User talk:Redacted II/Archive 1

"Your" new article (per your request)
The first-stage booster, named Super Heavy, is 70 m tall, 9 m wide, and contains thirty-three Raptor engines arranged in concentric rings. The outermost ring of 20 engines are of the "Raptor Boost" configuration with gimbal actuators removed to save weight and a modified injector with reduced throttle performance in exchange for greater thrust. At full power, all engines produce a collective 75.9 MN of thrust. The booster's tanks can hold 3600 t of propellant, consisting of 2800 t of liquid oxygen and 800 t of liquid methane. Super Heavy uses 280 L of hydraulic fluid. The final design will have a dry mass between 160 t and 200 t, with the tanks weighing 80 t and the interstage 20 t. The booster is equipped with four electrically actuated grid fins, each with a mass of 3 t. Adjacent pairs of grid fins are only spaced sixty degrees apart instead of being orthogonal (as is the case on Falcon 9) to provide more authority in the pitch axis. Also, unlike Falcon 9, the grid fins do not retract and remain extended during ascent. The booster can be lifted through protruding hardpoints located between gridfins. During unpowered flight in vacuum, control authority is provided by cold gas thrusters fed with residual ullage gas. "Booster 7" was destroyed in a test flight in April 2023. Other booster rockets are "Booster 4". It is important to write that: Text has been added from en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship&oldid=1151625670. You are good to go. Godspeed! 2001:2020:32F:A3C0:993:A863:4653:7DA7 (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC) 2001:2020:32F:A3C0:993:A863:4653:7DA7 (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I suggest keeping "Booster 7" and B8 and B9 on the list (and in that manner).--I hope that works out. 2001:2020:32F:A3C0:C511:2CE6:FAB:99C5 (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hi Redacted II! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing! McSly (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

A cookie for you!
Hey @Redacted II,

I just wanted to take the time to thank you for expanding the Vast-1 draft. Your work is really appreciated!

Cheers,  Coco bb8  (💬 talk to me! • ✏️ my contributions) 21:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks!
 * And, thank you for your work on the SpaceX Super Heavy article. Your contributions have been incredible, to say the least. Redacted II (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ! I'm glad that we're working hand in hand in making Wikipedia's coverage of spaceflight better!  Coco bb8  (💬 talk to me! • ✏️ my contributions) 14:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Great news, Vast-1 has been approved and published!! Thanks again for working on it with me :).  Coco bb8  (💬 talk to me! • ✏️ my contributions) 21:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's been great working with you on Vast-1, Super Heavy, and several other articles! Redacted II (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, I've just created Vast-2, so if you want to add to it, feel free to do so!  Coco bb8  (💬 talk to me! • ✏️ my contributions) 16:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I discovered Vast-2 maybe an hour ago.
 * You've done an excellent job! Redacted II (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Pretty much copy-pasted :)  Coco bb8  (💬 talk to me! • ✏️ my contributions) 17:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If it works, why change it? Redacted II (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, I copied content from Vast-1 onto Vast-2.  Coco bb8  (💬 talk to me! • ✏️ my contributions) 17:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I know. Redacted II (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

New Starbase coverage
Hi @Redacted II,

I started a new section in the SpaceX Starbase article called Layout. It is still in the very beginning phase, but it is where we can add all the technical details about how the orbital launch site, production sites and Massey's work. I thought that, since you're a Starship fan too, you might want to add to it! Feel free to do so! :)  Coco bb8  (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. Redacted II (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

July 2023
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 18:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Starship Spacecraft: Sanchez Site vs Rocket Garden
Hi @Redacted II,

The reason I wanted to change rocket garden to Sanchez Site is that there are used intercheangeably within the Starship Spacecraft article, which could bring confusion when the article is being read.

For example, S28 is denoted as being at the Sanchez Site, while S29 is in the rocket garden. They are technically both in the rocket garden which is in the Sanchez Site.

Don't you think we should be more consistent here? Which one should we keep: rocket garden or Sanchez Site?

