Talk:SpaceX Starship

Do not classify IFT-1, 2 and 3 as success or failure
Discussion around IFT-1, 2 and 3 have demonstrated that classifying these launches as either "success" or "failure" is a bit simplistic. Rather, it would be better to classify them as "development test flights", and leave success/failure classification for actual payload missions. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support The launch vehicle design hasn't been finalized yet. I think it'd also help avoid all the debates every time there's a launch.  Coco bb8  (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The IFT launches can be labeled as v1, like Falcon 9.Redacted II (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. iT would help alleviate the conflicts between editors and reduce vandalism IMO. Norovern, bro! (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would support such a move based on the same grounds as my comment for IFT-2 - in summary, these aren't actual production launches, but rather test flights for development phases. This is also different from most other test flights that do get counted into the Infobox because those test flights are for the final vehicle, not for development. It would also solve this issue where we would have an entire debate each time there is a test flight, considering most of the comments and !votes I've seen aren't that policy/previous consensus-based. User3749 (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per my (now archived) comment (formerly) above. Quoted here: Success or Inapplicable. Given that the whole purpose of the launch/flight/mission was to find potential points of failure in the vehicle/system any outcome that doesn't cause collateral damage is either a successful search for failures or not quantifiable as a success or failure. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC) Largely Legible Layman (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong support enough editor time has been wasted on this trivial point. Those are development flights and it is clear that this topic requires more nuance than a "success/failure" binary option. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 17:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. Other aerospace companies spend a lot of time making sure that everything is done right the first time around, before they put together and launch a complete vehicle. Rockets failing on the first try is the exception, not the norm, and there's no logical reason why SpaceX should be treated as "special" in some way. DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 17:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. I came to close the above RfC, took a brief look at the complex arguments and analyses, and immediately thought: "This is why we normally only include simple details in infoboxes!" —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Since all but two editors here (me and DASL51984) have supported the motion, I believe this topic should transition to what we are going to call the launches, if anything at all.
 * My proposal is this: Under other outcomes, list: V1 Test Flights: 3 (and a note to explain why they are excluded from success vs failure, similar to what exists on the Space Shuttle article) Redacted II (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I think doing this will finally enable us to work on more productive things rather than writing kilobytes over kilobytes of debates.  Coco bb8  (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Should we add it in now, or wait until the RfC is closed? Redacted II (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's wait until the RfC is closed :)  Coco bb8  (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Support — these were test flights, with the goal for the company to flight test on an integrated vehicle things they could not completely test in ground tests, or under conditions that exist on the surface of Earth. No one, and no engineer on the SpaceX development team, knows how far one of these test flights will go, where thousands of sequential events have to go right to even get to the later parts of a flight test. There was no commercial objective for these test flights: e.g., like "place the xyz payload into orbit".  It is just wiki-original research to try to simplify into "Success" or "Failure" when many tens of major test objectives are in play. N2e (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Support — as SpaceX itself publishes only informal launch objectives and post-launch summaries we end up in endless and needless discussions after every IFT launch. IlkkaP (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Now that the IFT-3 RfC has been closed, and that only two editors (myself and DASL51984) have expressed opposition to not classifying IFT flights as Success, partial failure, or failure, I believe it is fair to say a consensus has formed in favor of this option.
 * I have already made a proposal for a new classification, which I will repeat here:
 * Under other outcomes, list: V1 Test Flights: 3, with a note saying "V1 Test Flights are not included with other flights due to significant differences between vehicles, and the iterative flight plans of the various launches" Regardless of the outcome of IFT-4, 5, 6, or 7, they would be included under this category as well.
 * Until a new classification is decided, the infobox should remain unchanged. Redacted II (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In other articles, including Falcon 1 (Flight 1-4 were tests, Flight 5 was operational) and Space Shuttle (STS 1-4 were tests, STS 5-135 were operational), test flights are counted. Consensus should still respect precedents and standards, and must only overrule them with proof that the precedents and standards were erroneous. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Note to closer - While I closed the previous RFC, I explicitly did not override consensus on this discussion, wherever it lands. If the consensus here is not clear cut, I recommend reading the previous RFC's discussion, as multiple editors there discussed removal without repeating those arguments here. Soni (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose The only argument supporting this is to avoid further debates, but this is misguided and I hope that experienced editors here can avoid rushing to that conclusion, consensus can't be mere arbitrary majority. Every other article on the topic, such as Falcon 1, Falcon 9, Saturn V, include this information. The standard is that every rocket, both SpaceX and NASA, successes and failures are recorded, and laypersons like me can readily understand it. I don't believe there will much more debates for three reasons, first that we agreed upon the upper limit of failure in IFT-2 and the lower limit of success in IFT-3, second that we find each of these supported by reliable sources and not original research, third that we have every reason to expect that most future launches are more likely to be successful, please wait until IFT-4, IFT-5, IFT-6 before deciding to omit this information. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. Starship follows a very different approach compared to traditional rockets, wherein failures are expected as part of the development process. It would be unfair for Starship to classify IFT1, IFT2 and IFT3 as failures when they met their respective goals of testing different aspects of the vehicle, and it would be unfair for other rockets to classify them as success when their respective vehicles very clearly suffered unintended catastrophic failures. Even IFT4, which was the first to reach all of its stated flight plan, is not a complete success because of the heavy damage suffered during reentry that would probably preclude it from being reused in an operational flight (if it didn't land on water of course). In my view the only option here is to list test flights in a different category. Agile Jello (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to correct something, the final RfC consensus was IFT-3 was a success. Redacted II (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Strongly support. Every time there’s an IFT an edit war starts and this can finalize that problem by acknowledging that these are tests. CaptHorizon (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Height of V3 Starship
Under #Versions it is claimed that V3 will be 126m tall, using this Elon tweet from May as a source: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1795208740217422009 saying that "Starship version 3 ~15m longer and will have about 3 times the thrust of Saturn V".

