Talk:SpaceX Starship/Archive 5

"Highly complex but efficient"

I removed this from the lead. It is right before the link to the staged combustion cycle link. I did this for two reasons

1.) NPOV. It is superlative. It's obviously true that the engine is highly complex. All rocket engines are, and we don't say that on the Atlas V page "the highly complex BUT efficient RD-180". We just say "RD-180".

2.) NOR. This statement is unsourced. The "but" part is what bothers me. Rocket engines are designed to be complex by nature but as efficient as possible. Why only have this statement here?

Saw that it was reverted, reverted back. Don't want to start an edit war, so I'm open to a discussion about it, but I can't see how it's justified when, again, no other lead in any other spaceflight rocket wiki page that I could find has superlatives like that. Chuckstablers (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Marketing-like spins should be avoided in articles. Zae8 (talk) 09:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The existing Wired citation calls out the notability and efficiency. "Raptor also uses what’s known as a full-flow staged combustion engine, only the third engine in history to employ this technique [...] making it one of the most efficient rocket engines ever built."

But to answer your questions:

1.) Not all rocket engines are complex. For example, Cold gas thruster.

2.) Different types of engines have different engineering tradeoffs. For an overview, see Rocket_engine#Types_of_rocket_engines or Rocket Engine Cycles. The "but" is just stating the engineering tradeoff at play compared to other engines that could have been used: the decision trades increased complexity for increased efficiency.

Foonix0 (talk) 09:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So what you want to say is "trading reliability for more efficiency"? Zae8 (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources don't say that, so of course not. Foonix0 (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you quote Wired with "Raptor also uses what’s known as a full-flow staged combustion engine, only the third engine in history to employ this technique [...] making it one of the most efficient rocket engines ever built.", but are leaving out the following sentence: "The previous two attempts at such an engine, one in the Soviet Union in the 1960s and another in the US in the early 2000s, never made it beyond testing." Calling it simply "increased complexity" is an euphemism, because they obviously are not reliable (yet), see the "orbital test flight". In any case, describing the trade-off, and explaining, as the Wired article is doing, the complexity involved of reaching new efficiency levels by doing somnething not achieved before, is valid of course, but hard to summarize by only four words. Describing it correctly in the article about the engine itself is the better solution. Zae8 (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:OR. The source does not imply that increased complexity means decreased reliability. It's not true as a generality, either. Foonix0 (talk) 11:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source is clear about the reason that approach is not used yet because it is harder to get right, and previous attempts failed. And at least so far Raptor failed, too, in the same way as the N1 engines, because they were not reliable enough. But anyway, my point is exactly to not put this into this article. The four word summary you are proposing is a misleading simplification which does not reflect the complexity of the topic. I suggest putting such topics into the Raptor article. Zae8 (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Difficulty" and "reliability" are two different concepts. Characterizing as "difficult" is potentially supported by the source, "[un]reliable" would be WP:OR.

But you're right that we're on a tangent here. The statements could potentially be improved or reworded, but they aren't NPOV or NOR. Although it's about the engines, some information about the engines belongs here because it's central to the experimental nature of the platform at this point. This is an experimental vehicle, using experimental engines, experimental combustion cycle, and is designed to be fully reusable. Foonix0 (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Redacted II's edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship&diff=prev&oldid=1154579532 is good - thank you for that. Foonix0, you are happy with that one? Zae8 (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, I support that one. Foonix0 (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with it too. Chuckstablers (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you guys mind if I delete this topic, as it seems to have been resolved? Redacted II (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE Zae8 (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of Dedicated Starship/Super Heavy Pages

A while (I have no idea how long) ago, Super Heavy and Starship had their own wikipedia pages. Given that both stages have flown in an integrated configuration, I believe it is time for the creation of two dedicated pages: one for Super Heavy and one for Starship. After all, the Atlas V stages and the Delta IV stages have dedicated Wikipedia pages. Redacted II (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The booster. Anyone (who can write) might consider starting to write at en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super_Heavy_(rocket)&action=edit or at Super Heavy (booster rocket).--Can one also write an article about any specific one of the prototype boosters? Perhaps. 46.15.87.175 (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only prototypes that I believe are noteworthy enough to warrant a new article are sn15, s24, b7, and maybe b4 and s20. Redacted II (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. It is also okay that someone starts a (stub or) article about "Super Heavy (rocket)" [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super_Heavy_(rocket)&action=edit] and then anyone can add sections about "Booster 7" (R.I.P.) and "Booster 4". 2001:2020:32F:A3C0:80E:FC2C:BB98:750A (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)/ 2001:2020:32F:A3C0:80E:FC2C:BB98:750A (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome any help in creating the Super Heavy (booster rocket) article, as it is my first article. Redacted II (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Your" article is now on your talk page. Enjoy! 2001:2020:32F:A3C0:993:A863:4653:7DA7 (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now that someone has created the Super Heavy rocket stage article, perhaps the SpaceX Starship (upper stage) or SpaceX Starship (spacecraft) article should go up? -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 08:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Feel free to create a SpaceX Starship (spacecraft) Wikipedia page. Redacted II (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll create a stub {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is -> SpaceX Starship (spacecraft) help needed to expand it! {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this change as it fragments the main article for little benefit. Usually these kind of splits are done when the section is way too long compared to the whole article. As a member of the public we know a lot about the Saturn V's specs, so it makes sense to split the detailed technical info to articles for each stage. However, not a lot of information about Starship's technical specs are confirmed by NASA or SpaceX, or has been reported by reputable media. I do like the idea of categorizing the prototypes though. Maybe something like List of SpaceX Starship prototypes should do the trick. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One: this article would be huge if we included all of the info on the Starship Spacecraft and Super Heavy pages.

Two: Remember notability. The Starship stages are a lot more notable than the Common Core Booster, which has it's own article (with far less information that either of the pages your protesting). Redacted II (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless anyone objects, I'll archive this Redacted II (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm still unsure why the page has extended protection. Semi-protection is sufficient. CodemWiki (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless anyone objects, I'll archive this Redacted II (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Done. Obviously not the first vehicle "intended to be fully reusable" {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done (by user:Gtoffoletto). 2001:2020:32F:ECE9:E11F:F5E2:9E0E:3BA4 (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure your vehicle has to be usable before it can be made reusable ;-) DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 18:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless anyone objects, I'll archive this section Redacted II (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. Lemniscate-waldkauz (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]