Talk:SpaceX Starship/Archive 14

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

This edit request to SpaceX Starship has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

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)

There is precedent for different versions of a launch vehicle to have dedicated articles. For example, Falcon 9's versions are:

Falcon 9 v1.0

Falcon 9 v1.1

Falcon 9 Full Thrust

Falcon 9 Block 5

Therefore, Starship 1 should have a dedicated article, followed by an article for Starship 2 (and maybe Starship 3). Redacted II (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a good example. In retrospect, I'm not convinced that individual articles for each Falcon 9 variant was the best approach. These are not total redesigns like say Ariane 5 vs Ariane 6.

A single, comprehensive article covering all Falcon 9 variants would have provide a more cohesive understanding of the rocket's evolution.

The problem is that well meaning editors created the Falcon 9 v1.0, Falcon 9 v1.1, and Falcon 9 Full Thrust articles amid the excitement when they were the new shiny rockets. But as the rockets matured, the pages languished. Note that a Falcon 9 Block 4 article was never made and the quality of the article for the Falcon 9 Block 5 (arguably the most important variant of the class) is lower than the others.

The other issue I foresee is that unlike the early days Falcon 9 program, which was largely in support of the COTS and CRS programs, which meant NASA published a lot of public documentation... that does not exist to the same level for Starship, which will make it even more challenging to create standalone pages for its variants.

By focusing on a smaller number of well-written, in-depth articles, we can allocate our editorial resources more effectively and ensure a higher overall quality of content. Also, remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or a crystal ball, which means that our content should be weighted towards covering things that happened in the past, not things happening now or in the future (although those things do get covered). It's okay to wait, see how things play out in the arc of history and create pages accordingly. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

There were substantial redesigns between Falcon versions, and between Starship 1 and Starship 2.

V1.0 -> V1.10 is by far the most visually obvious: new aft design (May be present on Starship 2), stretched tanks (Present on Starship 2), uprated engines, and both landings legs + grid fins (Starship 2 has redesigned forward flaps).

V1.10 -> Full Thrust introduced super-cooled propellant, an upgraded structure (Present on Starship 2), stretched tanks, new interstage (According to SpaceX's renders, present on Starship 2), and additional upgrades to the engines.

Full Thrust -> Block 5 has more engine upgrades, upgraded heat shield (Present on Starship 2), new grid fins, and redesigned COPVs.

That alone makes the differences worthy of dedicated articles, according to precedent. But for further precedent, Atlas I and Atlas II. The differences were solely stretched tanks, upgraded engines (According to SpaceX's renders, present on Starship 2), and the option to have up to four Castor 4A SRBs.

There is substantial documentation of Starship 1 and Starship 2. Finding sources won't be a challenge.

The reason Block 4 doesn't have a dedicated article may be because it was a transition design between Block 3 and Block 5. This is why I'm not proposing an article for a Starship 2 ship on a Starship 1 booster (Currently planned for at least Flights 7 and 8, FAA documents indicates up to 20 more flights of Starship 1's booster).

(All the above information is taken from Wikipedia articles)

As for WP:Crystal Ball, Starship 2 is not a "future design". There is a fully stacked Starship 2 upper stage in Mega Bay 2 right now (Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuJYUqzKE5Q). Redacted II (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

My point is, those design changes can be covered on a single, comprehensive article. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

But historically, they have not. And it would be a massive strain on this article to feature all of Starship 1, Starship 2, and Starship 3 to a substantially greater extent than Falcon 9 does for V1.0, V1.10, ect, ect. Giving each version a dedicated article will enable us to, as you put it "allocate our editorial resources more effectively and ensure a higher overall quality of content". Redacted II (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreeing with RickyCourtney that no separate article needed, and with Falcon it would probably have been better to have a single article only. Vast majority of Wikipedia readers don’t differentiate between different Starship (or Falcon) models and would get confused what is the right article to search information. IlkkaP (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The already large strain on this article is already bad, but having to condense multiple starship variants into one article would be nothing short of disasterous for the article Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It is true that the article is quite long. However, Version section takes only a few paragraphs. I would remove charts from Launch history (summary level information of the launches in Infobox is more than enough, and if more information needed can visit the separate article). Potential missions and Potential use cases sections could be condensed, there is too much fluff there now. IlkkaP (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

That is a terrible indicator.

Falcon 9 V1.0 section:

"F9 v1.0 was an expendable launch vehicle developed from 2005 to 2010. It flew for the first time in 2010. V1.0 made five flights, after which it was retired. The first stage was powered by nine Merlin 1C engines arranged in a 3 × 3 grid. Each had a sea-level thrust of 556 kN (125,000 lb_f) for a total liftoff thrust of about 5,000 kN (1,100,000 lb_f). The second stage was powered by a single Merlin 1C engine modified for vacuum operation, with an expansion ratio of 117:1 and a nominal burn time of 345 seconds. Gaseous N₂ thrusters were used on the second-stage as a reaction control system (RCS).

Early attempts to add a lightweight thermal protection system to the booster stage and parachute recovery were not successful.

