Talk:SpaceX Starship

Do not classify IFT-1, 2 and 3 as success or failure

Discussion around IFT-1, 2 and 3 have demonstrated that classifying these launches as either "success" or "failure" is a bit simplistic. Rather, it would be better to classify them as "development test flights", and leave success/failure classification for actual payload missions. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Support The launch vehicle design hasn't been finalized yet. I think it'd also help avoid all the debates every time there's a launch. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. The IFT launches can be labeled as v1, like Falcon 9.Redacted II (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Support. iT would help alleviate the conflicts between editors and reduce vandalism IMO. Norovern, bro! (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I would support such a move based on the same grounds as my comment for IFT-2 - in summary, these aren't actual production launches, but rather test flights for development phases. This is also different from most other test flights that do get counted into the Infobox because those test flights are for the final vehicle, not for development. It would also solve this issue where we would have an entire debate each time there is a test flight, considering most of the comments and !votes I've seen aren't that policy/previous consensus-based. User3749 (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Support per my comment above. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Strong support enough editor time has been wasted on this trivial point. Those are development flights and it is clear that this topic requires more nuance than a "success/failure" binary option. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Other aerospace companies spend a lot of time making sure that everything is done right the first time around, before they put together and launch a complete vehicle. Rockets failing on the first try is the exception, not the norm, and there's no logical reason why SpaceX should be treated as "special" in some way. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 17:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I came to close the above RfC, took a brief look at the complex arguments and analyses, and immediately thought: "This is why we normally only include simple details in infoboxes!" —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Since all but two editors here (me and DASL51984) have supported the motion, I believe this topic should transition to what we are going to call the launches, if anything at all.

My proposal is this: Under other outcomes, list: V1 Test Flights: 3 (and a note to explain why they are excluded from success vs failure, similar to what exists on the Space Shuttle article) Redacted II (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I think doing this will finally enable us to work on more productive things rather than writing kilobytes over kilobytes of debates. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Should we add it in now, or wait until the RfC is closed? Redacted II (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Let's wait until the RfC is closed :) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support — these were test flights, with the goal for the company to flight test on an integrated vehicle things they could not completely test in ground tests, or under conditions that exist on the surface of Earth. No one, and no engineer on the SpaceX development team, knows how far one of these test flights will go, where thousands of sequential events have to go right to even get to the later parts of a flight test. There was no commercial objective for these test flights: e.g., like "place the xyz payload into orbit". It is just wiki-original research to try to simplify into "Success" or "Failure" when many tens of major test objectives are in play. N2e (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support — as SpaceX itself publishes only informal launch objectives and post-launch summaries we end up in endless and needless discussions after every IFT launch. IlkkaP (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Now that the IFT-3 RfC has been closed, and that only two editors (myself and DASL51984) have expressed opposition to not classifying IFT flights as Success, partial failure, or failure, I believe it is fair to say a consensus has formed in favor of this option.

I have already made a proposal for a new classification, which I will repeat here:

Under other outcomes, list: V1 Test Flights: 3, with a note saying "V1 Test Flights are not included with other flights due to significant differences between vehicles, and the iterative flight plans of the various launches" Regardless of the outcome of IFT-4, 5, 6, or 7, they would be included under this category as well.

Until a new classification is decided, the infobox should remain unchanged. Redacted II (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

