the Kistler K-1?

If the proportion of development progression to stated goals is considered (i.e., how far along are you on development of stated intent for capability), previous reusable launch system development efforts advanced to a comparable development level.

Therefore, it may be beneficial to rewrite this segment of text to reflect both prior development efforts and the developmental progress of the SpaceX vehicle. Lemniscate-waldkauz (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

OPPOSE. Starship was the first to have a full-scale prototype. Kistler K-1, VentureStar, DC-3, DC-X, the list goes on. None of them ever got close to a full-scale prototype. Therefore, no change should be made Redacted II (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
SUPPORT. It is obviously true that Kistler K-1 was "intended to be fully reusable". Therefore the current statement that Starship is the "First intended to be fully reusable" is obviously false. Zae8 (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Done. Obviously not the first vehicle "intended to be fully reusable" {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 18:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 Done (by user:Gtoffoletto). 2001:2020:32F:ECE9:E11F:F5E2:9E0E:3BA4 (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Funding?

I don’t see where funding for this project is discussed. Is funded by Tesla? Spacex Falcon profits? NASA? 2405:9800:B910:BA1B:88FC:901B:33FA:48AC (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

This article starts by saying: "Starship is a ... under development by SpaceX."--How much money is spent on Starship - that seems to be relevant for this article.--Where does SpaceX get its income? That question might not fit, in an article about Starship. 2001:2020:32F:A3C0:80E:FC2C:BB98:750A (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I added the beginning of a funding section. Needs improvement and may not be not be in the right place on the page but that's a start. CodemWiki (talk) 10:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Why is the page protected?

The page has edit protection enabled for reasons not specified on the talk page. @El C can you further explain? Ergzay (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I second this, why is this page protected? I don't like this, it goes against WP principles. Admin @El C please explain. Matthieu Houriet (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I will go to ANI to report this. This is just egregious behavior from both sides. It's sad to see an article that I've worked hard for 2 years having been torn by disputes. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
After reading the current policy, full protection is now deemed an acceptable alternative to striking involved user accounts when an edit war involves multiple parties. Edit war was the reason invoked by admin in the protection log. In short, I'm afraid there's not much to complain about to the ANI. It's just sad as you said. Matthieu Houriet (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm still unsure why the page has extended protection. Semi-protection is sufficient. CodemWiki (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Image Debate

While the old image shows the vehicle in more detail, it is showing an outdated set of prototypes (B4/S20). In order to accurately show what the vehicle looks like, the newest set of prototypes should be used. The new image I've added is of B7/S24, the most recent set of prototypes. Furthermore, it shows the vehicle in flight, which is what almost every single rocket's Wikipedia page has as the main image. Redacted II (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the page should show the newer version. It is also important that the image shows the vehicle in flight. However, it is very difficult to make out the Superheavy booster and Starship in the picture. If there is a better image, perhaps use that? 64.67.42.115 (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I do not think B7/S24 has featured any visual differences from B4/S20 that are enough to warrant the image to be removed IMHO; the in-flight image is too small for readers to have an idea of the configuration of Starship. Best way is to use B4/S20 for the time being while a B7/S24 stack image with proper license is found, I am sure one can be found given so many people have visited Starbase in recent months. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 09:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Lets see, 33 engines, a completed heat shield, and chines. Those are some major changes. And the launch pad shown isn't remotely similar to what it was in the moments before launch. We shouldn't put a misleading image in as a placeholder. Better to use a less detailed image instead. Redacted II (talk) 11:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
@Redacted II 173.176.40.172 (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
i have a picture of b7/s24 stacked on the pad the day before flight if you're all interested in that [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 18:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Maybe replace the image of b4/s20 being used in the article with that? The main image should be of the vehicle in flight. But I'd love to see this new image! Redacted II (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Infobox (and "next hurdle" for booster-with-spacecraft)

Perhaps the infobox can say something like,

Operational launches: 0
Prototype launches (booster-with-spaceship): 1 (?)
Altitude record for the prototype spacecraft: 39 kilometers
Next "major hurdle": Stage separation at flight time c. 2 minutes and 50 seconds [1]

If any of the following stuff also can be added, then fine.
"Subsequent hurdles":

  • Periapsis altitude 50 km (planned)
  • Apoapsis altitude 250 km (planned)

Transatmospheric Earth orbit (intended) blah-blah.

Regarding the infobox saying "partial failure" or "partial success" - that is probably overkill (and POV), until the space industry (or media) has set a standard. 2001:2020:337:9762:A86A:78B0:B20D:35AD (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Funding?

I don’t see where funding for this project is discussed. Is funded by Tesla? Spacex Falcon profits? NASA? 2405:9800:B910:BA1B:88FC:901B:33FA:48AC (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

This article starts by saying: "Starship is a ... under development by SpaceX."--How much money is spent on Starship - that seems to be relevant for this article.--Where does SpaceX get its income? That question might not fit, in an article about Starship. 2001:2020:32F:A3C0:80E:FC2C:BB98:750A (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I added the beginning of a funding section. Needs improvement and may not be not be in the right place on the page but that's a start. CodemWiki (talk) 10:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

"Starship (spacecraft)" - disambig or redirect?