In 2011, SpaceX began a formal development program for a reusable Falcon 9, initially focusing on the first stage."

The Falcon 9 V1.0 article is 18399 bytes.

The draft I have for Starship 1 is (As of September 4, 11:09 EDT) over 3.5x as large. Redacted II (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

We are probably talking different topics. I am referring to this article and its sections, not Falcon 9 article. IlkkaP (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we are.

The Version section of this article is, as you said, a few paragraphs.

The section of the Falcon 9 article dedicated to V1.0 is a single paragraph.

The Falcon 9 V1.0 article is 18 kilobytes.

The Draft I have for Starship 1 is 64 kilobytes.

There is more than enough on Starship 1 to warrant its own article. Redacted II (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree, starship versions deserve their own article Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 10:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, the links to Starship 1, Starship 2, and Starship 3 under the Launch History, Vehicle variants section are broken. They are pointing to "Version_1", "Version_2", and "Version_3" rather than "Starship_1", "Starship_2", "Starship_3". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexden12 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The launch history is taken from List of SpaceX Starship Launches, which is not protected - but I fixed the links there, thanks. The different Falcon variants all delivered payloads to space and they have tons of known differences. For now we don't have an equivalent to that with Starship. v1 and v2 look like just steps in the development process, v1 is not expected to carry payloads to orbit at all. --mfb (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

V1 is the largest rocket ever flown, and it will be until Starship 2 flies. That makes it extremely notable. Redacted II (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Also the first rocket to attempt at a “catch” landing. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 10:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Rather than having different articles for Starship 1,2,3, because we have different Falcon articles, I think those Falcon articles should be merged. ++Lar: t/c 17:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Merging the articles was proposed and rejected here. But if you want, you can try to get them merged into the Falcon 9 article. Redacted II (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The "Whether to create standalone pages" section of the Wikipedia notability guideline may be useful to help guide the discussion here. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: This article can utilize the most up to date information we have, and older information can go into the block subsections. Having a lengthy description here is better than three stub articles. I'm quite concerned about duplication of information and information being neglected from all four articles. All evidence suggests differences (relevant to WP) between versions will be able to be summarized in a few paragraphs. Narnianknight (talk) 02:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree this is too soon. Let's see how things evolve. The differences at the moment are definitely minor. A real starship 1 doesn't even exist yet. This is still the development phase. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

This is the final form of Starship 1.

Ther will only be one more flight. Ever. After that, they'd have to ready S32, which is behind S33 in assembly (S33 has raceway, complete TPS, and aft flaps). Redacted II (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I notice that some of the content in the Description section is a duplication of the sub pages SpaceX Starship (spacecraft) and SpaceX Super Heavy.

I see two options here:

1. Write shorter high level paragraphs to describe each component and then link to the main article
2. Transclude the "Design" sections from the sub articles using the "Excerpt" template so that the content isn't duplicated and is easier to maintain.

Thoughts? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on #2 Redacted II (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I have already worked on shortening them, so i would say #1, but #2 sounds fine aswell Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 06:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with 1. Narnianknight (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Given the recent growth of the Super Heavy article, I no longer favor #2 and will support #1 as well. HLFan (talk) 08:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Is Starship HLS really derivative work? Its only a variant of Starship, after all. Redacted II (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Article needs version of Raptor engines added 184.88.18.214 (talk) 05:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by this? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

That info is on the Raptor article Redacted II (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

They're basically the same section.

Shouldn't they be merged? Redacted II (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I think they could very well be merged. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Done Redacted II (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

IFT-7 will be using a V1 booster and a V2 ship.

What are we going to be calling this config? V1? V2? V1.5? Redacted II (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I suppose we always explicitely say that this is a mixed configuration. I would not want to say V 1.5 as it could create a confusion about a not talked about, in-between version. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 06:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

What about in the infobox? Or the tables in Super Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle?

It will have to be in one of the categories Redacted II (talk) 13:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe a footnote in the infobox. I would like to hear the opinion of others though. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

If Block 1.5 is off the table, it'll have to be listed as Block 1 or a Block 2 (with a note listing that X flights were using a Block 2 ship and a Block 1 Booster) Redacted II (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good! Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

But which one is it going to be listed under?

Block 2 (New ship) or Block 1 (Same booster) Redacted II (talk) 14:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Imo, it should be block 1. Like sure the ship gets bigger and gets different flaps, but overall not so much change to call the whole stack block 2 Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 08:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The ship upgrades look more significant than booster changes. We could make a v1/v2 category in infoboxes, but long-term I don't think that matters. --mfb (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

While i agree, i dont think its enough to make us write v2/ block2 instead of just 1 with a footnote Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 12:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Atlas V gets separated by # of SRBs.

Changing pretty much the entire design of both stages is a much larger difference. Redacted II (talk) 12:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Most sources are saying that this is Block 2. Redacted II (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I dont agree with calling it Block 2. But if the sources say block 2 then i guess we do so too. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to SpaceX Starship has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In § Super Heavy booster, change the text

is composed of four general sections: the engines, the fuel tank, the oxygen tank, and the interstage.

to

is composed of four general sections: the engines, the oxygen tank, the fuel tank, and the interstage.