Thanks,  Coco bb8  (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * S28 isn't in the rocket garden. It's on the engine installation stand (which is in the Sanchez site).
 * Meanwhile, S29 is in the rocket garden (which is also in the Sanchez site, but is large enough to be it's own location).
 * If they are being used interchangeably in the article, then that can be sorted out. Do you have any examples?
 * This is also a discussion that should be had in the Starship (spacecraft) talk page, so other users can join in. Redacted II (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've started a discussion here.  Coco bb8  (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you so much! Redacted II (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Though I do think the sources you use are very vulnerable to link rot. Avoid to use forum posts or tweets, but if you absolutely must, better to archive it on the Internet archive. Honestly just don't use youtube, and use NSF's report instead (or just any newspaper equivalent, for instance, and honestly because of how niche it is, I would even look for its archived link on the internet archive, the page has very often already been archived on the Internet archive by someone else and the link is ready to just copy-paste to wikipedia in the "Archive url" section of the citation). Overall, I would go for much less detail, like a condensed version of the content to a third/fourth of its current size - in order not to overwork yourself, be consistent with other pages and not render the page unrealistically long in the future - but more reliable sources. For example in this excerpt, a lot of sources are gonna be next to impossible to access in ten years, and a particularly trigger-happy contributor might even sweep through it, delete half of the content due to unreliable sources, and still be in the "right". Hopefully this comment doesn't come off as negative, that's not my intention, but I don't want you to waste precious hours doing work that has a high risk to be unusable later.
 * Ship 25 was a Starship prototype very similar to the destroyed Ship 24. It flew on the second Integrated Flight Test with Booster 9. Like Ship 24, S25 featured a heat shield. A payload bay was also built, but was permanently sealed shut. To test its cryogenic testing equipment, it resided for a time at the Massey's site, a nearby former gun range. During the third week of May 2023, Ship 25 was moved to the launch site and lifted onto the suborbital pad B platform in preparation for engine testing. On June 21, 2023, Ship 25 performed a successful spin prime test. On June 24, 2023, it was announced that S25 would be the first vehicle to utilize hot staging (when the second stage fires its engines while some of the booster's engines are still firing). On June 26, 2023, Ship 25 underwent its first static fire test, igniting all six engines. On August 5, 2023, it was moved to the Rocket Garden for final TPS work. On September 5, 2023, it was moved back to the Orbital Launch Site, followed by stacking onto B9. On September 14, 2023, it was removed from B9. On September 27, 2023, it was lifted back onto B9, before being destacked on October 5, 2023. It was then restacked on October 16, 2023, only to be destacked the next day. This was followed by a restack three days later. On October 24, B9 and S25 completed a WDR. On October 26, 2023, S25 was removed from B9. It was restacked on November 1, 2023, and then destacked on November 2, 2023, followed by FTS installation on November 9, 2023. On November 10, 2023, S25 was stacked onto B9, and then destacked on November 11, 2023. On November 15, 2023, S25 was stacked onto B9 for the Second Integrated Flight Test. Due to a failed grid fin actuator on B9, S25 was destacked on November 16, and restacked on November 17. 
 * On November 18, 2023, Ship 25 was launched atop Booster 9 on the second Integrated Flight Test. Ship 25 successfully separated from Booster 9. Near the end of its burn, the autonomous flight termination system activated, destroying the vehicle.  CodemWiki (talk) 07:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I try, but it's very hard to find any other sources. Like, nearly impossible (especially in real-time). Redacted II (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, unfortunately on Wikipedia, it's not because an information exists that it is possible to include. CodemWiki (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Tweets by Elon Musk/people directly working there are fine though, primary sources are useful. CodemWiki (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Non-offensive tweets from Elon are rare. And tweets from SpaceX are also rare.
 * I'll try to do better, but I can make no promises. Redacted II (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's just much so more healthy to the mind - and more convenient for readers - to work with less information of better quality. And you don't owe work to me or anyone on wikipedia btw, wikipedia should just be a tiny side thing.
 * Bonus advice : if a piece of information doesn't have any reliable source, there is good a chance it might not actually be that important (not always the case, but often the case). CodemWiki (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I consider the locations of all the prototypes to be very important for maintaining the level of accuracy Wikipedia needs. Redacted II (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with @CodemWiki. You are doing a lot of great work but don't do "too much". Not everything should be on Wikipedia and sourcing content correctly is the most important part of Wikipedia. My advice would be to: avoid Twitter/x at all costs per WP:RSPTWITTER. If nobody else is covering the info you want to insert except on Twitter that is a good indication that that content is not very important and you might be running into WP:INDISCRIMINATE issues. For example the current location of all the prototypes is a very minor and fleeting detail. Probably more work to maintain that list than the encyclopaedic value it holds (especially since that content will be obsolete in very little time). &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 15:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Content dispute at Talk:SpaceX Starship
Hello,

I'm sure that, as you've noticed, there's been a content dispute at the aforementioned talk page after the recent RfC was closed. I've talked to another editor about this, but I wanted to ask you if we should take the discussion to the dispute resolution noticeboard, as I don't see this debate ending anytime soon. I think that this can be the only way we can solve this while assuming good faith.

