Talk:SpaceX Starship/Archive 14

What is the actual payload capacity of the SpaceX Starship(V1) in reusable usage?
Before around one month Elon Musk said: “Currently, Flight 3 would be around 40-50 tons to orbit.” talking in nasaspacefligt forum: Link What I ask. Because in infobox on article for SpaceX Starship (launch system) payload capacity maybe is unreliable in some cases...Before existance of SpaceX Starship V3(~150 meters high) with best future version of Raptor engine and much bigger reservoirs. Sometime in the future. ГеоргиУики (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * IFT-3 was underfilled, so it's performance is a very poor judge of V1 performance.
 * After IFT-3, Elon said V1 expendable could lift 200 tons to LEO.
 * And according to SpaceX, there is a 100 ton difference in reusable v.s expendable payload.
 * 200-100=100.
 * Of course, these numbers vary between different orbits (LEO extends from 100 km to 2000 km, which is a ~1-1.5 km/s dV difference) Redacted II (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah ig that makes sense but can't rely on those 2 sources too much - 100 tons still seems like a bit of a stretch?
 * I assume and IIRC, V1 didn't meet their originals goals for payload capacity due to engine throttling, weight issues etc so V2 will have a capacity of ~100 tons instead. Does the infobox need to be changed to reflect that the reusable payload of 100-150 tons is for V2, a planned version? Might also need to change the versions section to say that V1 didn't meet intended goals. Spookywooky2 (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Those sources are usable for determining payload, so 100 tons isn't a "stretch".
 * I don't think the infobox needs to be changed until V2 flies. Redacted II (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok fair enough, as @Arch dude said, the numbers are theoretical, so the infobox doesn't need to be changed. If the capacity actually is around 100t, it doesn't really matter since V1 (prototype) isn't designed to be operational. Spookywooky2 (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If we go along this line of reasoning, doesn't it turn out that version 2 of Starship will be just for testing? ГеоргиУики (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, because:
 * "it doesn't really matter since V1 (prototype) isn't designed to be operational" Redacted II (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Too many units were produced for a test-only series. Some were retired without even reaching trials. Admit it, you too thought this would be the working version a while back, and changed your mind when it became clear that it wasn't capable of achieving its intended goals. ГеоргиУики (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Too many units were produced for a test-only series"
 * Iterative development, just with hardware instead of software.
 * "Admit it, you too thought this would be the working version a while back, and changed your mind when it became clear that it wasn't capable of achieving its intended goals"
 * Even if that was correct (and its not, BTW), no one here is making decisions at SpaceX, so this is 100% irrelevant. Redacted II (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You won't be able to convince me that someone would use a prehistoric approach costing many billions due to scale over a simulation that will produce good results and cost 100 times cheaper. ГеоргиУики (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "You won't be able to convince me that someone would use a prehistoric approach costing many billions due to scale"
 * Starship dev cost: $5 billion: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/22/spacex-joining-faa-to-fight-environmental-lawsuit-over-starship.html
 * "simulation that will produce good results and cost 100 times cheaper"
 * SLS dev cost: at least $23.8 billion: https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/nasa-does-not-deny-the-over-2-billion-cost-of-a-single-sls-launch/
 * .2 is not 100 Redacted II (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * About this 5B...
 * Something strange for a long time maintained this amount of money, as a statement about the amount of expenses. It's like since day 1 it was mentioned, SpaceX hasn't spent a cent so far. ГеоргиУики (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The 5B number is sourced (and irrelevant to the discussion of V1 payload capacity. But if you want to complain about inaccurate dev cost listings on Wikipedia, I recommend starting with SLS) Redacted II (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think we can change the numbers in the article yet. I also think the answer is completely theoretical since it is unlikely that there will ever be a payload-carrying reusable V1. The V1 was a prototype. No more will be built and the existing ones will be expended during the test campaign. -Arch dude (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree. Stick to reliable sources ("Elon said" is not a WP:RS). And remember this is WP:NOTFORUM &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 19:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Agile Jello Those numbers were removed for a few reasons, which I described in the revert.
 * V1 payload issue: IFT-3 was underfueled, and V1 expendable is ~200 tons. Since reusable payload is 100 less than expendable, V1 payload is reusable.