As explained in the "Tanks" subsection, the LOX tank is immediately above the engines, so this puts the parts in the right order. 97.102.205.224 (talk)

The section you are requesting be changed is transcluded from Super Heavy.

So the edit requested has been completed there. Redacted II (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Infobox says ift6 is block 1, i thought we agreed to call it block 2? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 08:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

IFT-6 is Block 1.

IFT-7+ are Block 2 (until Block 3, if that ever happens) Redacted II (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry,my bad! Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

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 (now archived) comment (formerly) above. Quoted here: Success or Inapplicable. Given that the whole purpose of the launch/flight/mission was to find potential points of failure in the vehicle/system any outcome that doesn't cause collateral damage is either a successful search for failures or not quantifiable as a success or failure. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC) 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)

Oppose your opposition. SpaceX does just the necessary to get FAA approval, and their prototypes are guaranteed to fail, and sometimes get intentionally destroyed. So, SpaceX instead of taking their time to make a good prototype, they launch an uncompleted prototype. And I disagree of test flights being in the safety record of rockets. 2800:E2:4A80:DCB:3D98:4ABE:5591:3E06 (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose your opposition. SpaceX is using a rapid development approach, and has very little expectations for these launches. Their primary goal is to get flight data, not to send a payload, which they succeeded in. 136.169.243.150 (talk) 18:32, 26 November 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)

Strongly oppose this opposition. O.

ther companies take an approach of taking their time, and avoid explosions, but Spasometimes intentionally blows up prototypes to ensure success as fast as possible.ceX , Yukielgato (talk) 18:15, 2 November 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)

Strongly support. Every time there’s an IFT an edit war starts and this can finalize that problem by acknowledging that these are tests. CaptHorizon (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Strongly support, why you would dirt a safety record with test launches? After all Starship is under development. Yukielgato (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It would be better to include them, and label them as developmental launches.

Such as Failures 2 Block1: 2.

This should be done the moment S33 flies. Redacted II (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

by Thistheyear2023. Where is the sense of protecting an article when users may put every unsourced nonsense in thile IPs can't even put an "citation needed" flag up? Same nonsense was in Flight Test 7 article where @RickyCourtney removed it; please do so here. 47.64.128.79 (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Article was protected due to heated dispute regarding IFT success v.s failure status.

There was a lot of edit warring, so the page was protected.

However, I am not sure why that was included.

@Thistheyear2023 do you have a source regarding Starship being cleared to begin deploying payloads? Redacted II (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes from this article: https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/11/the-key-moment-came-38-minutes-after-starship-roared-off-the-launch-pad/

” That's when Starship reignited one of its six Raptor engines for a brief burn to make a slight adjustment to its flight path. The burn lasted only a few seconds, and the impulse was small—just a 48 mph (77 km/hour) change in velocity, or delta-V—but it demonstrated that the ship can safely deorbit itself on future missions.

With this achievement, Starship will likely soon be cleared to travel into orbit around Earth and deploy Starlink Internet satellites or conduct in-space refueling experiments, two of the near-term objectives on SpaceX's Starship development roadmap.“ Thistheyear2023 (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Will likely soon be cleared ≠ was cleared. RickyCourtney (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree, this doesnt mean a anything Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Wonder why all the Starship articles became playgrounds for people who watch and read lots of videos and websites, but then seem to understand not properly and put halfbaked info as facts into articles that even the source rates as mere guessing... 47.69.168.221 (talk) 08:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Probably because Starship has garnered the attention of more youngsters,who will then watch clickbait videos not knowing the Info isnt correct. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Fehér Zsigmond-03 That's what I think, too. Even worse, all the Original Research coming from false/doubtful interpretation of some vague facts. Lots and lots of them lately. Most recent example is the ongoing discussion in several places whether a flight was actually orbital. They look up some raw flight data from an unsources third party private website (wp:rs non-reliable sources), compare with the one definition of "orbit" (out of many = cherrypicking) they like best, and then insist that this flight therefore (wp:or) was orbital or suborbital and to put that as fact into the article. Why can't anyone stick to the official statements or wait for them to come up? Might it be mere satisfaction for a know-it-all to be the first to have discovered a tiny new fact? Serious work on an encyclopedia should work differently... 47.69.168.221 (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I belive in the past there were arguments here about the flights being trans-atmospheric or suborbital too. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of a complete removal, it should be changed to "Potentially enabling Starship to begin orbital flights", which is backed by a source. Redacted II (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It would be fine to be put it somewhere on the page but it’s not notable enough for inclusion in the intro to this page. RickyCourtney (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed.

Maybe in the IFT-6 mini-section? Redacted II (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Speculation by some third party about what might happen in the future should not be part of the main area of an article in principle. In an article about a movie, it would belong in the "reception" section. No such thing is in any rocket related article. So kindly wait until FAA really clears sat deliverance and not jonjecture around. Does not help the article at all, only flatters some ego. 47.69.168.221 (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

While you do not bother to reply to valid arguments, maybe because you have nothing to contribute, you instead chose to tamper with other peoples comments.

