Talk:SpaceX Starship development/Archive 3

Starship prototypes
The section-level tag (needs more sources) on the Starship prototypes section is useless.

Although it does need more sources, editors who want to challenge unsourced material should challenge specific things, not an entire table & article section that makes, literally, hundreds of factual statements. Nobody can easily do anything, and remove the WP:OR and WP:SYN material with that more vague section-level concern.

I have just done specific challenges on a half-dozen claims, with inline tags. I think the section-level tag should be removed, and the editor who added be invited to tag/challenge specific statements that are or appear to be unsourced. Other editors should be invited to do the same. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I added that tag specifically for the table (as the tag says), as there are many cells in that table that are missing refs. Every date without a reference needs one, and I thought that would work better than placing a tag on every single one. I clarified my intentions in an edit comment directly below the tag. If someone wants to remove the section tag, and place a  tag on every single date and status that does not already have one, I would be fine with that. N828335 (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * That tag at the table level is okay with me, as long a other editors understand that when 6 to 8 weeks have passed since that table-level tag has been added, I'll probably crawl through the table some day and delete quite a bit of info in one swell foop, under WP:BURDEN, to just leave ALL the unsourced bits in the article history archive until someone can find specific sources for each statement, in which case bit by bit, specific statements can be added back to the article.


 * Since that is sometimes hard on other editors, I've generally preferred inline tags on the specific unsourced bits. Then, when I delete the unsourced statements, it's a little easier for other editors to see the (very) specific challenge, rather than a vague challenge.  But I can leave with either approach.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Just confirmed in the article history that that tag challenging the entire table as being inadequately sourced has been in place for over eight (8) weeks now. Was present on 14 Feb. Ping N828335

So unless there is a consensus formed here that we ought to do inline citations and specific challenges on the missing bits, I will soon go into the table and just delete many statements that are not sourced, based merely on the presence of the section-level challenge for over two months now. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you want, you can blank cells without a source, and just put what we have now in a comment. I know sources exist for them, I just have not had time to do them all yet, and it clearly is not a big priority for anyone else. N828335 (talk)


 * Hopefully better now. The decommissioned ref seem adequate for status column. Maybe some dates could be narrowed down and some would be better with more RS refs. Anyway, enough extra refs to remove section tag? C-randles (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Article is getting too long. I think it is time for a split.
Based on WP:TOOBIG, at 51409 characters, this article is at "May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)," and will quickly approach "Probably should be divided." Given that it seems most of the article is now focusing on the Starship prototypes, it might be time to give those their own page. ITS/BFR information is certainly important, but I think it is clogging up the article. Additionally, I think the prose provided on each prototype should probably be reduced, but I think this will never be completely sufficient, and a split should be done regardless. My proposal would be to have a Starship Prototypes article, or something along those lines. N828335 (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * @N828335: SupportSee Draft:Starship Prototypes. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 00:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment Not sure I follow. Does most of article go into Starship Prototypes and then this development history article is left with Concept evolution and maybe a list of flights? Would it be better to hive off most of the concept evolution into a Starship concept evolution article and leave everything else here? While considering scope, should we drop history from name and cover future orbital flights i.e. bring everything from List of Starship flights into this article and getting rid of that list article? C-randles (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * @C-randles: This is my opinion:
 * Move the starship prototype section to Starship Prototypes.
 * Move the concept evolution to Starship Concept Evolution.
 * Leave everything else here and keep List of Starship flights.
 * StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 14:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support For the Space Shuttle, Wikipedia has separate articles on the development of the Shuttle as a design concept (Space Shuttle design process) and the test flights that were done later using Enterprise (Approach and Landing Tests. Maybe something similar to this could work? Obviously SpaceX have a more iterative "Agile"-style methodology where the design has changed somewhat while prototypes were under construction, which is pretty different from the more traditional "Waterfall"-style process used for Shuttle, but the design of Starship as a whole seems to have become relatively fixed compared to the ITS/BFR days when the concept only existed on paper. So I think we can probably split the article between those two eras. 82.15.131.45 (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Source discussion on WP:RSN
I saw this hidden comment in the article, "Not sure about The Starship Campaign as a reliable ref. Lots of speculation about SN18 and SN19 being abandoned going back at least to 15 March 2021 lack of observed activity may make this more likely true but cannot add such synthsis/OR. Seems like it could be a case of repeated speculation over period of time tends to become seen as accepted fact. Not sure what to do, maybe the 'may' is sufficient or maybe better source would be better." but don't know who left the comment.

