Talk:ITS launch vehicle

Relevance of Hitch Hiker's Guide reference to the number of engines
This sentence was recently added to the article by an IP editor:

"Like the proposed name for the first ITS crew vehicle, 'Heart of Gold', the number of engines, 42, is related to the novel Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy."

I have removed it per WP:BRD to discuss on the Talk page.

Musk undoubtedly referred to the name of the first Interplanetary Spaceship on a Mars route with reference to the idea from Hitch Hiker's Guide, and that information remains in the article, and is not undue.

But regarding the number of booster engines, while many have speculated that the number seems coincidentally related to the HHG key number of 42, and Musk likes HHG etc., we don't seem to have sources that indicate a fictional book from the past gave Musk and SpaceX engineers the number of engines for the first stage. Even the source provided, which mentions it, calls it a coincidence. Moreover, it would be WP:UNDUE to mention it so prominently in that way, very early in the section on the booster.

So let's discuss it here, and see if consensus might be found. N2e (talk) 11:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This is cute but a bit speculative and borderline WP:OR. I think any Douglas Adams fan will instantly chuckle anyway, without an explicit mention. On the other hand, because every fan will notice, chances are that several editors will want to add it back. Perhaps say something like this after the Heart of Gold reference: "Although it was noted that the number of first-stage engines seemed to be inspired by The Answer, Musk didn't allude to such a connection." — JFG talk 22:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Is there a good way to point out the reference and/or connection – the coincidence, at least – without implying that Musk directed SpaceX's propulsion department to work backwards from '42'? Solardays (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Error in values in section "Description and technical specifications"
In this section an incorrect value of mass is listed as 10,500 kg (which is then converted to 23,100 lbs). The correct value is 10,500 British tons (a British ton is 2240 lbs). This means the value given in pounds of mass would be 10,500 x 2240 = 23,520,000 lbs.)

I do not know how to correctly edit this so I will leave it for someone familiar with the function calls used here on Wikipedia.

24.181.205.98 (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for your claim? In spaceflight in general, and in SpaceX specifications in particular, it is common for the specs to be SI (metric) tonnes.  I don't know why a US company would spec their vehicle in British tons?!?  But what is quite possible, is that some media site reporting in Britain might have got it wrong.  What is your source?  N2e (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ITS launch vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.marketwatch.com/video/asset/elon-musk-ill-put-a-man-on-mars-in-10-years-2011-04-22/CCF1FC62-BB0D-4561-938C-DF0DEFAD15BA
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140322013556/http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2212-BWB-2014-03-21.mp3 to http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2212-BWB-2014-03-21.mp3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge (2017) FYI
FYI, someone has proposed a merge between BFR (rocket) and ITS launch vehicle -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ — That seems to have been resolved, in the negative, back in late October 2017. Cheers.   N2e (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, it wasn't really resolved in the negative. It was only resolved as "no consensus".... IMHO because of a mistaken notion that these are two different vehicles.  IMHO it should still be merged as there is no clear rationale why two separate articles exist.  No consensus means just that... no consensus has been achieved.  Given that SpaceX isn't even using the term ITS any more sort of shows how it has been depreciated.


 * Hopefully this issue will be reopened in the future, likely when another name change happens. --Robert Horning (talk) 04:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Should we list launch sites in the Infobox on an LV "design"
The article infobox currently says:

Should we list launch sites in the Infobox for an LV that was merely an LC design, albeit a quite notable one? It seems to me like maybe not. Anyone else have a view on that? Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Seeing no objection, removed the very conjectural launch site data from the infobox. N2e (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Both the ITS launch vehicle and the three-legged carbon fiber BFR (rocket) are related PAST concepts of what evolved into the current four-fin metallic SpaceX Starship system. Context of their development is paramount, therefore, based on the discussion and iVotes in at Talk:BFR (rocket), it is proposed to now implement the merge of BFR into the ITS launch vehicle under a new title: Starship development history.

