Talk:SpaceX Starship (spacecraft)/Archives/ 1

Use of Excerpts

@Redacted II I've used excerpts when appropriate so that edits will propagate to and from the relevant pages.

For example if an edit is made to the table of test flights on the relative article they will automatically show up here requiring less work from editors. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The excerpt you added was missing the "scrapped" label Redacted II (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

If the table is an excerpt to change it you need to edit the article it is transposed from. Do not copy the whole table otherwise the error will remain on the original page. To edit the table go to: SpaceX Starship development#Second stage prototypes and edit it there. It will show up here automatically. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh I see the problem now.... apparently the "scrubbed" label is being lost in the excerpt....weird... I'll ask for tech help {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Until you figure that out, I'll revert the excerpt back to the table I made. Redacted II (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Work is in progress here Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Help/Problem with excerpt?. Please don't edit it while the techies figure it out :) {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

So, you want me to revert back to the faulty excerpt? I can do that. Redacted II (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Duplicate article

How is this not a duplicate of SpaceX Starship? —Alalch E. 02:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

This is about the upper stage. (this) "Starship" and SpaceX Super Heavy form (that) SpaceX Starship, as the two main components. So you can consider this article to be a subtopic. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 04:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The naming is definitely confusing... but it's not our fault! The intro maybe could be more clear? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, very confusing. I'd call Starship an upper stage, personally. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Why forking?

I don't see the point of forking the article out like this, when all of these information is essentially duplicated from SpaceX Starship. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The SpaceX Starship upper stage is a lot more notable than some other stages that have their own articles (like the Delta IV second stage, or atlas V first stage). Therefore, both Starship and Superheavy should (and now have) dedicated articles. Redacted II (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

For reference we use the following articles for Apollo: Apollo Program = Apollo (spacecraft) + Saturn (rocket family) (and various subpages) {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Mission Profile

In the SpaceX Super Heavy page, a section is dedicated to the mission profile of the vehicle. Should we include a similar section in this article? Redacted II (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

There's no single mission profile. Starship HLS is different from Starship Tanker, from Starship Cargo, from Starship orbital tank farm, from Starship Passenger (point-to-point spaceliner), from Starship pez dispenser, from Starship Mars Colonial Transporter, from Starship HLS, from Starship Crew-- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 05:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

We can at least include launch profile, as well as landing profile. Redacted II (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Which are different depending on which Starship you are looking at. The launch profile for HLS on the Moon or MCT on Mars is very different from being launched atop Super Heavy. Landing profiles are also very different for landing on the Moon or Mars; and the orbiting fuel depot will never land; the pez dispenser versions are to be expendeable, so will burn up instead of landing -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think launch profiles are different between different types? Maybe we can include that? Redacted II (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

When you launch off the Moon or you launch of Mars, that is different from launching atop Super Heavy, since you do not use Super Heavy on the Moon or Mars -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm referring to launch from earth, not launch from mars/moon/anywhere else Redacted II (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Information Literacy and Scholarly Discourse-2002

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 18 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Duranandrew6264 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Duranandrew6264 (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Test Tank Info

Currently, the info on the various test tanks is located at the Super Heavy article. As the majority of the test tanks were related to the second stage, I believe it should be moved either to here or in the SpaceX Starship article. Redacted II (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Older ship

The picture shows Ship 20, even though we have more moder ones like 24. Could someone change it? The same has been done on the full rocket site. Fehér Zsigmond (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

If a clear picture can be found, it should be added.

But it would have to follow copyright rules, and be from a legitimate source. Redacted II (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

"Ship 28+" is not an acceptably styled heading

@Redacted II and Cocobb8: It's just unprofessional writing. We shouldn't use symbols like that in headings. Headings are subject to regular naming conventions, and this doesn't look like a conventional title/heading at all. I've changed it to "Ship 28 and subsequent". Do you think there's something wrong with that alternative?—Alalch E. 14:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Nope. While I don't see the problem with the +, you are a much more experienced editor than I am, so I'll defer to your judgement.

(Thanks for doing the same on Super Heavy) Redacted II (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright, if both articles are consistent with each other, I'm ok with it. Cocobb8 (💬 talk to me! • ✏️ my contributions) 16:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

remove column from table?