In other articles, including Falcon 1 (Flight 1-4 were tests, Flight 5 was operational) and Space Shuttle (STS 1-4 were tests, STS 5-135 were operational), test flights are counted. Consensus should still respect precedents and standards, and must only overrule them with proof that the precedents and standards were erroneous. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note to closer - While I closed the previous RFC, I explicitly did not override consensus on this discussion, wherever it lands. If the consensus here is not clear cut, I recommend reading the previous RFC's discussion, as multiple editors there discussed removal without repeating those arguments here. Soni (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Strongly oppose The only argument supporting this is to avoid further debates, but this is misguided and I hope that experienced editors here can avoid rushing to that conclusion, consensus can't be mere arbitrary majority. Every other article on the topic, such as Falcon 1, Falcon 9, Saturn V, include this information. The standard is that every rocket, both SpaceX and NASA, successes and failures are recorded, and laypersons like me can readily understand it. I don't believe there will much more debates for three reasons, first that we agreed upon the upper limit of failure in IFT-2 and the lower limit of success in IFT-3, second that we find each of these supported by reliable sources and not original research, third that we have every reason to expect that most future launches are more likely to be successful, please wait until IFT-4, IFT-5, IFT-6 before deciding to omit this information. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Support. Starship follows a very different approach compared to traditional rockets, wherein failures are expected as part of the development process. It would be unfair for Starship to classify IFT1, IFT2 and IFT3 as failures when they met their respective goals of testing different aspects of the vehicle, and it would be unfair for other rockets to classify them as success when their respective vehicles very clearly suffered unintended catastrophic failures. Even IFT4, which was the first to reach all of its stated flight plan, is not a complete success because of the heavy damage suffered during reentry that would probably preclude it from being reused in an operational flight (if it didn't land on water of course). In my view the only option here is to list test flights in a different category. Agile Jello (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to correct something, the final RfC consensus was IFT-3 was a success. Redacted II (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

How does Russia vetoing a resolution banning nukes in space underscore the military need for Starship dev?

@Thistheyear2023, how does Russia vetoing a resolution banning nukes in space underscore the military need for vehicles like Starship? Nuclear weapons in space (IIRC, just orbit) have been illegal since the 60's. Redacted II (talk) 11:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Was trying to tie back to the whole increasing humanity’s chances for survival by developing starship and becoming multi-planetary in case of a world ending scenario..guess it could be worded better Thistheyear2023 (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

If the source you included made any mention of Starship, then it would be okay. But it has no connection to Starship, or anything even related to SpaceX. Redacted II (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

This is original research which cannot be included in articles. See WP:NOR. I have removed it. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 23:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected Edit Request on 20 May 2024

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Moved to different article Redacted II (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

---

In the History#Low-altitude flight tests (2019-2021) of this article, add the first infobox:

Starship suborbital flight tests

Starhopper prototype vehicle, used in suborbital testing, seen here under construction
Program overview
Country	United States
Organization	SpaceX
Purpose	Intra-atmospheric testing of Starship and its components
Status	Completed
Program history
Duration	2019-2021
First flight	Starhopper (tethered flight) April 3, 2019 (2019-04-03) Flight 1 July 25, 2019 (2019-07-25)
Last flight	Flight 9 May 5, 2021 (2021-05-05)
Successes	5 (not counting tethered flights)
Failures	3
Partial failures	1
Launch site(s)	SpaceX Starbase
Uncrewed vehicle(s)	SpaceX Starhopper, SpaceX Starship (test articles)

And at the section History#Integrated Flight Tests, add the second infobox:

Starship integrated flight tests

Also known as: Starship orbital flight tests
Ship 24 and Booster 7, launching as part of IFT-1 (aka OFT-1)
Program overview
Country	United States
Organization	SpaceX
Purpose	Orbital/Suborbital flight beyond Karman Line, test of Starship components at orbital altitude, reentry testing, Starship/Superheavy recovery testing, test of Super Heavy booster components, among others
Status	Ongoing
Program history
Duration	2023-present
First flight	IFT-1 (S24/B7) April 20, 2023 (2023-04-20)
Successes	0
Failures	2
Partial failures	1
Launch site(s)	SpaceX Starbase
Vehicle information
Uncrewed vehicle(s)	SpaceX Starship
Launch vehicle(s)	SpaceX Super Heavy

187.46.129.213 (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Request denied for several reasons.

1: Multiple infoboxs do not improve the article

2: The article is focused on the combined vehicle, and not just upper stage landing tests.