The ITS launch vehicle and the three-legged BFR carbon fiber vehicles are officially now part of the history of the SpaceX Starship system (Starship + Super Heavy booster are collectively referred to by SpaceX as simply "Starship" ) so Wikipedia readers are best served by merging the development history into a single page for best chronology and full context. This logical action will also address the unreasonable —and unsustainable— massive duplication between the BFR (rocket) and SpaceX Starship articles. The discussion on this strategy and iVotes shown at the BFR Talk page, show a very strong support for this single merge and page name, so lets make it happen. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support — Rowan Forest (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support reverse merger of ITS into the BFR article, and renaming that one, as suggested at Talk:BFR (rocket). Procedurally, I don't see why we need a separate discussion. — JFG talk 18:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, because of the antics of changing links and Wiki-lawyering in the face of overwhelming consensus, we have to do this formal WP procedure. Everybody, feel free to discuss it at BFR and iVote here. Rowan Forest (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A merge proposal is not a formal procedure, it's just a normal talk page section with courtesy notices on the relevant articles. As I wrote above, in this case a duplicate discussion is unnecessary. — JFG talk 21:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, according to the WP:IAR?, Wikilawyering does not work. 😀 --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 09:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support any merger of BFR and ITS launch vehicle. Since we are changing the name after the merge, it doesn't matter which is merged into which. The content will be from both of them, and both titles will go away. Fcrary (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the merge, as proposed. BFR (rocket) ---> ITS launch vehicle.  The BFR article merge tag currently reads: "It has been suggested that this article be merged into ITS launch vehicle."
 * Rationale: that is like taking the major new next-generation TSTO launch vehicle that SpaceX has been developing since 2017, and slamming it into an historical article on a 12-m rocket article on a design concept that SpaceX had for about a year in 2016-2017. That direction does not make sense.  If a proposal were put forward to put all that old historical info in the ITS launch vehicle into the BFR (rocket) article, that'd make a little more sense.  But in my view, would make the TSTO active rocket development project a bit too long.  I'm happy to support a rename of the BFR (rocket) article to become the emerging consensus preferred title in the other discussion that has been going on for a few days now at Talk:BFR (rocket), to something like Starship launch system or other agreeable title.  But the main Wikipedia article on the important new TSTO launch vehicle should not be merged to an old historical article on a (very notable) design concept.  (P.S.  the current scope of both articles is quite clear from the article ledes.)  N2e (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose a merge, either way. I don't see any reason to mess with the ITS vehicle article. It is historical, why can't we just leave it that way? If someone can give me a compelling reason why this article should not simply remain how it is, please enlighten me and I might change my mind. ITS is merely a footnote for the BFR/Starship topic, and much of the info here would probably have to be pared down and removed if merged. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    22:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Carbon fiber BFR is historical as well. Or do you suggest to keep ITS, BFR, and have new Starship articles all as separate things? --mfb (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , The ITS just seems like a different vehicle to me. It was a much larger vehicle, and SpaceX has made some overtures that they might be planning on re-visiting this concept for a larger-than-starship diameter rocket in the future. As for the Carbon Fiber BFR, that is just a change of material for construction; the BFR IS Starship, it's not a separate vehicle. The name change was made before the change to steel; at the dearmoon presentation, the vehicle was Starship, and was carbon fiber.
 * As I've stated on the other page, my ideal is to leave this page alone, and change the name of the BFR article to Starship launch system. There isn't any harm in having a separate page on the spacecraft either, though a merger there would be fine if that's what people wanted. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    17:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Changing the diameter is a smaller change than changing the material. That the name change came before the material change isn't that critical. Apart from the diameter that happened to stay the same and the engines (which were always Raptor) the carbon fiber BFR and the steel Starship are completely different rockets. Musk speculated about a larger rocket - but that would change only the diameter, not the material. --mfb (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , It was explicitly confirmed in the Boca Chica presentation that the BFR and Starship were not different vehicles. I would argue that the material change didn't change anything fundamental about the intended functionality of the rocket. In any case it is totally false to say that these are two different rockets, they are simply iterations on an ongoing design from a company that can see past the sunken cost fallacy and is willing to make big changes. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    19:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You could make the same argument about MCT and ITS. They are all fully reusable two-stage to orbit vehicles using propulsive landing and Raptor engines. If you want to call carbon fiber BFR/Starship and steel Starship the same rocket then everything else is as well. I don't think that is a good idea, but it is the other consistent choice. See above: Changing the material is a much larger change than changing the diameter. --mfb (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - ITS and carbon fiber BFR are completely different from what SpaceX is now building, combining the history in a single separate article makes more sense. --mfb (talk) 07:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 09:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge BFR (rocket) and ITS launch vehicle into the History of SpaceX Starship. The Starship development history is more ambiguous than History of SpaceX Starship, is it? --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 09:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , There is a discussion on choosing a name over on the BFR talk page. Might want to propose it there? —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    17:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have already proposed it there. 😊 --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 08:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * COMMENT To discuss the merge, it's kinda important we are all on the same page as to what the terms mean. I think referring to the articles that exist—and are well-sourced, and have been stable as to what their article scope is for quite some time—will help all of us be on the same page with what the terms mean.  The BFR (rocket) article as it exists is not merely about the "three-legged carbon fiber BFR (rocket)" as is stated in the OP discussion above.  Please read that article, or just the lede of that article, to confirm.  It is, rather, about the 9-meter diameter two-stage-to-orbit (TSTO) SpaceX next-generation launch vehicle unveiled by SpaceX in 2017.  Nothing in that article is limited to the fact that the rocket was originally intended to be built out of carbon fiber and later (late 2018) the main construction material was switched to stainless steel, or limited to three legs even though just two weeks ago, SpaceX did change the design to six legs rather than the three that had been shown for the previous two years.  It is simply not merely about just a "past" vehicle.  It is about the full TSTO launch vehicle even today.  The ITS launch vehicle article is rather clear that is is only about a previous larger 12-meter diameter design concept, one for another TSTO launcher that SpaceX subsequently determined they could not afford to actually build and self-fund, and that design just happened to be extremely notable with hundreds of press mentions in its one year of existence after announcement in 2016.  Please look at the articles before as part of considering your response.  N2e (talk) 02:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see the proposal is clear to everyone. You are trying to invent an issue that doesn't exist. --mfb (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue is not about changing or dissecting the "terminology", but merging the history of this project in a single page for best access, chronology and full context. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't object strongly to the merging so long as it is made clear that these were very different vehicles, and it is made clear that the BFR was not some previous now-cancelled design. Starship IS the BFR, and the design of the Starship/BFR vehicle has changed considerably over the years but those changes to not really coincide with the name change. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    09:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. It will be a merge, not a re-interpretation. Rowan Forest (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , some others seem to be interpreting it that way, that the BFR was the carbon ship and that Starship is the steel ship, which just isn’t true, and in fact was explicitly stated by Elon musk to be false in the Starship demonstration at Boca Chica. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    21:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I have requested an uninvolved editor to close the discussion and determine consensus via the Requests for closure board. N2e (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge BFR (rocket) and SpaceX Starship because Starship is the renamed BFR project. Corwin of Amber (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge - ITS was a past concept for what later became BFR, which was developed into Starship, in my opinion ITS should be a separate article (as little or no actual development of that particular system took place), and I propose for BFR to be merged with SpaceX Starship with the title of the latter. Galopujacyjez (talk) 07:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support the merger of the ITS article with the historical part of the BFR article (i.e. anything relating to the carbon fibre version), to be renamed as Starship development history or similar. I have no strong preference as to the means of achieving this aim, though I do note that the BFR article has a much longer edit history that ought to be properly preserved, which implies that it would be better to merge ITS into BFR rather than the other way round. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)