I removed the "construction site" column from the "test tank" table, and Redacted II reverted my removal without comment. All entries in the column are identical, so I feel it adds no value, while making the table harder to read on narrow displays. It's also unlikely that test tanks will ever be built anywhere other the Boca Chica any time in the foreseeable future, as test tanks are needed only at the development site and BC will likely remain the only development site. If this changes, we can put the column back in. Comments? -Arch dude (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about not leaving a comment.

Removing an entire column is the kind of edit that should be at least discussed before being implemented. Furthermore, the table should be consistent with it's semi-twin at SpaceX Super Heavy.

While no test tanks have been constructed outside of Boca Chica, that could happen in the future. Also, starship prototypes have been built outside of Boca Chica, so that should be taken into account as well. Redacted II (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Anything "could happen". To account for all those things, we would need to add an infinite number of columns to all tables on Wikipedia. the site at Cocoa has been decommissioned, and at this point the probability of Starship tank development happening anywhere other than BC is near zero. If it does happen we can then add another column or a separate table if appropriate. From a format perspective, wide table are a nuisance, especially on narrow displays, including smartphones. From a reader comprehension perspective, an unneeded column detracts from the information being presented. -Arch dude (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

You make some (very) good points.

Still, to be 100% honest, I think it looks better with the "Construction site" column. Redacted II (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Copied and pasted from SpaceX Starship and forgot to attribute in edit summary

What do I do now? CoastRedwood (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Suggest subsection move

There's a lot of material in this article that's very peripheral or not really important to Starship. To start with, the exhaustive list of all the StarHopper and prototype flights just distracts from the focus. I suggest that we move that list to its own article and just put in a link.

And, I don't think tank pressure testing is important enough to have an entire section of an enclopedia article devoted to it. I suggest deleting this to keep the article focused. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned references in SpaceX Starship (spacecraft)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of SpaceX Starship (spacecraft)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nsf20140307":

• From Interplanetary spaceflight: Belluscio, Alejandro G. (2014-03-07). "SpaceX advances drive for Mars rocket via Raptor power". NASAspaceflight.com. Retrieved 2014-03-07.
• From SpaceX Starship: Belluscio, Alejandro G. (7 March 2014). "SpaceX advances drive for Mars rocket via Raptor power". NASASpaceFlight.com. Archived from the original on 11 September 2015. Retrieved 25 September 2016.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Sanchez Site vs Rocket Garden vs Engine Installation Stand

There's been quite some confusion for the naming of ships status: should they be in the sanchez site when they are on the engine installation stand? Or should they be denoted as in the rocket garden when they are awaiting their turn for engine installation?

Here's what I suggest:

• When ships are having their engines installed, say On engine installation stand. It's also been suggested to say At the Sanchez Site, but I think that we should make it more accurate. We could also say On engine installation stand at the Sanchez Site.
• When ships/boosters are in the rocket garden, say At the rocket garden and awaiting engine installation if applicable.

Any thoughts? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I like your suggestion. It keeps the separation between the Engine Installation Stand as well as clarifies the status further. Redacted II (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Redacted II. Do you think that we should also precise that the engine installation stand is located in the Sanchez Site, or just say on the engine installation stand? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I already changed it to "on engine installation stand at Sanchez Site" Redacted II (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Great! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Could someone explain - in the article - what this rocket garden is?? 47.64.205.237 (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

That descript would go in the Starbase article Redacted II (talk) 12:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Fine, then put it there and link it. Just to talk here of some rocket garden without any explanation is not helpful at all. 47.64.205.237 (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

why?

It's no more descriptive than Mega Bay 1 or High Bay. Redacted II (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

As a related issue, the article now repeatedly refers to a "rocket garden" without explanation. Should a casual reader just know what that means or where it is. Shouldn't it say at least once "rocket garden at Sanchez site" ? Gjxj (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

If you want, you can go fix that yourself Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Dry mass

Redacted II, you reverted the 100 t dry mass supported by two sources (a quote from Elon Musk and data from Robert Zubrin). Do you have a reliable source to support the 120 t dry mass? The Sesnic source currently cited doesn't support 120 t. Redraiderengineer (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

During the April 2022 presentation, Musk stated that the 85 ton number (which was shown in the presentation) was a typo, and the actual mass was 120 tons.