Best regards, Yasslaywikia (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * With JudaPoor, I can't assume good faith.
 * Their first three edits (1, 2, and 3) were to add themself to the list of notable graduates for University of Chester.
 * Their fourth edit was to complain about being blocked on Twitter by John Kani. (4) Oh, and they marked this as a minor edit.
 * Other than that, they made an edit on SpaceX to remove the word failed from the descript of IFT-1, replaced "Tesla Fans" with "Amateur Tesla owners" on Tesla (diff), and put in an update on the rollback of the Tesla autosteer (diff).
 * ANI might be better for them, but not the other editors (at least for now).
 * If you want to go to the dispute resolution noticeboard, then I'll back you on that. Though I think we should get the opinions of DASL519984 and Redraiderengineer, given that they have been involved in the new topic. Redacted II (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

B10 static fire
I liked how I pressed submit edit at the same time you did Stoplookin9 (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to say hi
Hi Redacted,

'''I just left a comment making it clear that my comments I had left on the ANI thread weren't trying to support sanctions against you. I really do appreciate and respect you. You have an incredible passion for this topic and that clearly shows in your editing.'''

The point of my original comments was to bring your attention to somethings that you've said/done that I personally find problematic (I'm sure I have behaviors that are problematic as well); the point again was NOT to argue for sanctions. All I'm asking is that you take these two points below to heart.

1.) Please let the failure vs non failure thing go. The consensus isn't there for any changes like you've been suggesting to add. Everytime you bring it up it's just frustrating editors more and more and comes across like WP:NOTGETTINGIT.

2.) Please don't bludgeon in RFC's like you did here (RFC on Infobox Flight Status). You left 59 out of 128 comments in the discussion section, so 46.1% of comments were written by you. That's almost half. Roughly 65% of the words written in that discussion were also you. That is WP:BLUD, quoting from there: "If your comments take up one-third of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you, you are likely bludgeoning the process". It's disruptive editing. By dominating the conversation so thoroughly you're preventing other editors from chiming in and being heard (such as myself, I chose not to participate in that RFC because I noticed the bludgeoning).

I think these are reasonable requests? If you disagree please let me know, but I think these are pretty reasonable asks. Chuckstablers (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Dude, no hard feelings.
 * As for your requests (which are 100% reasonable, with one amendment).
 * 1: I have. The goal for the recent topic was to mention the controversy, and state why failure is the correct classification for both launches.
 * As for the amendment: several editors have stated that they would be open to classifying IFT-1 and IFT-2 as prototype failures once it is flying operationally. When V2 starts flying, I will try to get them labeled as V1 failures.
 * 2: Yes, I know bludgeoning is a major issue for me. I'm trying to get better at it. If I start bludgeoning, please, let me know. Redacted II (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Glad we're pretty much on the same page and glad there's no hard feelings.
 * With respect to 1: I'm more than happy to revisit clarifying what exactly it was that failed (earlier versions, etc) if/when Starship is seeing commercial regular launches or we know it's final form and have clear lines in the sand between different versions (just like we do for Falcon 9). I also get what you were trying to do, I just think we'd need more RS's actually discussing the existence of a controversy before we note it, but I get why you wanted to add it. I don't think it was entirely unjustified or anything like that; it's just a pain point for a lot of editors due to how much time/energy the debate has taken up and is going to result in pretty strong knee-jerk reactions against it if its brought up right now.
 * With regard to 2; if I notice that I'll let you know. You've been great since the last RFC ended. If you notice me getting carried away and bludgeoning please let me know as well.
 * With that out of the way I hope you had a good holiday season/new year! Hope 2024 treats you well and all that. Am on vacation till next week so I got some more spare time. Please let me know if you think there's any areas regarding Starship that need some work and I'll take a look. Chuckstablers (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Would you like one?
I made a few userboxes. User:Stoplookin9/ub/SpaceX Stoplookin9 :) Send me a message! 12:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * LOL I love it! Redacted II (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Ship 28 mass
Redacted II, Do you have a link to a source of Ship 28s estimated on Orbit mass? Something with dry mass, plus what fuel is left in the tanks? Thanks, User:Zygerth (talk) 17 March 2024. — Preceding undated comment added 21:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * yeah, I saw in the FAA filings (https://www.faa.gov/media/76836 pg. 101) that the ship would have 100 tons of prop (well, 70+30 between the main and headers), and there are already sources that say dry mass is 100 tons.
 * I forgot to cite it. I'll go fix it as soon as I can.
 * I don't think 100+70+30=200 constitutes Original Research. Redacted II (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Review
Hey, I just rewritten the lead and add new images in 2023 in spaceflight and 2022 in spaceflight. Do you like it? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * It looks great! Redacted II (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it might be time to rewrite SpaceX ambition of colonizing Mars... I envision that this article would focus on SpaceX's drive of getting to Mars, and more importantly, how this affect the space industry as a whole. Do you think it is still premature to write this article? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * IMO, the sooner it's rewritten, the better. Redacted II (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, how should we rewrite this article? I just rewrited Mars Society and I have some experience in writing about Mars-related stuff, but I have no idea how this article would look like in the end. Obviously we need to talk about Red Dragon, ITS, BFR, Starship and things like that... but what about the more general goal of SpaceX landing humans on Mars or the fact that Elon's action has been molded by the Mars mission? How can we write about this objectively? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's what I'm thinking:
 * Section 1: Prior concepts. Keep this as small as possible
 * Subsection 1: very early talk from Elon (I think he once had a mars greenhouse concept) and SpaceX.
 * Subsection 2: Mars Colonial transporter, ITS, Red Dragon
 * Section 2: Current design (Starship) and plans.
 * Section 3: Criticism, potential issues, delays, ect, ect Redacted II (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe add another section to explain that this is SpaceX's primary goal, and this goal has fundamentally change the conversation about Mars mission proposals. Also talk a bit more about Mars mission architectures that uses Starship in section 2. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, shall we get to work? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * On it Redacted II (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm doing initial work here, to prevent messing up the article. Redacted II (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

