Talk:SpaceX Super Heavy/Archive 1

Attribution

Text has been added from en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship&oldid=1151625670. 2001:2020:32F:A3C0:993:A863:4653:7DA7 (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Boosters

I added a list of boosters, similar to the one found in SpaceX reusable launch system development program. What do the rest of you guys think? Should it be kept, or would a text be better? Redacted II (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the newer article versions, seem to be moving along fine. This one [1], too. 2001:2020:32F:A3C0:C511:2CE6:FAB:99C5 (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way that we can move the 'NASA Marshal visit to superheavy' picture above and to the left of the List of boosters section header? I spent a few minutes trying to figure it out for myself but couldn't find a way to control where the picture ended up... Largely Legible Layman (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to figure out how to do that. Redacted II (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the text from Starship development has been moved over, should the less important boosters (BN1, BN3/B3, B5, and B8) have dedicated subsections? Redacted II (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are mostly from WP:SOCIALMEDIA

WP:SOCIALMEDIA should be avoided. Let's use proper WP:RELIABLE SOURCES or we'll have a problem here. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Redacted II watch out for this issue. Stick to reliable secondary sources and avoid WP:OR. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, NASAspaceflight (and their photographers) are considered reliable sources.

(also, I just copied the sources found in the SpaceX starship main wikipedia pages) Redacted II (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't per: WP:SELFPUBLISH. Most SpaceX articles have them as sources but that is a problem we need to fix. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One could argue than since NASAspaceflight has accumulated a large amount of knowledge of SpaceX's operations, that Subject-matter expert applies to them.

Furthermore, their reporting has been referenced by various news outlets on spaceflight-specific news.

As for WP:OR, please point out any original research in the article. I would love to correct that issue, if it is present in this article. Redacted II (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, their reporting has been referenced by various news outlets on spaceflight-specific news exactly: we should use those references. Also, if they publish on their website then it would be more acceptable I think just using non verified information on their personal social networks. Anything on https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/ should be fine.

With regards to WP:OR I'll make an example: if we use a picture of the damaged pad found on twitter to support the statement "the pad was damaged": that is WP:OR. We need to find a reliable source that states that. Not saying you did this directly. Just watch out for similar issues.

I hope this helps. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It did. I'll check this article for any such original research. If you have found any, please feel free to remove it (or, even better, find a source).

I will also try to find alternative sources to the Tweets by NASAspaceflight's photographers. Redacted II (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Keep up the good work! Any questions just ask (even on my talk page) {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Reverts

Chuckstablers, there is no grounds for you to remove the clarification in the infobox. Please explain why you did that (and don't say to be consistent with SpaceX Starship. These are different articles, after all), especially when the prototype status has been proven. Redacted II (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've stated the grounds; consistency. You've had this argument over on the main page, and I'm not going to rehash it. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you state your grounds for having, what is essentially a sub article, have a different infobox than the main article? Chuckstablers (talk) 02:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Apologies, accidentally published before I was finished).

I'd also refer you to the 3rd party who closed and summarized the RFC over on the main article. "...editors predominantly believe that describing a rocket launch as having succeeded or failed (or failed partially) should be done consistently across Wikipedia,"

There is nothing consistent about the way that you've chosen to format the info box. It is inconsistent with every other rocket/booster on wikipedia that I can find. Open to counter examples. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"should be done consistently across Wikipedia,"

It states that the Super Heavy booster failed during flight. So does SpaceX Starship. This article merely clarifies that it was a prototype that launched, and not an operational vehicle. If I had labeled it as a partial failure, then there would be consistency issues.

As for "(Apologies, accidentally published before I was finished)", your fine dude. No need to apologize. Redacted II (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Booster Descriptions

In the current setup, every single booster has a dedicated subsection.

For notable boosters, like B7, this makes sense. But B3?

In the Starship (Spacecraft) article, the only one to have it's own section is Starhopper.

Should we continue to have every single Super Heavy get it's own dedicated section, or should we do what the Starship article does? Redacted II (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to qualify/edit mass in infobox

Infobox here says empty mass 200,000 kg, but other articles and refs here say 160 - 200 tonnes. How do we change the infobox to give the range with a reference ? Each booster probably has different estimated mass. - Rod57 (talk) 09:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not do a range for the mass of the booster, for two reasons:

1: 160 tons is WAY too light. That's simply not realistic.

2: Ranges aren't done in any other article regarding stages. Redacted II (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket Stage Data

Redacted II, what is the inconsistency with other rocket stage articles from the recent edit you reverted? The data is directly from the text of the article. Redraiderengineer (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most other stages have the mass in kg or pounds. Redacted II (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To your point, some articles (e.g., P80 (rocket stage) and P120 (rocket stage)) use tonnes and pound-mass. In the body text, Starship articles generally give the masses in tonnes, and the use of the tonne is likely due to SpaceX giving the mass in tonnes (with the approximate US customary conversion) on their website.

Beyond your personal preference, is there another reason not to use the same unit as the article text? There's also some middle ground to remain consistent with the article text by using the tonne with both conversions. [For example: 3,600 t (3,600,000 kg; 7,940,000 lb)] Redraiderengineer (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with using tons, kg, and lb.

The only reason for my objection was that the majority of stages use kg as the primary Redacted II (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vented Interstage Source

B10 already had it's engines installed at the time of the lift. The date of the source shows this.

So why does that not back the statement of "engines are installed, followed by the Vented Interstage" Redacted II (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source is a video of an interstage being lifted into a building, that does not confirm what booster it is being installed on or if the engines were installed before this. Your claim that B10 already had its engines installed seems to be based on the claim that the interstage follows the engines. Wherever you got your information about B10 would make a better source than that video. Frosty126 (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The source is a video of an interstage being lifted into a building, that does not confirm what booster it is being installed on or if the engines were installed before this"

Actually, that is already proven to be B10, as the booster is on Engine Installation Stand 1 (these are listed in order of installation), which is where B10 was at the time.

"Your claim that B10 already had its engines installed seems to be based on the claim that the interstage follows the engines."

It rolled out to the rocket garden a few days later, and it's engine shielding was spotted. That time wasn't enough to install all 33 engines+ shielding.

"Wherever you got your information about B10 would make a better source than that video"

My source is a string of photos that show B10's level of development at that point. But, we could use a video of B9 instead (because B9 had already static fired before receiving the interstage) Redacted II (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A video of B9 would be better. However, a source detailing the construction process rather than our observations of boosters would be best, as to avoid WP:OR. Frosty126 (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"However, a source detailing the construction process rather than our observations of boosters would be best, as to avoid WP:OR."

When that source exists, I'll add it. Until then, this is the best I can do (I'll cite the SpaceX video of B9 as soon as I can) Redacted II (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If multiple sources are combined to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated, it would constitute original research.

The material must be directly supported ("...information is present explicitly...") by the source. Redraiderengineer (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can get a source for the engines (NSF super heavy assembly video). Getting one for the Vented Interstage will be harder. Redacted II (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]