While Musk is not the most reliable source (it honestly feels like a stretch to give him any reliability at all), Zubrin isn't the most reliable source either.

I'll have to find the presentation. Redacted II (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I've went through the presentation, and I can't find any mention of the ships dry mass. (EDIT: I found it in the 2019 presentation)

Though I was able to find this: which claims 125 tons, but it is an estimate in a study, and not a confirmed number. Redacted II (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The statement from Musk supporting ~100 t is from 2021 (Sesnic), and the Zurbrin source is a book written this year. A reliable primary and secondary source supports the 100 t dry mass, and per the NOR policy, articles should generally rely on secondary sources.

Unless you have a different reliable source, we should proceed with 100 t on the concept of "verifiability, not truth" since we don't know the actual dry mass. I'm not stuck on this number, so if there's a new reliable source in the future, we can revisit this. Does that work with you? Redraiderengineer (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Since the more recent sources support 100 tons (though I really dislike using Zubrin as a source), I'll self revert. Redacted II (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

S20

We should get a more recent version of starship to serve as the main image (S28 or S29 would be best), as S20 has several major differences when compared to current prototypes. Redacted II (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Original research and 'box scoring' each development test flight

The current state of the article info box seems to be to keep "box scores" on "Failed" or "Lost" Starships. This seems like a lot of original research and is WP:UNDUE in any case.

While such designations are likely appropriate for operational flights with a defined payload objective by any launch vehicle operator, it seems grossly premature to take every flight test of a development vehicle and call out scores of "success" or "failed". SpaceX clearly considers each flight a success in that each of the three so far advanced the design testing phase beyond what could be tested in various subsystem tests on the ground. This is what they've said, and what they've specified as test objectives before each test. And we have sources that support what SpaceX said before each flight test, and what they said afterwards: the goal of test flights is to advance the testing beyond what was previously tested.

Here is what the article box score says, as of 17 March 2024:

Launched : 3
Retired : 3
Failed : 1 (IFT-2)
Lost : 2 (IFT-1, IFT-3)

but the sources do not uniformly support this take. Moreover, before we put anything in an info box, we should have it fully explicated and sourced in the article body. Best we could do here is say that different sources call the outcomes differently. And headline-oriented advertising-click-based media often report or slant to get clicks. What do other editors think on this? N2e (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

There is already a consensus that counts the test vehicles as operational vehicles.

At least 2/3rds of editors back this, so there isn't any possibility of overturning it. Redacted II (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit: my response did not age well.

So, I'm not sure how integrating the results of the linked discussion with this article will work, if it will work at all. Redacted II (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Rearrange Sections

We currently have a section for S24, S25, and S28, and will likely have one for S29.

I propose changing this to:

S24-S25

S26-S27

S28-S32

S33-S35 (detailing the vehicles being scrapped in favor of V1) Redacted II (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

If done here, it would also be done on Super Heavy, with these sections:

B7-B8

B9-B12

B13-B14

B15 and subsequent Redacted II (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Support both. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Made changes to Super Heavy and Starship pages, redid links Redacted II (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

S26 cryo

Does anyone have a source for S26 conducting a cryo yesterday? (EDIT: SOURCE FOUND) Redacted II (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

New redirect for list of starships

I created the List of Starships redirect page to point the handy table showing the list of starship prototypes. Eventually I think this section can be moved out into a new page, when it gets large enough, at the redirect page. Ergzay (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Nice!

I'll go make a List of Super Heavies redirect page.

Although, TBH, List of Starships should be it's own article as soon as possible Redacted II (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Personally I don't think it makes sense to split out the page yet until the vehicle hits operational flights as its all still development program. Ergzay (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

There have been 35 Super Heavies and Starships (excluding incomplete vehicles, as well as vehicles that were never completed).

When the List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters was created, it included boosters 1019-1037.

35>19 Redacted II (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure but those weren't developmental prototypes. We never got to see almost all of the early developmental prototypes of Falcon 9. Ergzay (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Most of the developmental prototypes of Falcon 9 were probably test tanks, which were not included in the 35 vehicles number for Starship.