Should Starship (spacecraft) be a Disambiguation page, or a Redirect.--One has a feeling that "Starship (spacecraft)" is an idea that goes back to "pre World War II" - including cases of alarm, and cases of mass hysteria. 2001:2020:32F:ECE9:7D47:F52:C4CA:66F3 (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion to provide on this, but there also exists Starship. Sub31k (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I've pointed that redirect to: SpaceX Starship (spacecraft) for now. If you search for "Starship (spacecraft)" I think you are most probably searching for the SpaceX vehicle rather than a generic "starship" {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 14:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Sounds good. Starship seems to be clear enough that appending (spaceraft) to the end of it would probably denote looking for the specific article in question. Sub31k (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Reverted edit by Bingelli Bongelli

Hi @Gtoffoletto, I've reverted the infobox to the state at which the article was locked for discussion and resolution. This edit had changed the outcome to partial, while it had been placed as Failure with the dubious tag at the time of locking. This IP edit was reverting the former, albeit removing the dubious tag, which I have also restored. Sub31k (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Reorganise pages relating to Starship program

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was support for merging SpaceX Starship and SpaceX Starship development {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 14:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

For Apollo we use the following page structure:

For Starship we have a slightly different structure:

Should we merge some of the pages to obtain the following structure:

Thoughts?

Support - see reasoning above. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 14:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I feel that there is something related that is urgent:
Change title (of "SpaceX Starship" article) to,
Agree and inserted into the proposal. 13:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Support - Merging SpaceX Starship development and Spacex Starship seems like a nice solution to me, otherwise I sometimes feel like I'm copy-pasting the same paragraphs on both pages... it's repetitive. CodemWiki (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
For example, I find some info about the launch tower from a source. Should it go in Starship development, SpaceX Starbase, SpaceX Starship? There's too many pages. CodemWiki (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I totally agree. They need to be clearly delimited in scope. The proposal above should fix that. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 13:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I'll add however, like other have said, that the page should keep the name SpaceX Starship per WP:COMMONNAME CodemWiki (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Support - Merging the articles would make a lot more sense. I suppose the outcome article would be slightly longer, but it'd be easier to promote it to a good article :). Also, both articles have the same maim picture, so merging them would avoid confusion and makes it way easier to edit. Cocobb8 (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Edit: They do no have the same image, sorry I was thinking about the page on the first test flight. Cocobb8 (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea. In particular, SpaceX Starship development is fraught with issues, while also being split from the project/vehicle itself is exceptional. A merge, ideally, should also address the numerous problems of the aforementioned article, especially relating to its high dependence on primary sources, video, extensive jargon use, and possibly excessive level of detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sub31k (talk • contribs) 19:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

 Done: Merged content from SpaceX Starship development to SpaceX Starship#History, SpaceX Starship (spacecraft)#Development, and SpaceX Super Heavy#Development to preserve as much content as possibile. Some cleanup will be required. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 15:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I've unmerged the content because it has caused the article to become unreadable. IMO it is better to not port the text from the SpaceX Starship development in verbatim, but only the high-quality sources. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
@CactiStaccingCrane I've performed the merge in accordance to Wikipedia:Merging. For copyright reasons the text needs to be initially copied verbatim. You can now edit it as you please if you think it is "unreadable" (what problems do you see exactly?). But please do not revert the merge. There is unanimous support for it (including you) and we cannot go back at this point without making a big mess. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 14:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
It's fair that you need to copy the text during the merge. But any text must require significant rework afterwards, because the reason that the article is merged in the first place is due to its poor quality. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
This is not the reason for the merge. The reason for the merge is detailed in the consensus above which you supported yourself. There was no point in having separate pages abut the same thing. If you want to improve the quality go right ahead but do not revert the merge. You just reverted a second time stating that No, the onus is on YOU that you do the merges properly in terms of content, as said in WP:MERGETEXT. Getting a consensus for a merge is not an excuse for a bad merge. Please discuss at the talk page. but MERGETEXT does not state what you are saying. Actually it says the opposite: Ideally, do any necessary copyediting and rearranging in a separate, second edit rather than when you first paste the moved text (to simplify attribution).. This is actually a copyright requirement. Any editing and rearranging follows the merge and you can go right ahead and do that as you please. But do not revert this once again please or editing of the article will become problematic as well as coordination with several other pages as we are now in the WP:POSTMOVE phase. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 15:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
@CactiStaccingCrane I had to revert back and some of your subsequent edits had to go with it. This is the problem with making such a huge revert without discussion here first. The move was days ago and several editors have already edited the page since. You need to seek WP:CONSENSUS before making such a big move or you will disrupt editing of this page. What problems do you see exactly? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 15:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
To copy paste my response from User talk:CactiStaccingCrane:
You have consensus, but you haven't done the job properly. The reason people want to merge SpaceX Starship development in is because the article's content is horrible, and I was among them that agree that this is the case. Therefore, your merge must reflect that consensus: by making sure that the content that you are adding back to the article is high quality. Hopefully you have understood my reasoning. I urge you to revert your revert and perform the merge slowly. There is no rush to make stuff worse.
CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
What issues do you see with the current content? Point them out so other editors can fix them. I Agee with you there is WP:NODEADLINE so we can take all the time in the world to fix the issues you see with the article. The merge only affected some sections of this article so we can fix them. The merge was done in accordance with WP:MERGING and undoing it days later and after other editors have worked on the article since would be WP:DISRUPTIVE for this and several other pages. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 15:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
The reason we proceeded with the merge, as described in @Gtoffoletto's proposal, is because we wanted to change the page structure. It IS NOT the merger's responsibility to improve the article's content quality if it wasn't the goal of the merge. Again, we only merged to change page structure, and not to improve quality, even though other editors mentioned it. Furthermore, unanimous consensus has been reached for merging of the articles, so we cannot go back and undo it. Cocobb8 (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Dubious tag in infobox