ObsessedWithStarship II
Tagging all users who have been reverting their edits:

@IlkkaP, @Andyjsmith, and @Me Da Wikipedian

As you are all aware, user ObsessedWithStarship II has been edit warring on multiple articles, pushing the IFT-3 failure narrative in every single edit their account had made. I have already warned them about edit warring.

Should we report them for disruptive editing, or not yet? Redacted II (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I reported them for edit warring Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Redacted II (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Report moved to here due to resolved issue with previous report. Redacted II (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Starship Future Flights
Hey, was considering making an edit to one of the Starship pages, due to an orphaned link, but as I was looking at histories, I noticed you're almost single handedly maintaining both relevant pages at this point, so I thought it would be better to just let you know about the issue than muck things up in a way that will be just more work.

Namely, on the primary SpaceX Starship page, in the "Potential uses" section, there is an immediate link to the now defunct Future Operational Flights section of SpaceX Starship flight tests.

While the removal from that page is sensible, since indeed none of the potential future flights listed there are 'tests' (except arguably the HLS Demo), this did remove a shortlist of Starship projects from the site.

I think it would be a good idea to preserve the contents of that table somewhere, and perhaps putting it in the Potential uses" section would be best.

Whether the table's contents are preserved, the link should be removed from the SpaceX Starship page, as it is no longer functional. 2001:4C4E:1B89:100:A1A3:B911:325E:62DB (talk) 05:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * If you have an edit you want to make, make it!
 * A list of Starship launches page, IMO, is a better solution, and I can start hammering out a draft. Redacted II (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's a link to the draft. Redacted II (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The draft appears perfectly fine. Made some slight edits for hopefully clearer language in section titles, and removed duplicates of the same mission from different sections. (HLS Demo was listed both for 2025 and 2026, but as it currently sits as NET 2025, thought it's best to leave it only in 2025.)
 * I think it would be best to list only the next 2/3 years' launches with full detail (i.e. refuel launches), and leave other future missions in the bottom section, as missions further out than 2-3 years could very easily get shifted around at this point or even get the full dearMoon treatment.
 * One detail that might need changing, is the number of HLS Demo/Artemis refuels. Apparently after IFT-3, they decided to change the height of Starship (perhaps the booster as well), and with that came the claim that the number of refuels needed in orbit will also lower. Off the top of my head, I recall the number 8 being mentioned, but I can't seem to find an article about it on short notice.
 * It might be best to let it go live with the 20 refuel number, and then correct it later if someone can find a reliable source about the new suggested number, though I'll try and look for the article again when next I have some free time. 2001:4C4E:1B89:100:5013:2438:9C86:3731 (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The most recent number for refueling (after the stretched starship) is 15, so we should continue to go with that Redacted II (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine. Honestly, after trying and failing to find the 8 figure, I wouldn't be surprised if it was just something someone claimed somewhere that my memory mixed up with the 15 figure. 2001:4C4E:1B89:100:5013:2438:9C86:3731 (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There are multiple sources for the 6-8 figure:
 * Original NASA contract, Shotwell interview in February, ect, ect.
 * So whoever made that claim wasn't lying. Redacted II (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)