Note: It is extremely rude and uncooperative to change someone else's edit.

Be reminded of Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines:

• Comment on content, not on the contributor [not even in the edit summary!]
• Behavior that is unacceptable: Generally, do not alter others' comments

WP:TPO - Exception: Sockpuppets. Any proof?? Or another falce accusation? 80.187.75.118 (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Removing WP:PA.

"Flatters some ego" is a clear WP:PA violation

(Also, you've misused the Trout on my talk page) Redacted II (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

It is unnecessary to state the reasons in a long text. Everyone is a witness to what is happening. There is hardly any other rocket and space system, or an entire space program, with such a dedicated space for information (in the English version). There is hardly any subtopic for every bolt, nut and tube and when these fasteners flew. If my way of describing entertains you, you can always use an appropriate emoticon. But I cry, my eyes water when I have to read everything, which takes a long time. ГеоргиУики (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? Redacted II (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not hiring as I would have to write an entire scientific paper for the purpose. But what I mean is so obvious, why do you want a justification? ГеоргиУики (talk) 07:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, I can give something as an idea. I think a single template representing a table of all SpaceX Starship launches is sufficient, instead of whole article for each. There is currently a separate article for each integrated test flight(IFT). ГеоргиУики (talk) 07:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The List of Starship launches article is already quite large. And will only grow larger (just look at the List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches article as an example).

Having a template instead makes no sense.

(Also, saying you don't need a justification for your complaints severely reduces the validity of your argument) Redacted II (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

That's the problem. I see no reason to describe in detail every event related to SpaceX Starship(and falcon 9 too). That was also the reason I ironically blurted out that there is hardly a record here of everything that happens with bolts, nuts and pipes. This looked like, not an article on Wikipedia, but a detailed chronicle, the way the king's retinue of courtiers create thick biographical volumes for his majesty with descriptions of everything he has done, almost the exact time and date of every time he visited the toilet and what he "produced" in it. ГеоргиУики (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

There is an extremely large precedent to list every launch. Redacted II (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Ha, it seems to be more common than I thought. Do you think it is of any use? ГеоргиУики (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, sice spacex change smth for every launch, there is always smth new to include,wich is enough to write an article about Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 11:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

By the way, as I saw in the examples you mentioned, there is no separate article for each test flight, in the way that there is an article for SS IFT1; SS IFT2 and so on. ГеоргиУики (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Not all flights require an article. But the intial flight tests of a fully reusable Super heavy-lift launch vehicle are incredibly notable. I'm expecting each flight to get an article until either payload deployment begins or reflight of both stages. But IDK. Redacted II (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I can actually see most Starship launches after the first reflight of both stages not getting an individual article.

Starlink or Starshield missions would only appear on "List of launches" type articles.

The Starship Arthemis missions likely would include all tanker launches and the launch containing the lander in a table on a single article.

Early Mars missions could have a table similar to the one for the Starship Arthemis missions. AmigaClone (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll comment here only on the narrow part of the discussion dealing with articles on each launch. Today, each Starship test flight is so different, and each is so widely covered in both U.S. and international secondary-source media, that of course each flight will, and should, have its own article. This has been the norm for launch coverage on Wikipedia for 2+ decades. When that ceases to be the case for Starship, as someday it likely will if a high-launch rate is achieved, there will no longer be a justification for one-article-per-launch. When that day arrives, some editor will likely create that article for the nth Starship launch, and that article will then, at that time, get AfD'd, and ultimately, not survive the AfD. That day is not now. N2e (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

There has been no specific PROPOSAL made, so the above discussion is necessarily vague and not straightforward to discern consensus. If someone has a specific proposal to make, go for it. N2e (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I have a few different proposals.

Proposal 1.

Wait until each flight stops significant coverage (From CNN, NPR, NSF, ect, ect). This may take awhile, but it obeys notability rules. If a flight gets massive coverage (for any reason), add an article.

Proposal 2.

Wait until successful reflight with recovery. Its likely that every single flight until this point (and likely a few after) will be test flights with significant media coverage.

Proposal 3.

Wait until each flight stops significant coverage (From CNN, NPR, NSF, ect, ect) and reflight (with recovery being successful, meaning both stages are not obviously incapable of reflight). This will take longer, but it obeys notability rules. If a flight gets massive coverage (for any reason), add an article.

Proposal 4.

Wait until Starship begins deploying payloads (and no, the banana does not count).

Proposal 5.

Wait until Starship is flying twice a month consistenly (this is more than Arianespace + ULA combined have ever achieved in a single year).

Personally, I favor Proposals 3 and 4. I also think we should begin making an article for the starship prop transfer demo launches, as it has already received significant coverage. Redacted II (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with a combination of Proposals 3 and 4. I also think we should begin making an article for the starship prop transfer demo launches, possibly along the lines of Falcon 9 first-stage landing tests.

Some notes:

• One of the first payloads to be deployed will likely be the Starship version of Starlink. That payload would likely only need an edit to the header of List of Starlink and Starshield launches and adding couple of lines in the table describing the launches.