Hi @DASL51984, I'd just like to let you know that when I restored the Infobox rocket template I included the Dubious tag from prior revisions, because that had been the state at which the outcome box had been "frozen" with the locking of the article. I don't know whether or not it's still appropriate to have it now. Either way, it'd been there out of procedure, not because I disagree with the assessment personally. Sub31k (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to accuse you of anything as this isn't your fault, but the "dubious" tag never belonged there to begin with. DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 18:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
IMO, the Dubious tag should remain, as the outcome of the launch is debated by various sources. Keeping it there at least somewhat acknowledges that the label is controversial. Redacted II (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Readers see it and may join in the conversation we are having here. A closer should come along soon to move us along. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
For the 1000th time, there should be absolutely no question as to whether this launch was a success or failure. It was a failure, plain and simple. Arguing otherwise is beating a dead horse.
There is also no question as to whether it "should remain" or not. It should not. It never was appropriate to mark it as "dubious", it isn't appropriate now, and it never will be. That's it. End of story.
It boggles my mind as to how people will obsess over something that is extremely obvious and turn it into an absolute intergalactic war when the answer is right in front of their eyes the whole time. The ship has been resting on the ocean floor for quite some time now; why do you still insist that it's unsinkable?? DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 21:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. With a clear consensus, there's no more debate to have. For intents and purposed, this has all but concluded. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Your ignoring that several sources are against the label of Failure.
While I understand saying the discussion is settled, saying that one side is obviously wrong is, well, obviously wrong. It goes against almost every single policy I have read. Redacted II (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
And ignore the numerous sources, including launch catalogues that have it as failure? ok. You can pick and choose based on your opinion. But it's settled debate at this stage. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
While we ignore more sources that say partial failure, partial success, and moderate success? C'mon. Consensus on listing it as failure or partial failure will likely be handled by the closer depending on strength of argument or number of hands up. Either side is certainly not wrong at all, however one side may get more agreement at wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I am not saying that the sources that say failure should be ignored. No side should be ignored. Even a simple note (like the one I added to the failure label) would do the job. Redacted II (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
And because of that simple note (which does need some sources by the way) I didn't object to the dubious/discussion tag being removed. It seemed reasonable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I'll provide some sources. Redacted II (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
There was a lot of discussion in Success or Failure 20-Apr-2023 that centred around whether or not to have such text, which was never resolved. Sub31k (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Indeed there was. But it was a common theme in the compromise options, so I thought it would be a rather non-controversial way to express the unrepresented views. Redacted II (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
The consensus on the launch status wasn't on a compromise option. CtrlDPredator (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
It's true that no source should be ignored, but the majority of arguments that claim that the launch wasn't a failure involve moving goalposts and creating double standards to artificially skew things in favour of Starship. DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 22:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
That's your opinion and opinion is not something we use at Wikipedia. We give the info with sources and let readers make their own "opinions" on the subject. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
This is not my opinion; it is a well-established fact at this point based on the same criteria that other launches were judged on. Your attempt to frame it as "my opinion" is you trying to push an agenda just like User:Redacted II has been doing. DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 22:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
It is not a fact at all and not established by sources. It is your opinion that we can only call it a failure. And your soapboxing indicates why you are so intransigent on the subject. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I wish I didn't have to spoon-feed all of this to anyone, but lo and behold, here we are.
For a launch to be successful, it needs to meet certain minimum criteria, such as getting off the launchpad and not damaging the launchpad. AND it needs to satisfactorily perform all of the things in its mission profile.
Getting off the pad is a fundamental requirement, so the success of that does not count.
1. Starship was supposed to fly nearly one orbit around the Earth, which it did not do (Fail)
2. Re-enter Earth's atmosphere, which it did not do (Fail)
3. Perform a targeted splashdown in the Pacific Ocean near Hawaii, which it did not do (Fail)
4. SuperHeavy was supposed to separate from Starship, which did not happen when it was supposed to happen (Fail)
5. Perform a controlled landing in the Gulf of Mexico, which did not happen (Fail)
The entire launch facility was severely damaged. (Fail)
And, when SpaceX ended up losing control of the vehicle, they triggered the FTS (Flight Termination System) to try to end the flight. The FTS deployed, but it certainly did not end the flight as it was supposed to, as this video shows. (Fail)
As you can see, Starship and SuperHeavy failed at everything that they were supposed to do.
I really hope this is clear enough. Facts are facts, and the criteria I'm using are exactly the same criteria that are used to judge the status of other rocket launches. It's incredibly hypocritical and dishonest of you to call me "intransigent". DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 23:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I completely agree with you and this debate has become slightly ridiculous. I'm unsure however about using Common Sense Skeptic on Wikipedia. You're not the first and you probably won't be the last, but while CSS highlights useful points sometimes, he has a questionable motivations and opinions that do not pair well with the creation of an encyclopedia. Sometimes it's just misinformation. I used to watch him around two years ago. CodemWiki (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