(Also, Falcon 9 V1.0 and V1.1 were practically developmental prototypes for V1.2) Redacted II (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

How about moving the table to the List article and, for now, embed them back via {{:List of Starships}}? HLFan (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm thinking a complete move, but it works either way Redacted II (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. As more prototypes are made, we should ensure that this article doesn't become too lengthy too quickly. More details such as design changes could be added to that list instead of this article. Spookywooky2 (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

improvements

1. 1 Please make sure all dates get years. Especially in the older parts of the history, but also newer facts, it's totally unclear when what happened, like "As of June 8, S29 is the largest artificial object to reenter Earths atmosphere" - this will most likely stay here for years and nobodywill then know that it refers to 2024.

1. 2 The List of Starship prototypes should give the version. If I understand right, Ships 36+ will be V2.

1. 3 All the different articles about Starship, Starship (Spacecraft), SpaceX_Super_Heavy and many more are extremely irritating, as they duplicate a lot, link to and back extensively, are in different states of actuality and maintenance, and help more to confuse the general readers than to help understand the topic. Need better structuring and removing of old, now unimportant info (or move that to extra areas).

47.67.199.63 (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

1: This was decided against earlier.

2: That is included in the article.

3: Notable rocket stages get their own article. Just look at the Shuttle: it's OMS system has its own article! Redacted II (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

1. Where? By whom? Despite that, the criticism is still valid. How will you avoid the confusion that already happens? Or, organise the sections by year.

2. But NOT in the list. Are readers supposed to look through the whole lenghty article, while the list includes much less important info?

3. I wrote about duplications and outdated info, not about removing articles. You don't read.

You just put down all recommendations without really reading them, and not arguing with facts either. Obviously, you think you own this article and don't want to cooperate in any way. Not WP style. 47.64.131.12 (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

1: They were removed on Super Heavy. I forgot what editor. Context does make it clear.

2: Its not as important as the info in the list

3: Go look at similar articles. Its not an issue.

I put down all recommendations because they will not improve the article. They will make it worse. Redacted II (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Your sole opinion. I thought WP was common work. What gives you the right to decide to "put down recommendations"? 47.69.68.190 (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Editors can reject edit requests.

Thats how Wikipedia works. Redacted II (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Who promoted you to be "THE editor" of this arcticle? 47.69.68.190 (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Editor: anyone with an account Redacted II (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

So you promote a 2-class wikipedia, that is hogwash. Nowhere is stated that only account holders are allowed to judge what is written in an article. Don't always try to fool people, but try to work in community for once. 47.69.68.190 (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Read this: Edit requests

An editor can reject an edit request, provided that they have a reason for doing so. My reasoning is above.

And your comments here and in the topic below are well past personal attacks. Redacted II (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:OWN 47.69.67.6 (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, read on edit requests.

You made an edit request. I rejected it. Any other editor can (and likely would) have done the same. Redacted II (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Infobox change proposal

If Starship’s failures and losses can be shown, then the successes should be shown as well. The main Starship page shows it in this way already (Successes: 2 and Failures: 2). Here, it would be adding IFT-4 as a success while leaving IFTs 1 and 3 as ship losses and IFT-2 as ship failure (so exactly how they are now). Similar changes should also be done to the Super Heavy page regarding this.CaptHorizon (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. Successes are not listed in Spacecraft Infoboxes, and its actually impossible to add.

I'm less opposed to adding it to Super Heavy, but I do not believe it is necessary. Redacted II (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. Argument is valid, and information is valuable enough to put into infobox for first glance. 47.69.68.190 (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, its impossible to implement. There is no way to add it to the Spacecraft Infobox. Redacted II (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

"there is no way" is the killer phrase of the unwilling and unimaginative... 47.69.68.190 (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Except, its not possible. Go check for yourself. The "flight data" section of the template lacks an option for success Redacted II (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Templates can be changed, as seen on the SpaceX Starship (spacecraft) page. You always try to take others for fool just to cover that you lack real arguments. 47.69.68.190 (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Your not understanding what I'm saying. Obviously, the infobox can be changed. But the template itself... no.

There is no precedent for listing success, either, so even if it was possible, there isn't any reason to add it. Redacted II (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

You are the one not listening. I gave the example just in the last post. Again: WP:OWN 47.69.67.6 (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

You gave a nonexistent example. If there's something I'm missing, please provide a Dif.