It seems it has been interpreted that "~15m longer" is in relation to the Saturn V (110.6m) but I am not sure this is correct. To me it seems that Elon is only comparing the thrust numbers with the Saturn V and that the 15m is in relation to the current version of Starship (121m, thus making V3 in the ballpark of the 150 number mentioned at the presentation in April).

I could be wrong, but it would be a drastic change made in the matter of a month. Not to mention, that the capability numbers from the presentation (100+ tons for V2 vs 200+ tons for V3) are hardly achievable when the difference in height would be a mere 1.5 meters. Lomicto (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The variants picture says 150 aswell Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 05:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So the most recent data is comparing V3 to the Saturn V, saying it will have (IIRC) 3.5x the thrust and 15 m taller.
 * 111+15=126.
 * But if you guys are skeptical, then I can self-revert and remove it. Redacted II (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I dont know, the picture IS official, but they could have Made a mistake...
 * Let's just leave it until we hear more about v3, its not gonna matter for a while anyway. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the picture is official, but V3 is so conceptual any info (no matter how reliable the source) is informed speculation at best. Redacted II (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's leave it however you wrote it id say Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * New source, its 150 m.
 * I've already changed it Redacted II (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Links to Successful launches in infobox
@Gtoffoletto Successful launches aren't linked on other pages (Falcon 9 is an example of this), and it will be highly impractical to continue doing this once Starship is flying operationally. Redacted II (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I see. It seems strange that we link the other 2 launches though. Maybe leave them until they become too many? &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 15:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe. I'd prefer to remove them, but I get keeping them. Redacted II (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's keep it Till starship (upper stage) landing flight occurs at max Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Redacted II (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * When they do a ship catch, i mean. But thats the maximum. Id prefer remowing them aswell Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Got it. Redacted II (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