""""""""Slightly"""""""" ridiculous? DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 15:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Euphemism for courtesy, as always. :) CodemWiki (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Nevertheless, thanks for the laugh ;-D DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 16:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm not terribly good at sensing irony because of the language barrier, but if you disagree with my comment you can explain if you feel like it. CodemWiki (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
You're good, mate. DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 17:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
The information we give needs to be consistent, else we mislead readers of this article. I know you have previously stated that you don't care about other articles, but that raises concerns about why you think we should be treating this article differently. I feel like we have gone over this so many times here. CtrlDPredator (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I admit that consistency is important, but if the article does not follow the plethora of sources then we cease being an encyclopedia based on printed facts. Sources are all over the place on this topic and we can't just pick one because it makes our other articles look neat and tidy. I have no idea if our other articles are based on sources or not, I haven't dug into them, but this one I noticed big time. We have to let our readers know in some way that there is controversy on what the test flight accomplished. Even if it's just a footnote telling readers about the different printed arguments. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
The other launches are littered with sources, we have already covered that and provided examples during discussions above. The accomplishments of Starships first launch are less than other failed launches of other launch vehicles, which again have been covered in discussions above.
While it may have been an accomplishment for SpaceX to test Starship for the first time, it is still a launch failure. I have noticed that you haven't been able to make that distinction during other discussions here, separating the success of a launch vehicle against the overall the mission, particularly with Apollo 13. You are not doing anyone any service by conflating those. CtrlDPredator (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the "plethora" you mention, from what I've seen tend to note that the vehicle/spacecraft suffered a failure in flight that left it unable to carry out the mission, while putting a quoted statement "successful failure" or something like that and attributing it as a quote. It's not the same as directly citing it as a partial failure. Sub31k (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't think any of the multitude of sources have used those exact terms of "that the vehicle/spacecraft suffered a failure in flight that left it unable to carry out the mission." I guess this is what makes politics and other topics so interesting to discuss... that several people can look at the same sources and facts and come up with diametrically opposed conclusions. It's a head scratcher to be sure. And I am not going to express opinion in separating the vehicle/mission when sources do it so well. Apollo 13 included which was a successful failure itself. Per sources this article has issues. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't get what the point of bringing up Apollo 13 is. The impression I have is cut-and-dry: that the mission was a failure and was widely acknowledged and classified as such, because the goals of the mission could not be completed (and the crew placed at risk), even though nobody died. The Saturn V had a successful launch for Apollo 13, because it completed all of its objectives and had nothing to do with the failure of its payload. Failure of spacecraft and mission, success of launcher. There isn't a payload separate from the launcher in this case.
Regarding those exact terms - I'm clearly not quoting verbatim. But linking "failed to separate" and "was destroyed" is something which happens in a huge number of articles. Sub31k (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
That you still don't understand the difference between the Apollo 13's successful Saturn V launch and Apollo 13's mission failure is a serious issue. You are confusing what a success/failure of a launch vehicle actually is with something else and I suspect that is why you are finding yourself at odds with so many others here, and also why your view on the launch status here on this article isn't one shared with other launch vehicles on wikipedia. CtrlDPredator (talk) 04:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
But this is a prototype... totally different expectations than an operational launch. That's what you seem to be overlooking and what sourcing seems to understand. There were several options that included a separation of prototype tests and operational missions but they were thrown out. And Apollo 13 mission was not considered a failure. There are some issues here on rocket vs mission. If you narrow it to only the rocket, unless it goes without a hitch (no engines at less than optimum, all gauges perfect) it will always be listed as failure. You have hardly any successful prototypes and have to do OR to write the article. Sources don't tend to do that. As I said, I have no problem moving forward no matter the decision of the closer. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Not overlooking that it was a prototype and it doesn't change that it was a launch failure and having rock-bottom expectations doesn't change that it was a launch failure. I still don't think you actually understand what everyone else is discussing here, you continually confuse launch success/failure with payload or mission outcomes and achievements. Multiple people have tried to explain this to you. CtrlDPredator (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Then I guess I just don't see it as this article tends to crossover both those domains. Where does one draw the line between a launch failure and a launch success without injecting your own opinion rather than sourcing? Do we use some artificial wikipedia doctrine to decide? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
"Where does one draw the line between a launch failure and a launch success without injecting your own opinion rather than sourcing?"
It's been explained numerous times. DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 23:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
And Apollo 13 mission was not considered a failure. Huh? It was extremely explicitly cast as a failure. The only reason the "successful" modifier is added because nobody died, which was a very real possibility.
In any case, If you narrow it to only the rocket then the launch of Apollo 13 was a success. You seem to be misinterpreting people. Sub31k (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Clarifying Failure In Infobox