So I have started a discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard,. Here is the link to the RSN discussion: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_346

Please join the discussion over there to try to assess this source. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * FWIW I left the note. I was dubious about it as a source and what is at the discussion so far seems to back up it not being a RS. If as seems likely that discussion concludes it is not a RS and we cannot find a RS saying definitively they are scrapped/abandoned/decommissioned then perhaps discussion here should decide what to say and gather references to support that. If we find enough suitable refs, can we say something like "There has been several suggestions that SN18 and SN19 have been abandoned{refs} in favour of building SN20 for an orbital launch test."? C-randles (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Possible refs:
 * date=15 March 2021 quote=It is also possible that SpaceX will skip further production of the SN18 and SN19 Starships based on those vehicles not being referenced.
 * quote=It’s expected that a similar scrapping will happen with Starships SN18 and SN19.


 * One of our larger problems, in terms of having a good encyclopedic article, is even claiming the "SN18" (or SN19 etc.) exists when it does not. All anyone ever knew, from the point of a reliable source, was that a weldment subassembly was spotted by some observer on some date that was labelled with the letters "SN18" on it. We never had good sources that "SN18" existed; nor that the company SpaceX had firm internal production plans to fully produce such a test article; yet our article implies that it does because we (like all humans; not trying to be hard on the editors in this article) tend to look at limited data and draw expansive conclusions.


 * So more realistically, we should start the examination further back in the tree; closer to first principles as Elon Musk might say. Cheers.  N2e (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Not sure I agree with you here. You seem to be getting into defining when SN18 comes into existence. For some people it might be as late as all materials have been irrevokably assigned to being used for SN18 and a good deal of the construction completed, for other people it might be as early as just some materials assigned. N2e might have a late definition, I might have an earlier definition, in which case, who is to decide who is right? If just some parts labelled SN18 is enough for reliable sources to refer to SN18 as if it exists, shouldn't that be enough for us? I think you are seeing problems that we don't need to worry too much about. C-randles (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * So as not to take this section's discussion topic further afield (which was the WP:RSN question on a single source: the Starship Campaign website), I'll defer the additional and different question about sourcing the existence of a Starship test article to a later, and separate discussion.  I apologize for starting to change the topic midstream on the topic of this section.  N2e (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

, the RSN discussion is closed. Here's a link to it in the RSN archive.

All editors who left opinions questioned the reliability of the site, and a consensus was that the site is not acceptable for sourcing details of various Starship prototype vehicles. N2e (talk) 01:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Is "Booster 3" a full-height Super Heavy?
Do we have any source that indicates if "Booster 3" that moved to the test site on 1 July is a full-height Super Heavy, with an engine skirt section attached? Preliminary info I'm seeing discussed (yeah, we can't use it; would be original research) seems that the engine skirt section of the booster is entirely missing, and that "Booster 3" (as built) is actually just the two propellant tanks (LOX + liquid methane) ready for full size tank subassembly testing. N2e (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Does a missing skirt affect length of booster? Surely it just hides parts that are still needed? Is there even going to be a skirt on fully built boosters? C-randles (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not the missing skirt; it's the missing engines. The Super Heavy that actually flies (Booster 4) will have to be longer than the the tanks alone that are in the Booster 3 test article.  N2e (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @C-randles@N2e: It seems that Booster 3 is full-height. If you compare it to Booster 1 (formerly BN1), it seems the same size. But, of course, that would be WP:OR. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 14:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, if it is the "same size" as Booster 1, which was only a manufacturing precursor of Super Heavy, that doesn't mean it is a full size Super Heavy. Booster 3 is completely missing the engine section at present.  So either the later Super Heavy's will be longer, or SpaceX is gonna have to shorten the tank sections they are testing with the Booster 3 test article ground tests.
 * I'm sure we'll get a decent reliable source on it eventually. N2e (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no skirt in the design for the Super Heavy booster, per this: link. But the Super Heavy with engines (Booster 4) will be 3 meters longer than the "Booster 3" ground test tank, simply 'cause it will have engines.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 02:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Teslarati says "standing some 65m tall" which I would guess is approximate only. But add 3.1m+ for engines and you are getting close to the 70m per and . Don't see any reason to think it (with engines added) isn't full height. e.g. Didn't seem like much spare height on removal from high bay - surely they have built that the right size. But Teslarati ref isn't ideal for providing evidence it is full height. C-randles (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Tabella comparativa design starship.png