3: The Integrated Flight Test infobox you created is misleading: the current consensus is to have IFT-3 be recorded as a success, given that the launch was exactly that

4: Every suborbital flight test launch was a success: the landings were not for 3 flights, with a fourth ending in an explosion after landing. Redacted II (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

"The article is focused on the combined vehicle"

Are you sure? Because the suborbital tests have their own subsection, and Starship is (kinda) the main focus here, given that Super Heavy has its own section, and its own article. (Starship has two articles, i know, but the flight tests are described here.)

"The [IFT] infobox you created is misleading: the current consensus is to have IFT-3 be recorded as success, given that the launch was exactly that"

You're conflating launch outcome with mission outcome. These aren't rocket infoboxes, these are space program infoboxes, and these list mission success/failure, rather than launch success/failure. Look at the infoboxes for the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs.

"Every suborbital flight test launch was a success"

But not the flights themselves! The objective was to take off, fly for a bit, and then land. 3 flights failed to land. Again, we're tracking mission outcome here, not launch outcome.

"with a fourth [flight] ending in an explosion after landing"

That's why i listed it as a Partial Failure. The fact that it had a hard landing was kinda backing this decision. Feel free to correct me, though.

I will reopen the request, but not without making some adjustments first. I hope i have answered most of your criticisms, and given that you might be "obsessed" with Starship, i ask you not to decide the outcome of this edit request. (Though you can do what you want, i'm not your dad.)

Thanks, 187.46.129.213 (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

"Are you sure? Because the suborbital tests have their own subsection, and Starship is (kinda) the main focus here, given that Super Heavy has its own section, and its own article. (Starship has two articles, i know, but the flight tests are described here.)"

I'm 100% sure, as I make frequent edits to the articles that focus on the individual stages (SpaceX Starship (spacecraft) and SpaceX Super Heavy).

Also, the flight tests have their own article, and there is a push to reduce the amount they are described here. So, saying that the flight test description belong on this article is incorrect.

"You're conflating launch outcome with mission outcome. These aren't rocket infoboxes, these are space program infoboxes, and these list mission success/failure, rather than launch success/failure. Look at the infoboxes for the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs."

Including the infoboxs presents (technically correct) information that, to an uninformed reader (and several informed reader), will counter the consensus above, leading to belief in a false statement.

"That's why i listed it as a Partial Failure. The fact that it had a hard landing was kinda backing this decision. Feel free to correct me, though."

The failed booster landing doesn't impact mission (look at Falcon 9 for precedent), nor does Starship's failed entry. The only possible cause for partial failure is the aborted in-space relight.

"I will reopen the request, but not without making some adjustments first. I hope i have answered most of your criticisms,"

Not really. I'll reclose the request

"and given that you might be "obsessed" with Starship, i ask you not to decide the outcome of this edit request. (Though you can do what you want, i'm not your dad.)"

That infobox is on my user page for humor only. Redacted II (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have opened another edit request at the flight test page, with adjustments.

Thanks, 187.46.129.213 (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox needs

Payload capacities to various orbits besides LEO, trans lunar injection, mars etc 73.210.30.217 (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

AFAIK, that information doesn't exist.

But if you have a modern, reliable source (for example, the Starship Payload User's guide is reliable, but wildly out of date), please share it! Redacted II (talk) 12:34, 28 May 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)

Rename chapter History to Development?

The 5th flight is not history, it is future. Rename chapter Rename chapter History to Development? Uwappa (talk) 09:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Fine for me. 🤷‍♂️ Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Done (Sorry for the typo)

Redacted II (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me? What do you mean with this? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I've done it Redacted II (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Great, thank you!

I am curious too. So please tell me. What does "ne!o" stand for? Uwappa (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Typo. Not using my regular keyboard, so it happens Redacted II (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Ha ha ha, so that should have been: "done!"?

In that case: Thank you, well ne!o Uwappa (talk) 16:12, 6 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)