As a consensus has formed, the label of Failure should not be removed (until a new consensus forms).

However, clarifying that the failure was a prototype vehicle, and not an operational launch, would give more information to readers. Redacted II (talk) 11:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

There is no point in attempting to "clarify" it. I'm not aware of any other article that distinguishes between failures of prototypes and failures of operational vehicles.
As the previous intergalactic nuclear war showed, we want consistency across all articles about rockets and rocketry. The failure really does not need any "clarification". If you still think otherwise, please discuss it here before adding it back in. DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 12:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for (politely) mentioning your concerns. Allow me to address them:
1: Wikipedia doesn't have a large amount of info on prototype. As such, consistency, in this case, is less important.
2: Clarification is desired. The vehicle that launched last month will be extremely different to the final product (if there even is such a thing). It's like calling grasshopper a falcon 9.
3: I added the note back in because it was the most recent stable version. As such, until this discussion concludes, it should remain. Redacted II (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
1. Whether it is a prototype or not is irrelevant. Wikipedia's paltry information on prototypes means that it doesn't really make sense to distinguish them. And no, vehicles' status as prototype or operational does not make consistency any less important.
2. No other ærospace company in the entire history of spaceflight has been as reckless as SpaceX when this vehicle was launched.
3. You and user:Fyunck(click) have driven everyone's patience, mine especially, far below negative infinity (and this is being exceptionally generous). Any attempt at "clarification" is just beating a dead horse. Everyone who reads up on Starship or its maiden flight will know that it's a prototype.
DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 17:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Let's keep things civil, okay?
With that aside, there is precedent for separating different versions of the same launch vehicle. Look at the falcon 9 page. It's section for Failure(s) is:
1
(v1.1: CRS-7 in-flight)
Something similar should be done here, looking like:
1
(Prototype: OFT in-flight) Redacted II (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Again, other rocketry articles don't list prototypes separately. And neither should this article. DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 20:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Agreed that failure is now the law of the land here. No problem with that. I also agree that a simple note showing that many sources don't agree with that is appropriate, especially since it's a prototype. We are an encyclopedia that simply gives the info that's out there and we let readers make up their own minds about the situation. As to how someone feels or their lack of patience after coming off a block...that doesn't matter to me. But please stop using my handle in a derogatory manner and all is well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Well said. Redacted II (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Just started an RfC on this subject since I don't want another edit war. DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 21:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

History section title

Ergzay, I saw you reverted my section heading changes. However, after that we had the problem again that the headings wrongly suggest to the reader that all these early design proposals were real spaceships. As reason for your change you noted that the sections were redundant. Therefore I changed the overall section name. Is this ok for you? Zae8 (talk) 12:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

What about moving the whole history section in a separate article? The content is more or less irrelevant for today's Starship. I think it would make the article better readable. Any other opinions? Zae8 (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd be okay with that. Redacted II (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Keeping the development and forking the history isn't that bad of an idea. Two steps forward one step back. I'd reckon go for it, that wall of text is an eyesore. CodemWiki (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
@Zae8 The entire history section WAS in a previous article, by consensus it was merged into this article. Available in the history at: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship_development&oldid=1153462153 I personally wasn't a fan of this merge.
As to my revert of the section heading changes, it's because "Announcement of" doesn't really describe the sections well. The sections describe the individual development phases and segment the time periods when the vehicle was called by various other names and the events that happened when it had such previous name. They cover time periods of several years where several design portions were announced whereas "announcement" implies a single event. Ergzay (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes but the previous page also had the development including the development history of Starship spacecraft and Superheavy, which wasn't very practical and are better placed now on their respective pages.
Can anyone start a discussion to fork Starship History onto another page? CodemWiki (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
There was consensus to merge the development article into here, and this being at 42kb of readable prose, WP:SPINOUT does not indicate a need for splitting. There is a (dire) need to improve the quality of the content that was merged in.—Alalch E. 14:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, but what's the point of doing anything if it gets reverted by Ergzay (statistically, though sometimes I do appreciate his edits). CodemWiki (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I'd also agree. A lot of my changes were essentially reverted. Discouraging to try to edit a page if reversion is going be the likely outcome. Chuckstablers (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
@Chuckstablers @CodemWiki I've also had many of my edits reverted in the past so my feeling is the same. Let's discuss the edits a bit more as I found the information being removed should be kept but I can kind of see why the place the information was located at was maybe not the best for it. Can you try an edit where the information you delete is moved to say the design section? Also look at my long comment in the "Rewriting a section of the ITS design" above where I talk about past tense issue. Also I didn't revert all the edits, just a couple of them. The other ones I found more or less fine. Ergzay (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Rewriting a section of the ITS design

"The ITS did not aim to have a dedicated single-function second stage for achieving orbit. Instead, the second stage function of reaching orbit was to be a secondary role for a spacecraft capable of long-duration spaceflight. Two variants were proposed, each intended to be reusable."

