Talk:SpaceX Starship (spacecraft)

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)

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)