Incorrect templates
I know that the Template:Incorrect is only used to get a certain colour, but it still gives the impression that the info stated in it is incorrect. This could be confusing for someone who reads the source code of the article and wonders why incorrect info is included in the article. I would therefore recommend to use a different template. Gial Ackbar (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I changed them to use the template, which I just created. About half of them are actually "intentionally destroyed", so maybe I should add that as a separate template also. -Arch dude (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I added the template and updated the article to use it. -Arch dude (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Why so many issues?
This article has literally 5 different issues posted in that multiple issues at the top. The issues only seem to grow, and none are resolved. Issues are even arising more frequently. Is this article mabye just not just very poorly written, but also generally a bad idea subject wise? Starship SN20 (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Articles are written as the vehicle is in development, and it's rare that we get so much insight into an ongoing development program, so the structures grow over time. Combine that with often unconventional sources (people taking pictures of where things are) and things are getting chaotic. --mfb (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * SpaceX SN5 Starship 150m Hop & Powerslide.jpg

Booster 3 Question
Hey, y'all--After going through the future Starship prototypes section, I did a quick check on the Booster section (which is remarkably up to date considering how far it felt that the Ships were behind, but that's beside the point) and I noticed that it said Booster 3 had been scrapped. As far as I can tell from both LabPadre and NASASpaceflight cameras, Booster 3 is still at the launch site--albeit not doing anything, but it hasn't been scrapped yet. Should we bring it back to "At Launch Site" status? Thanks! XFalcon2004x (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Booster 3 has had the methane tank removed, what's left sitting on the sub-orbital launch pad is only the oxygen tank. It is no longer a complete booster. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 01:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, didn't know that! Thanks for telling me. XFalcon2004x (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Note to future contributors
There was a version that has been wiped (Special:Permalink/1057677512) because of cruft. You can refer to this article to see what's missing. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Where exactly did you get a consensus for such a radical shortening? You nominated the article for deletion which didn't get any support, so you just decided to delete most of the article manually? That's not how editing on Wikipedia works. Unless you link to the discussion where you got consensus for this step I'll revert to the last stable version and then you can discuss here what you would like to delete and get consensus for each section. --07:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Also the edits you have made are in some cases patently Wrong and unsourced, take for example the fist sentence of the new article
 * "In 2005, the first publicly announced SpaceX rocket concept could lift as much mass as Starship as BFR by burning a mixture of RP-1 and liquid oxygen."
 * it should be something like "The first known reference of a SpaceX Super heavy-lift launch vehicle was in 2005 with a rocket called the Falcon X or Falcon XX which would have had about the same mass to orbit as the currently proposed Starship/SuperHeavy combination." There are other issues as well I will be working to address while not crossing over the line into what you consider WP:FAN --WeylandsWings (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, reverted. I used a more recent version for the revert as edits to the long article version were minor and seemed constructive. WP:BRD - time for discussion. --mfb (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, so, my main rationale is that there is a lot of cruft in the article. I don't really think that this can be cleaned up properly, and nuking it is a better option in my opinion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I say if people want to read the cruft they can, also the main Starship article is fairly short so a lot of detail is here. 84.70.169.190 (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You could be a bit more specific. And you seem to be alone with the opinion that a broad deletion is the best approach. --mfb (talk) 06:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, takes me a while but I changed my mind. I think keeping the article this way is ultimately better than what I did few weeks ago. I shouldn't be too reckless on my approach. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Cleaned up
I have cleaned up the Starship development article that was once a mess with nitty-gritty details that interested no one but the SpaceX fans who are desperate to know everything about Starship. What should I do now? --2405:201:9002:E06A:68F7:7716:964B:A6CC (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Give each Starship its own section like the Boosters
I feel like splitting the Starship vehicle section up into sections for each vehicle would make it easier to navigate. DELTAVROCKET (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of them are not very notable - prototypes that never flew, many of them were not even fully built. There are fewer boosters. --mfb (talk) 06:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * SpaceX Starship SN8 launch as viewed from South Padre Island (cropped).jpg