Talk:SpaceX Starship/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

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 {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^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)

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? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^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)

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)

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#FORMAT) and copyright reasons (WP:NFCCP) I'd change the format of this slide to wikitext:

	Flight 3	Starship 2	Starship 3
Payload to Orbit (t)	N/A	100+	200+
Booster Prop Load (t)	3300	3650	4050
Ship Prop Load (t)	1200	1500	2300
Booster Liftoff Thrust (tf)	7130	8240	10000
Ship Initial Thrust (tf)	1250	1600	2700
Ship SL Engines	3	3	3
Ship VAC Engines	3	3	6
Booster Height (m)	71	72.3	80.2
Ship Height (m)	50.3	52.1	69.8
Total Height (m)	121.3	124.4	150

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)

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)

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)

 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)

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)

Requested move of SpaceX Starship flight test pages

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 4, impacting all of the SpaceX Starship integrated flight test pages, that may be of interest to followers of this page. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Direct link to discussion here. Redacted II (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)