It's "instead the second stage function of reaching orbit was to be a secondary role for a spacecraft capable of long-duration flight" that I can't figure out. I was tempted to reword it to something like this.

"The design for the Interplanetary Transport System (ITS) did not include a dedicated second stage solely designed for reaching orbit. Rather, the second stage function was to be fulfilled by a spacecraft that was primarily designed for long-duration spaceflight". Something like that.

Anyone have any thoughts? Help? It's just such an awkwardly phrased blurb. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I genuinely don't know how to reword it. I'm tempted to just not have a whole area for the second stage section and just merge them together with the main section. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
"The main function planned for the second stage was long-duration spaceflight, as reaching orbit was to be secondary. The two proposed variants aimed to be reusable."
I changed it, much better. CodemWiki (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
The entire area needs rework and to be similarly condensed anyway (condensed rather than deleted, mostly). CodemWiki (talk) 06:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
@CodemWiki What does "as reaching orbit was to be secondary" supposed to me? All rockets going to space have to reach orbit. It is the minimum requirement. Ergzay (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Maybe "the second stage was planned to be used for long-duration spaceflight, instead of solely being used for reaching orbit. The two proposed variants aimed to be reusable."? CodemWiki (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
@CodemWiki That seems reasonable. I'm in the process of doing a bunch of edits and restorations of some of the stuff that was removed. It appears that a lot of comparisons to Falcon 9 and Saturn V were removed which were important contextualizations of Starship. Ergzay (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Were they though? We're comparing a rocket design that doesn't exist to an existing rocket. Comparisons only make sense when comparing real stuff to real stuff. I feel like the entire history would make more sense if it was a table comparing the rocket at its different stages, with the rows being the different stuff being compared (number of raptor engine, thrust, tons to LEO, etc) and columns being MCT, ITS, BFR, Starship CodemWiki (talk) 10:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
@CodemWiki When a design is proposed that breaks records for any previous design, its important to contextualize the design versus existing rockets at the time of the proposal. For example, see Nova_(rocket). Also the original ITS/BFR carbon fiber design was significantly larger than the current Starship, almost twice the thrust of it. Ergzay (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
One of the other problems is that the tense of the history section has been messed up a bit resulting in some confusion. Several of the vehicle elements described in the history section carried on to the current vehicle, but with the tense now changed it now sounds like these aspects are now no longer part of the vehicle design. For example this section.
"* The Interplanetary Spaceship, a large passenger-carrying spacecraft design proposed in September 2016. The ship would have operated as a second-stage and interplanetary transport vehicle for cargo and passengers. It aimed to transport up to 450 tonnes (990,000 lb) per trip to Mars following refueling in Earth orbit. Its three sea-level Raptor engines were designed to be used for maneuvering, descent, landing, and initial ascent from the Mars surface."
The use of "would have" there is confusing as the statement still holds true for Starship. All these tense changes need to be reverted or more thought put into how things are phrased. Or aspects of the history section moved into the design section. Or phrased as "this was the first time that X was mentioned" or something. Ergzay (talk) 10:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
That's a fair point, in any case it needs significant reworking. I don't think reverting the tense changes would be ideal, at least not all of them. It makes it clear that these are not current designs. Chuckstablers (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Now that I think about it some more, I think the tense was fine. Keeping it as is makes it simply misleading; I think part of the problem with the wording in the whole history section is that it gives way too much detail and consideration to concepts that never progressed beyond the drawing board. I'd support reducing it dramatically until we get to the ACTUAL development of hardware, at which point all the technical detail is warranted. But currently I just see a lot of undue weight given in the article to these concepts which were abandoned until a final design was chosen to start actual development on beyond the concept stage. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Use infobox "Space program"

We currently use the infobox "Rocket" on this page while we should use the "Space program" infobox like on the Apollo program article. The spacecrafts involved in this program already have their own articles (e.g. SpaceX Starship (spacecraft) Starship HLS and SpaceX Super Heavy) which should be linked from the program infobox.

Any objections? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 09:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