• The Starship missions to the moon could be in the form of one article containing a short table with all the tanker, HLS, and other launches needed for that mission.

• Initial Starship missions to Mars could be in the form of one article containing a short table with all the tanker, HLS, and other launches needed for a mission. AmigaClone (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on all of your points.

I already have a draft of the Prop Transfer Demo Article in my sandbox (I'll upgrade it to an official draft sometime soon), though its closer to the current flight test articles than the F9 landing test article. Redacted II (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

About proposal 5. For next year FAA decided to give 15 starts to SpaceX Starship. Maybe from 2026 number of starts will be enough to average of 2 or more per month? ГеоргиУики (talk) 06:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Source?

Last I heard they only had permission for 5/year (but are aiming for 25 in 2025). Redacted II (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Ups, yes my bad memory. Up to 25 and for 2025 and still not permitted. ГеоргиУики (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The "Potential Missions" section is... unique to this article, and doesn't really add much. Shouldn't it be removed? Redacted II (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I would say there is a better case for the "Potential Missions" section be divided into three:

• NASA/DoD Missions (containing Arthemis and "Rocket Cargo") - basically those missions where there is a signed contract.

• SpaceX Missions (Containing Starlink, Mars Colonization, Point to Point)

• Potential Missions (The other missions) AmigaClone (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

That definitely works. But long term it doesn't make sense to list every single type of mission flown. Redacted II (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

HLS is a Starship second stage, so it feels like a stretch to call it a "derivative". Redacted II (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The best solution is to come up with a special name for the complete system of ship+booster, especially since the booster does not fly "to the stars" instead of having to explain the articles about the ship and the complete rocket in brackets. ГеоргиУики (talk) 09:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

That is a violation of WP:OR Redacted II (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't want you to come up with a name. Why don't you just interview Elon Musk about the questions you haven't yet clarified? ГеоргиУики (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I cannot interview Elon Musk. Sorry to disappoint. Redacted II (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I personally would compare the Starship second stage to an aircraft. A particular aircraft type, say a Boeing 747, can have several different models (B747-100, B747SP B747-200, B747-300, B747-400, B747-8). The equivalent for Starship would be the Blocks (Block 1, Block 2, Block 3).

Within a particular model number, there might be cargo, passengers, or military versions. I would not call those different versions "derivatives" but use the term versions. AmigaClone (talk) 07:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I concur. I think these (Pez, Depot, Tanker, HLS, general cargo) are variants, not derivatives. They did not evolve from "the" existing Starship, so not derivative. They each (more or less) equally began development from the generic design. Block 2 and Block 3 are derivatives, but by convention we don't put them in the list of derivatives because they are described in this same article. -Arch dude (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Fully agree Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Flights up until now has been with Block 1 of both Ship and Booster. Flight 7 and presumably some flights after that will be performed with a Block 1 Booster and Block 2 Ship. How should this mixture of block numbers be categorized when referring to the combined system?

Should it just depend on the block number of the ship and flight 7 should be regarded as a block 2 system? Essentially ignoring the booster but keeping it simple.

Or should the launches with block 1 boosters and block 2 ships be categorized as its own thing, e.g. as Starship block 1.5 or something like that to indicate its difference from the pure block 2 system. Lomicto (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

We should follow what reliable sources classify them as. If RS don't definitively state which block a given launch belongs to, we should be silent about the block classification as well, or use "not applicable" or something like that. Indefatigable (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Instead of “not applicable” we should say mixed, to avoid confusion. Thats my preference though Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

For me it will be interesting whether there will be a final version of the rocket. Don't forget the slogan that Redacted II promoted in a one of previous discussion, that everything Starship that is not final is just test versions. They can remain in one article with all the other test versions, starting with the Starhopper. ГеоргиУики (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Sources have already called it Block 2.

Personally, I like Block 1.5, but a grand total of 0 sources have called it that.

(This has been discussed earlier) Redacted II (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we should see what RS (or SpaceX itself) calls the combination of a booster of a certain block and a ship of another one.

My preference would be something more along the lines of Block 1-2. The first digit indicating that the booster in that example is block 1 and the second digit indicating the ship is block 2. That is closer to what other US launch vehicles have used like the Atlas V, Delta, and Antares. Here it might be best to just state the launch used a Block 1 Super Heavy and a Block 2 Ship. Later there will also be the need to distinguish between the Ship variants in addition it's block

AmigaClone (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Something similar is used on List of Starship Launches Redacted II (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

On a more practical note: on the template I am working on (I just took a break from Wikipedia due to irl stuff), Block 1 and 2 Starship and Super Heavy are classified separately (duh). However, the params for block 1 launches and block 2 launches don't take into consideration whether the ship's block is different from the booster. So this begs the question of whether flight 7 (and so on) would be classified as block 1 launches or block 2 launches (because different blocks for ship and booster).

I suppose that I could just wait until we get closer to January 10 and see what the news says, but I'm concerned if the situation turns out to be around a 50/50 split of "it's block 1" and "it's block 2". Stoplookin9 Hey there! Send me a message! 23:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Flight 7 is Block 2.