 * V2 payload issues: the #s are still unknown, but match the previous values listed for starship. This indicates 150 tons max
 * V3: very unknown.
 * There is no reason to include this information in the infobox.
 * Please self-revert. Redacted II (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing you say matters if you don't have a reliable source that states current V1 reusable payload capacity. The best source we have for this is Elon Musk's presentation where he clearly states a reusable payload capacity of 40-50 tons for flight 3 (which he uses as representative of V1). We cannot calculate reusable payload capacity from the expendable payload capacity. Agile Jello (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * https://www.spacex.com/vehicles/starship
 * And if we count "Musk said" as a reliable source:
 * https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1768543877756060148
 * There is already a consensus to not change the payload #s. By not immediately self-reverting, you are in violation of this consensus. Redacted II (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That SpaceX page does not specify that the 100-150 t capacity applies for V1. Frankly this page seems out of date and does not represent the reality of the latest flights. The Elon Musk tweet specifies an expendable payload capacity of 200 t for V1 but this says nothing about reusability. And this same tweet specifies that V3 will have 200 t reusable payload, which is in line with his presentation where he states that V1 has a 40-50 t reusable capacity. Everything seems in line for an 40-50 t payload capacity for V1, but you for some reason don't want to accept that. "Musk said" is an acceptable source because he is a subject matter expert, but even then I tried to add a secondary source as well. Agile Jello (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Look at the render. Its V1 (HSR and Forward Flaps are a giveaway).
 * And your "secondary source" has only one source: Musk. So, you have one source, and that source isn't reliable.
 * If you really want, I can go through the reasons that he isn't reliable. Redacted II (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The SpaceX page is old and was probably written before they realized the initial version of Starship would not reach their target of 100-150 t payload to orbit. We should not guess that that number applies to V1. That page is clearly not preferred to a more up to date reliable source that specifically lists the payload capacity for each version.
 * "And your "secondary source" has only one source: Musk." Yes, this is how secondary sources work--they report on primary sources. Musk is obviously unreliable on a lot of things but he is the owner of SpaceX and anything he says about SpaceX is acceptable as a source. Agile Jello (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The SpaceX page was last updated just before IFT-1, which probably could lift less than the IFT-3 vehicle (if IFT-3 was fully fueled).
 * "Anything Musk says about SpaceX" is not acceptable as a source, for several reasons (Link Rot, Twitter is almost never a WP:RS, Musk is just plain unreliable. Have you ever heard of 'Elon Time'?). Read the statement by Gtoffoletto. Redacted II (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Ift-4
Safe to say its a success! (Cant belive that flap held on for fear life) Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah. This should be catalogued as full success (apart from that one Raptor Boost). CaptHorizon (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 100% success.
 * Launch: 100% success, all that is needed (ship reached desired trajectory)
 * Boostback: 100% success
 * Landing burn: 100% success
 * Ship entry: somehow a success, despite that forward flap.
 * Landing burn: somehow a success, despite the damage during entry Redacted II (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I mainly saw damage during landing burn, but good summary. (Seriously hope no one questions success) Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Complete, 100%, success. Ergzay (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Someone compiled a list of articles here.
 * Even the most negative headline is "SpaceX's mega rocket completes test flight without exploding." (Thanks, AP)
 * So I think the situation is well within most commonly argued success criteria. Foonix0 (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * First IFT without a heated argument in the talk section it seems! ditto all of the above. 152.78.0.242 (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should not characterize test launches as neither successes nor failures. The point of these launches is to gather flight data to improve the design and operations of the vehicle in the future. It doesn't matter if the flight is a "success" or a "failure", it will have completed its objective of testing the vehicle regardless. Agile Jello (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That discussion goes here. Redacted II (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No qualms from me this time. Full success. --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Varients picture resolution
Is it only me who has it in a super low, unreadable resolution? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's useless. It's a non-free image (copyright held by SpaceX), and Wikipedia's rules regarding non-free images require it to be reduced to the size that the image now has. In this case, it makes the text in the image unreadable and useless. It should be deleted from the article. It could be replaced by a free image if somebody creates one. Indefatigable (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If not an image, a table would be pretty effective as well 73.210.30.217 (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)