This infobox seems more complete, likely a good idea. (note from May 8,2023 : I would like fields of both infoboxes to be kept, somehow.. not sure if that's possible) CodemWiki (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
SUPPORT: That would be far more accurate than using the "rocket" infobox to represent this vehicle, at least during it's development. Redacted II (talk) 11:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Done. Please review and fill in any missing parameters {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 14:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
No, this is not a space program. This is a rocket, and the infobox should be about the rocket itself. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
@CactiStaccingCrane as others have noted above the union of a booster (SpaceX Super Heavy) and a Spacecraft (SpaceX Starship (spacecraft)) is also referred to as Starship. However the booster can also carry other vehicles such as Starship HLS and in the future tanker variants of Starship or other payloads. A Starship can also individually fly on it's own (once in space or on another planet). So it is is incorrect to talk about a single "rocket" as it wouldn't even be clear exactly what you are referring to. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 14:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
But it is still a rocket, much like how many Falcon 9 rocket variants has been built. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
All of the falcon 9 variants have their own Wikipedia page. Given the rate of change in starship vehicles, it would be downright foolish to do the same.
Even when the design of Starship is fixed, there will be so many variants of the upper stage that making one, generic, description of the vehicle will be misleading. Redacted II (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I strongly oppose this. By this standard things like Space Shuttle and Saturn V would have Infobox space program and not Infobox rocket - and that's absurd. Starship is advertised as a launch system by the company itself and by all the writing on it. Sub31k (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
The full article structures for those two examples are as follow:
This is not a good comparison though as the SS could only carry the orbiter and not other vehicles and the orbiter could not operate independently.
This is a much more comparable example to Spaceship as the Saturn V was used as booster for different payloads (e.g. Skylab) that could operate independently.
Both structures (with or without an article for the integrated vehicle) work. But both vehicles have a "program" page detailing the history and funding of the project which is necessary I think.
In this case I don't see the point of having a separate article for the full stacked Spaceship+booster. We need individual pages for those vehicles as they are independent and a program page for the history of the whole thing. This article structure has also been discussed here: Talk:SpaceX Starship#Reorganise pages relating to Starship program with unanimous support.
Given this structure the "program" infobox just fits better. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 16:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
The Apollo program also includes much more than just the flight hardware (CSM, LM, SV). I think this is where the problem lies. A program consists of more than just its vehicles. You in fact illustrated this pretty well by linking both Space Shuttle program and Space Shuttle. One covers the hardware, and the other covers the 30-year human spaceflight endeavour. These things are far from synonymous. Sub31k (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
We can detail the various goal of the Starship Program in this article. Redacted II (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
@Sub31k the Spaceship "program" has already had a long history and will continue to evolve substantially over time. So we should track that progress somewhere. This article should be separate from the single vehicle articles that will have their own "history" as they are independent vehicles that can have their own path even if not integrated together. They are not just components like the Apollo Service Module which is not an independent vehicle, or like the shuttle orbiter that cannot fly on its own. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 11:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm not going to pick apart the comparisons to Apollo or Shuttle - but even the objectives you've stated are already achieved by the present arrangement. Shifting over to "program" and Infobox space program while the entire endeavour is still LV dev is a little crystal-ballish, don't you think? Calling the stages independent vehicles is also a little rich. Sub31k (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
One: They are independent vehicles. SN8, SN9, SN10, SN11, and SN15 all flew without a Super Heavy Booster.
Two: During catch procedures, Super Heavy will operate without a Starship. And, after orbital insertion, the Starship spacecraft will operate without a booster.
It's kinda hard to argue that the stages aren't "independent vehicles"
Three: The program is in development. Okay. Before Artemis I launched, Artemis had a dedicated Wikipedia Article. Redacted II (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
P.s. I maybe rushed this a bit too fast because I assumed nobody would be contrary to it (The templates are very similar) and I had initial support. Of course if other editors have very big problems with it just go ahead and revert my edit and we can discuss it better. In any case the reasoning behind my edit is above. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 16:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Settle with both infoboxes until the program matures perhaps? Only one of the infoboxes needs the image. CodemWiki (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't think that would work. Redacted II (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. Starship is not a space program. Starship is a rocket and a spacecraft. Ergzay (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Exactly, this isnt a programm, this is building a rocket, there is no programm referred to by anyone. Fehér Zsigmond (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Starship 2.0

Elon just announced a next next gen. Starship, with 18meters in diameter, and twice as much cargo to orbit, do you think, that we should write it in? It will launch years after starship becomes operational. Fehér Zsigmond (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