(Sources like NASASpaceflight say Block/Version 2, I doubt CNN/NBC/ect ect will pick up on the difference) Redacted II (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Next Spaceflight (by NASASpaceflight) classifies Flight 7 as Block 1/2. I think it is misleading to call it simply Block 2. In my opinion, we should use Block 1/2 and include a note next to it: "Block 1 booster + Block 2 ship." Max1298 (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

That is one source calling it Block 1/2, with the owner of said source (NSF) calling it Block 2, as well as every other source that cares about the difference Redacted II (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry for bringing a similar topic again, after I was proven wrong the last time: But all sources for the 50-100t payload for Block 1 boil down to a comment of Elon Musk that they are "aiming for" "flight three would be around 40 or 50 tons". This sounds much more like an unscientific estimate than a proper source. Especially since neither his slides nor the real flight reflected such capabilities.

Instead flight test six featured less payload in an orbit below LEO. And while this was maybe on purpose, even flight test 7 with the much more capable Starship Block 2 wasn't able to put (or just didn't try) 20t of payload to a orbit that would be usable for Starlink. While I don't find sources that do not use "assume" or "suspect" most speculations are more in the direction that neither Booster 1 alone nor Starship 1/2 are capable (or only barely capable) to make it to LEO without payload. And that Super Heavy Block 2 is a full requirement for noticeable payloads.

Is there any one with proper sources for the opposite? Otherwise I would like to remove the payload for Block 1. As it was done on the slides in the sources behind that said payload. --Fabiwanne (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I think we can keep it as theoretical number Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Block 1 never flew a payload, unless your counting Flight 6s banana.

Also, on every flight so far, the vehicles have been both underfueled AND left with excess propellant.

But thats irrelevant: the sources indicate ~50-100 tons for Block 1, 100-150 tons for Block 2, and 200+ tons for Block 3. So thats what will be listed. Redacted II (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Just wanted to add this; if Block I never flew a payload and won't be flying again, are payload estimates for it meaningful? Chuckstablers (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, if only as context for Block 2 Redacted II (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

We know 1000m²from infobox which is on the top of article but this is impossible to be real volume for all blocks and roles for the ship. It is so...commercial rounded. What is not 800m², 966.3m² or 1044.27m²? How much is real numbers of volume? Of useful volume.

• Different kind of cargo and humans is impossible to use same volume because of their own characteristics.

ГеоргиУики (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Good luck finding exacts.

We aren't SpaceX.

We. Don't. Know. Redacted II (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Elon Musk has just stated that the payload capacity of V3 Starship is 100 tons to LEO. How long will Wikipedia continue to have these outdated estimates of 100 tons with V1 and 200 tons with V3? Agile Jello (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@Agile Jello: It will be updated when some interested Wikipedia editor chooses to do so. All editors have the same rights and responsibilities. You are a Wikipedia editor. Why have you not updated the article yet? -Arch dude (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Because the last time I tried to update Starship's payload capacity, I got reverted. Agile Jello (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

You were reverted (almost a year ago) because a more reliable source disagreed with the 40-50 ton #. Redacted II (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Starship's iterative design means the best sources are often not the most "reliable", but the most recent ones. I am sure there are a lot of very old and very reliable sources that give a payload estimate of 150 or even 200 tons for Starship, but these sources do not reflect the current state of the program. The most recent sources are the best sources simply because the most recent Starship design is vastly different from the design years ago. Agile Jello (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:RS disagrees Redacted II (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

So you prefer to have false information on the article just because it came from a reliable source that is outdated. Do you think Elon Musk is lying when he says V3 will have a payload capacity of 100 tons? Even if he is lying, he would be overestimating the payload capacity, not underestimating it, which makes the current value in the article even more wrong. The impression I have is that articles about Starship are controlled by a bunch of SpaceX enthusiasts (which your user page self admits you are) that don't accept anything that might be seen as diminishing the importance of Starship. If Elon had given an increased V3 payload capacity I'm sure you all would be very eager to put it in this article. Agile Jello (talk) 07:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

It's also interesting that the current payload capacity for V3 of 200 tons listed in the article came from the same presentation where Elon Musk stated that V1 has a payload capacity of 40-50 tons. However editors refuse to include the 40 ton number, including only the 50 tons number while also accepting an upper range value of 100 tons, which anyone that follows Starship's development knows is completely false. Even the 40-50 tons number is probably somewhat optimistic considering that number refers to flight 3 (later flights were likely heavier) and SpaceX only started flying simulated payloads on Starship's V2. Meanwhile the 200 tons number for V3 from the same presentation is proudly displayed in the article. My suggestion is to only include in the infobox the latest V3 estimate of 100 tons, and nothing else. All other values are outdated and don't reflect the current state of the program. Agile Jello (talk) 07:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Vehement Oppose. Aside from the allegations, your arguments ignore WP:RS and contain original research. Redacted II (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Since you like to cite Wikipedia guidelines, I want to cite WP:AGE MATTERS. "Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light" Agile Jello (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

It should be noted that the Block 3 specifications have changed.