EDIT: Just curious, 47.69.67.6, are you the same user as the other IPs in the above discussion? While I'm sure it isn't malicious, you do have to make it clear if you are using the different accounts (especially in the same discussion). Redacted II (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Just found this, as you are once more changing discussion posts later to your convenience. As declared in your (dismissed) file against me of being disruptive, it is quite normal to get slightly different IPs automatically by the provider. Implying that is trying to appear as different persons is either a big gap of knowlegde on how providers work, or intentional attempt to discredit me. Feel free to give another explanation... 47.64.203.33 (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The last edit to this page by anyone other than you (not counting the archival bot or this post) was: July 14.

So, again, baseless accusations.

And again, that wasn't an accusation: I was curious, but also requesting that you make it clear to any user entering the discussion) Redacted II (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

S33 x2

Parts of the first Block 2 ship have been seen. Labeled S33.

How are we going to reduce confusion when discussed two different ships... with the same name? Redacted II (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Simply using the official names, and not deduction names from third party sources or own guessing... 47.64.203.33 (talk) 10:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

S33 is the official name of both ships.

But I believe it now clarifies in both the table and the rest of the article. Redacted II (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Says who, where is the proof!?

In the section "Ships 33–38", the only reference is a tweet by (dubious) @csi_starbase.

First, it does NOT say "the original S33's components were scrapped", but only the "aft section": "Ship 33 aft section was scrapped a few days ago. With S28-32 being the last of version 1 we should expect all components of S33+ to be deleted." Thus, there are/were other components that we have not heard from being scrapped, and "we should expect" is not describing facts either.

Second, it also not stated where they got the name S33 from (I guess, they were guessing). Thus, I don't see that this scrapped piece to metal was ever officially named "S33", and no sources at all given.

Once more a very bad example of sloppy source work and "educated guessing", which is not good enough for WP.

Third, is was you(!) who put that in on 1st Dec 23 without any source(!) in the first place, then someone added urgent "Citation needed", and on 12th dec 23 you added this current insufficient source.

Conclusion: more pseudofacts without sources, "original research" and guesswork. 47.64.203.33 (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Your ignoring the second source.

"While the nosecones were the most visible things to be scrapped, nearly all of Ship 33's barrel sections, including the forward, common, and aft dome sections, were all scrapped." Redacted II (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

What "second source"? In the discussed "Ships 33–38" section, there are 2 references, the first that I aldready dissected and does not have any additional facts, and the second being a worthless Musk tweet just stating "Four more Starships, the last of V1" withour ANY names, numbers or anything supporting your ridiculous claims. Your citation is nowhereto be found in the discusses section, and if it exists, it is missing there, as you don't even bother to state where it is from. You once more stick to your well-known method: Diverting from the topic by throwing in pseudofacts that don't help in any way but seem to distract the flippant reader. Does not work once more! 47.64.203.33 (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect.

Source 1: CSI Starbase tweet.

Source 2: RingWatchers article.

Check the actual article. Redacted II (talk) 11:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Apart from you still ignoring all my arguments and laid down facts above, your great source "ringwatchers.com/article/v2-ship-apr-2024" clearly states: "This article is more speculative than normal, and we'll make it clear what's extra speculative, but this is essentially all we know." and "While it's fun to speculate about these revisions, much of the following is only our best interpretation of imagery and trends". They make clear they are speculating while you present it here and in the article as pure facts. That is actually hardly more than spreading fake news, and it's hard for me after all that happend and you got cought making original research yourself, not to see that being intentionally.

There is no, absolutely no evidence for these parts ever to have been S33+ officially, that is all guesswork and even declared original research by the source itself.

Again: Stop distracting from facts, finally do good source work, no charry-picking, misapplying facts and wild guessing. 47.64.203.33 (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Speculative parts of the article:

V2 design.

Nonpseculative parts of the article:

that the parts of those ships were scrapped. Redacted II (talk) 14:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You still don't read or want to understand. Or try to distract with half-truisms again on purpose. I give up with you, it is just ridiculous. 47.64.203.33 (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Massey’s Gun Shop and Range

Really nice work on this article! Most sources seem to use Massey’s rather than Masseys for the test site. It's named after the prior occupant of the land, Massey’s Gun Shop and Range. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 02:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Just fixed it. Redacted II (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)