lede is garbled and unclear
In the second paragraph of the lede, the sentence beginning with "Following a 'belly flop' maneuver, ..." is garbled and ungrammatical. In the same paragraph, the sentence beginning with "After boosting the spacecraft, ..." is garbled and unclear. It seems like it's skipping over some middle portion of the booster's flight. I would try to make edits to fix these problems, but I can't tell what these sentences are trying to express.--Penflange (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I feel like the way its written is fine. About the grammar, im not particularly great at it, so someone else surely knows it better then me, but i dont think its incorrect Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I fixed the parts immediately after "Following a 'belly flop maneuver'". Stoplookin9 Hey there! Send me a message! 00:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Lede is fine, and further details are covered here. Redacted II (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What is the correct balance to strike here between spaceflight vocabulary and descriptions that would be understandable by a layman is the real question. But i think regardless, every statement needs to pass accuracy and fact check, as required. Thistheyear2023 (talk) 06:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Spacecraft and booster article cutouts.
I feel like they are too long, and overly detailed. For example: the booster part talks quite extensivley about how musk said it will weigh this much. This is quite boring to a reader who wants basic information. If they want to know the mass, they could look up the actual page. In general, this musk said this and that should be remowed, or rephrased. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Redacted II (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Statements that read like news or press releases should be taken out and in turn should be re-written within the lens of an encyclopedia, which is purely knowledge-based in spirit. Unfortunately, due to the fast paced nature of this program and SpaceX related content in large, i find its almost inevitable that some of the content will read like news. Its just the nature of the beast right now. But definitely there's value in rewriting both articles, especially for youth who will be referencing these articles in the future, for many SpaceX is their first exposure to spaceflight. It will take an individual with a unique mix of sufficient knowledge about Wikipedia content standards, spaceflight, and writing prowess to be able to turn these from passable to great articles. Thistheyear2023 (talk) 07:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't with the articles, just the sections shown here. Redacted II (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Replace non-free image of Starship versions table with text
For accessibility (WP:IUP) and copyright reasons (WP:NFCCP) I'd change the format of this slide to wikitext:

However, I couldn't find the primary source for the slide, which is currently not really readable at File:Starship Versions.jpeg. HLFan (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Way better then what currently is! Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Done Thistheyear2023 (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I can cite it Redacted II (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2024
The date of IFT-5 should be updated according to newer information provided in the "SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 5" page.

On this page, in the Fifth integrated flight test paragraph it is written: As of May 2024, IFT-5 is expected to occur in late June.

On the "SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 5" page it is written: Based on comments from Elon Musk, the fifth flight test is expected no earlier than late July 2024. With the reference: @elonmusk (June 15, 2024). "Aiming to try this in late July!" (Tweet). Retrieved June 15, 2024 – via Twitter. AlainFournier (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Twitter is not considered a reliable source. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The "reliable source" cited for the late June date points to a ValleyCentral.com article from May 14th (before IFT-4) and gives a "after Memorial Day weeekend" date for the next launch, which means that date is for IFT-4, not IFT-5. No late June date is given in the cited article.
 * Therefore, the source cited is phony. @elonmusk being SpaceX's boss, I think in this case a tweet from him can be considered a reliable source. It is at least better than a phony source for the June date. AlainFournier (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As the person who included that source, RGV Aerial (IIRC) claimed that IFT-5's date was stated in that interview.
 * So, I used that source.
 * But this is irrelevant: the article has been updated already. Redacted II (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Wrong citation
In the "Fifth integrated flight test" section it is written: "As of May 2024, IFT-5 is expected to occur in late July." with a reference to citation 171: "SpaceX aims to launch Starship after Memorial Day". KVEO-TV. 14 May 2024. Retrieved 21 May 2024."

The correct citation is 172: Musk, Elon [@elonmusk] (15 June 2024). "Aiming to try this in late July!"(Tweet).

But citation 172, is already given for the next sentence. I think in this case we can have the reference given only once at the next sentence. AlainFournier (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I'll fix the citation Redacted II (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

100-150 T to orbit in right hand info box
Should the article state that the vehicle is capable of delivering this mass to LEO when the vehicle has not yet done that? In the article itself, it correctly states that this is the purported mass to LEO. The right hand info box should also make this clear. 184.175.54.203 (talk) 01:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)


 * 100% yes.
 * For example, Falcon Heavy has never flown a 63.8 ton payload into LEO. But that's what its capable of, so that's what its listed payload capacity is. Redacted II (talk) 03:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)