(Lasts specificatons had it 15 meters shorter than it was last year). Redacted II (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Recently, @Redacted II asked for the separation of block 1 and block 2 data in the template. I have made some (quite dramatic) changes and improvements to the template:

• Data is now separated into block 1 and block 2
• Starbase now has 2 pads, and added recovery counts, as the old version was made around flight 3
• Removed expended counts as that is redundant (expended = total - recovered)
• All the old parameters have been replaced with new parameters, which means we will have to go through every single article that uses this and change the parameter calls.

The added benefit of all of this hassle is that the charts used in List_of_Starship_Launches#Launch statistics could probably use this template now.

The proposed template can be found here. Please provide feedback, thanks! Stoplookin9 Hey there! Send me a message! 01:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Another thing: if there are any Wikipedia template conventions I'm violating (like last time, when I forgot to use {{FULLPAGENAME}}, let me know immediately so I don't get this. Stoplookin9 Hey there! Send me a message! 01:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you forgot to list the parameters Redacted II (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Expended counts actually would be (expended = total-recovered-lost).

I would suggest having a way to keep track of the number of boosters in a certain block from the ships. As is, FT-7 would break the template since it uses a block 1 booster and a block 2 ship. It also would be possible for a booster to be lost while the ship is recovered or the other way around.

So far we would have the following data for orbital launches (IFT1, IFT2, FT3, and FT6):

StarshipShip1Launch: 4 <-- presuming IFT1 and IFT2 were intended to be transatmospheric -->

StarshipShip1Lost: 3

StarshipShip1Expended: 1

StarshipShip1Recovered: 0

StarshipBooster1Launch: 4

StarshipBooster1Lost: 4

StarshipBooster1Expended: 0

StarshipBooster1Recovered: 0 AmigaClone (talk) 03:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Suborbital flights should be included as well.

(Also, it was discussed earlier, and I believe general consensus is to list the highest version# as the vehicle version. So IFT-7, IFT-8, and at least IFT-9 will be Block 2)

StarshipShip1Launch: 6

StarshipShip1Lost: 3

StarshipShip1Expended: 3

StarshipShip1Recovered: 0

StarshipBooster1Launch: 6

StarshipBooster1Lost: 3

StarshipBooster1Expended: 2

StarshipBooster1Recovered: 1 Redacted II (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a second reason to keep track of the boosters and ships separately. Especially at the experimental stage there will be different results for the booster and ship. For example, in FT-6 the booster was lost while the ship was expended. AmigaClone (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Yup Redacted II (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I appear to have suffered a severe case of iforgottocopytheactualnewtemplatefromnotepadtowikipediaitis.

Anyways

I'm going to add the above in. Stoplookin9 Hey there! Send me a message! 14:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I tried to add the template to Super heavy-lift launch vehicle, but it just added this: Template:Stoplookin9/SpaceX Starship Statistics. Redacted II (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

You should be adding {{Template:SpaceX_Starship_Statistics}} instead. The template in my user space is just a sandbox, once I get all the problems ironed out, I will move that over to the main template Stoplookin9 Hey there! Send me a message! 16:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Redacted II (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Guys, do not use template params to define other params in the same template, it breaks everything

Basically template|a = template|b + template|c will break. Use template|a = template/subpage|b + template/subpage|c

Anyways, I rolled out the new changes, and then realized that because everyone acts conservative with the template I didn't actually have to change the template calls in the actual articles Stoplookin9 Hey there! Send me a message! 01:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Please add a source to launch costs that references where the number came from or how it was at least speculated. The current article referenced cites no source or calculation as to how they came to the 100 million dollar number. I have yet to find a definitive answer for what a starship launch costs. Jvyko (talk) 07:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. Please.

The launch costs have a source, so I'm not even sure what your asking for. Redacted II (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

They do have a source but the source states:

Cost to launch (internal): Payload estimates Starship will cost ~$100M to build and expend in a forward-looking/post-R&D model. Full reusability will significantly lower future launch costs. (Italics mine)

With Payload being the name of the website and 'Payload' does not provide any explanation of how they arrived at their 100 million dollars estimate. I think a source that provides the math/data backing up its estimate is what Jvyko wants. However, I don't think such a source exists/is available yet. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I know they've gone into some detail, but I can't find it.

Still, the source is very valid, if out of date (since they aren't expending Super Heavy anymore) Redacted II (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, wasn't necessarily saying there was anything we could or should do about it at present. Just trying to interpret the edit request, I semi-compulsively re-explain other people's comments when I think they've been misunderstood/misinterpreted. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Will - means it is inevitable. Intended means it is not invetable. As the HLS is not yet built or tested the assertion that it will do anything in 2027 is erroneous. As Starships record is 8 launches with 4 fails - 50% success only, we need to be cautious of tempting fate. Birmingham1965 (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

The current plan is for HLS to land the Artemis III crew on the lunar surface.

