Talk:SpaceX Super Heavy/Archives/ 1

Operational/Prototype
I have a problem with the "operational/prototype" label. This was an operational super heavy booster. It might end up being an early model, but it was still an operational booster. It had operational engines, flight controls, software, computers, etc. Implying otherwise is misleading in my opinion, and is contrary to what's on the infobox in the actual starship article. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * After reading the talk page on the main article, I believe this is going to be merged into the main article anyways. If so then please disregard. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Allow me to explain why b7 was far from operational:
 * Operational Booster (as of 2023)          B7
 * Engines                33 raptor 3s                                            33 raptor 2s
 * Recovery             Catch by "mechazilla" robotic arms        Water Splashdown
 * Avionics                ?                                                              ?
 * Flight Control        ETVC                                                     HTVC
 * Antenna Location  Chines                                                   HPU
 * (Also, the infobox in the main Starship article, is, IMO, misleading, but please, let's not have that argument spill over to this article) Redacted II (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Operational: "in or ready for use.".
 * Was the booster in or ready for use? Yes. It was used. It was operational. What you mean is that it might not be it's final version, but it is operational by definition. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The vehicle was a prototype (not regarding the label, but what it actually was). If you disagree with that, then please say so.
 * So far, we have two categories for Super Heavy Boosters: prototype and operational. If your simply objecting to the wording of operational, then another label can replace it. If you have any suggestions, please share them here (before editing the infobox).
 * But it wouldn't have conducted an operational Super Heavy flight even IF the flight was a 100% success. It would have sunk in the gulf of Mexico, and not get caught. Redacted II (talk) 10:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Test tank inclusion?
Why are the test tanks included in this article. Booster test tanks I can understand, but the Ship test tanks as well?

Maybe that table should be moved over to the SpaceX Starship Article? Redacted II (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Partial Failure / Success for IFT2
Should the IFT2 flight be regarded as a partial failure (a catagory used for other rockets) or success, since it deliver the upper stage to stage separation, which is the primary purpose of any first stage? 86.26.101.55 (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * No, as the booster (Boostback/landing isn't required for a successful flight, according to precedent established by Falcon 9) had a 100% successful flight.
 * The failure in the infobox is for IFT-1 Redacted II (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)