can you provide a source? I'm a bit.. skeptical. Redacted II (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I saw a video, wich used elons twitter messages(?) as proof. The youtubers name is alpha Tech, if you are interested. Fehér Zsigmond (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Alpha Tech is an unreliable source, as they have a tendency to make things up (such as 18 meter starship) for views.
There has been no announcement of an 18 meter starship. Redacted II (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Iam sorry, are you sure tho? They said he talked about it on twitter. Dont write it in until then. Fehér Zsigmond (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I just watched it again. They used twitter for source. Maybe you can check it. Fehér Zsigmond (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Trust me, Alpha tech is unreliable. They create clickbait titles in order to get views from anyone who doesn't know better.
Unless you can find a reliable source, I don't see any purpose in continuing this. Redacted II (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, plenty of websites talk about it, for ex.: nextbigfuture.com
They too list twitter as a source. I belive, this is a green light. But again, you do the final call. Fehér Zsigmond (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
All of that discussion is speculation.
Until development of an 18 meter starship begins, I see no reason to include it. Redacted II (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Alright. Fehér Zsigmond (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Did you check twitter though? The website literally shows the tweet Fehér Zsigmond (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Can you provide a link? Redacted II (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/08/spacex-super-heavy-starship-2-0-will-be-8-times-bigger-than-super-heavy-starship.html
there you go Fehér Zsigmond (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
That's discussing a concept, and it's dated to 2019. Plans have changed considerably since then. Redacted II (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, we could make a new category for possible upgrades, and list it there, but alright. Btw, will someone write about raptor 3? Fehér Zsigmond (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Any discussion of raptor 3 belongs in the Raptor Engine Article Redacted II (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I have found countless other youtubers who talked about this, and other websites. Youtuber(new one): elon musk zone, future unity Fehér Zsigmond (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Neither of those Youtube accounts are reliable sources. Redacted II (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Alright, ill stop pushing it. Fehér Zsigmond (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
@Fehér Zsigmond Elon didn't announce anything. There's tons of fake youtube videos going around claiming all manner of nonsense, or digging up ancient statements from years ago. It's clickbait. Ergzay (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Alright, only if i could check twitter…
I have an Idea though. How about we make a future upgrades section, where we could write possible/ guaranted upgrades? Fehér Zsigmond (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
If you have a reliable source for them, then maybe we can look at it. But you need to be careful about your sources. But I'd caution against thinking anything is a "guaranteed" thing in the real world. There is no such thing.
That being said; if you have a source for changes you're looking to make, please provide it and we can take a look. Chuckstablers (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, each and every unrilaible source I brought up used twitter messages as source, so we should look there. I also asked another channel to make a video about this Topic. Maybe he will use twitter too. Insadly cant check it, since I dont have twitter. Fehér Zsigmond (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
But to be clear; I'd be opposed to adding this section. The article has enough content about future/speculative capabilities that have not been demonstrated. When Starship demonstrates these (very exciting) capabilities, then we can look at them. Chuckstablers (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, maybe next year, when starship is supposed to get into business, we could add it, what do you think? Fehér Zsigmond (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
If something is well documented in credible and reliable reporting, it may be added. Things like this - which is not - then don't. Sub31k (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
18 m Starship was discussed for a while after a tweet by Musk and a couple of other mentions of widening the rocket eventually, but without serious follow-up. No need to include it in the article. --mfb (talk) 06:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Unless anyone objects, I'll archive this discussion. Redacted II (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
@Redacted II Archival is done automatically on article talk pages. No need to do it manually. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 12:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Should the prototypes names (besides Starhopper) be written in italics?

Right now it's a bit of both, we should probably settle on a standard. Here's an example of what this would look like :

NO ITALICS

SpaceX was already constructing the first full-size Starship Mk1 and Mk2 upper-stage prototypes, at the SpaceX facilities in Boca Chica, Texas and Cocoa, Florida respectively. Neither prototype flew: Mk1 was destroyed in November 2019 during a pressure stress test and Mk2's Florida facility was abandoned and deconstructed throughout 2020. After the Mk prototypes, SpaceX began naming its new Starship upper-stage prototypes with the prefix "SN", short for "serial number". No prototypes between SN1 and SN4 flew either—SN1 and SN3 collapsed during pressure stress tests, and SN4 exploded after its fifth engine firing.

In June 2020, SpaceX started constructing a launch pad for orbit-capable Starship rockets. The first flight-capable Starship SN5 was cylindrical as it had no flaps or nose cone: just one Raptor engine, fuel tanks, and a mass simulator. On 5 August 2020, SN5 performed a 150 m (500 ft) high flight and successfully landed on a nearby pad. On 3 September 2020, the similar-looking Starship SN6 repeated the hop; later that month, the Raptor Vacuum engine was fired in full duration at McGregor.

Super Heavy B7

ITALICS

SpaceX was already constructing the first full-size Starship Mk1 and Mk2 upper-stage prototypes, at the SpaceX facilities in Boca Chica, Texas and Cocoa, Florida respectively. Neither prototype flew: Mk1 was destroyed in November 2019 during a pressure stress test and Mk2's Florida facility was abandoned and deconstructed throughout 2020. After the Mk prototypes, SpaceX began naming its new Starship upper-stage prototypes with the prefix "SN", short for "serial number". No prototypes between SN1 and SN4 flew either—SN1 and SN3 collapsed during pressure stress tests, and SN4 exploded after its fifth engine firing.

In June 2020, SpaceX started constructing a launch pad for orbit-capable Starship rockets. The first flight-capable Starship SN5 was cylindrical as it had no flaps or nose cone: just one Raptor engine, fuel tanks, and a mass simulator. On 5 August 2020, SN5 performed a 150 m (500 ft) high flight and successfully landed on a nearby pad. On 3 September 2020, the similar-looking Starship SN6 repeated the hop; later that month, the Raptor Vacuum engine was fired in full duration at McGregor.

Super Heavy B7

ALTERNATIVE MIX ? CodemWiki (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Why should we use italics? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 12:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
To me, no italics implies a separate article, italics implies the section of another article. CodemWiki (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
MOS:NAMESANDTITLES says NO Italics for spaceships unless they have a specific "name". E.g. challenger, eagle etc. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 12:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
That settles it. CodemWiki (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SpaceX_Starship/Archive_4&oldid=1161367150"