The current wording suffices. Redacted II (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with wording it in a less definitive manner. Will is very definitive for something far in the future. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

How is 2027 far in the future? And in the likely event of additional delays, we can just update it. Redacted II (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Length of time into the future is irrelevant, I regret including "far". The relevant fact is that the event is in the future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Therefore, we don't speak about future events in definitive terms. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

A planned action for the future does not mean an action taken today, which means it is not a fact. The recording, in digital or analog form, and the publication of a plan may be a fact in itself, as a document of intent, recorded in some form, or spoken in a television interview, and that is all.

So it's really important, if we want to be objective, to write grammatically correct in the language we're publishing in and not to bring in unnecessary fanboy overconfidence. This "factologizing the future" is fiction. ГеоргиУики (talk) 05:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

"will" can be used if something is a fixed plan, see e.g. the 24 uses in 2032 Summer Olympics. I think the statement in the lead ("the Human Landing System variant will land astronauts on the Moon as part of the Artemis program, starting in 2027") can be improved, at least the date is highly uncertain. --mfb (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The article discusses the launch history of the Starship/Superheavy vehicle in great detail in two separate sections one after another (SpaceX Starship#Integrated flight tests (2023–)) and SpaceX Starship#Launch history. I believe the second section should be removed, as its copied directly from another article. Datuser01 (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

The first section should be simplified.

The second section should stay unchanged. Redacted II (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not a Starship logbook, we can do without going into such excruciating details. As such both sections need to go. Falcon 9 page links to the launch history page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Launch_history 2A02:A03F:622D:9800:5C3:FF61:398A:A9F1 (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

When that section was added, Falcon 9 had a similar excerpt. See for a diff from last year.

Also, that isn't excruciating detail. It's the bare essentials. Redacted II (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

A change for the better obviously.

Those details are better left for their respective launch test pages not for the general page

If you want to write a compodium about Starship please do but this is not the place for that 2A02:A03F:622D:9800:5C3:FF61:398A:A9F1 (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

(Did you ever read WP:NOT)?

Listing out Starship's history is very relevant to this article.

Obviously it won't go into detail on every single flight.

But the intial test flight should all be detailed. Redacted II (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:OWN

why should 10 tests be detailed on main? What's the rational? What's the upper limit? 15? 20? 25 tests? more? There must be less tedious ways to show that SpaceX is struggling with Starship. Since the first launch test in April 20 2023 Starship accumulated test failures at launch, before staging, at staging, after Staging, while coasting, attempting to deploy dummy payloads or even on the test pad. People skimming the page may be lured to believe it's going well and it's ready to land on Mars next year. The page does not reflect what's going on with Starship. It's not neutral. 2A02:A03F:622D:9800:5C3:FF61:398A:A9F1 (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Because so far, these tests are substantial milestones (except 8. That one can probably be removed).

1: First launch

2: First stage separation, also first launch to use hot staging and ETVC.

3: First launch to make it to the desired trajectory.

4: First landings of both stages (not included the suborbital hop tests, which were also important).

5: First catch, first on-target ship splashdown

6: Raptor relight (maybe this can also be removed? But the catch abort is important).

7: First reuse of raptor, debut of Block 2.

9: First reuse of Super Heavy, first Block 2 to get past SECO.

But going through your claim of "Starship accumulated test failures at launch, before staging, at staging, after Staging, while coasting, attempting to deploy dummy payloads or even on the test pad. "

"failures at launch": Correct, Flights 1, 2, 7, 8, 9. Unless you mean on liftoff, which is implied by the rest of your statements, in which case, FALSE.

"before staging" Correct, Flight 1

"at staging" FALSE. 0 launches have failed at staging.

"after Staging" Flights 2, 3 (booster), 7, 8

"while coasting" 3, 9

"attempting to deploy dummy payloads" 9

"even on the test pad" SN3, SN4, S36.

These aren't exactly unique to SpaceX. Ariane 6's first flight had a failure during the coast phase.

For example, IIRC, ULA lost a Centaur V during ground testing. The only reason the explosion wasn't as large as S36's is because Starship is larger.

And the H-3 rocket's first flight failed to ignite upon staging.

It's not going "well". But saying it's a failure is both premature and likely very incorrext. Redacted II (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Those are not substantial milestones most rockets go successfully through those points on their maiden flight.

And even if they were that doesn't justify to go in excruciating detail on the main page, keep the details for the launches page. And even the pages dedicated to each launch are of discutable interest and have to go according to WP:NOT that you keep hammering at me. Wikipedia isn't a Starship logbook. Those would be more at home on a wikia or a fandom wikipedia

You can't help but to write an exhaustive recap of Starship launches in the Talk page. The very thing we're complaining here. You can't have it both ways list Starship failures and then tell me I'm wrong when I say Starship accumulated test failures (at different phases of a launch). The amount of details is muddying the state of the program. 2A02:A03F:622D:9800:A0DF:23A7:6CC1:3F2 (talk) 06:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

It has some of the worst failure rates of any rocket since the 70s. It's can't reach LEO or deploy a payload.

It's critically important to present factual reality to people who are less educated on the subjects. Falcon 1 had failures for the first three launches, success on the fourth, and a commercial payload on the fifth. It's not neutral to discuss what starship is "going to" do when the reality is that it has had nothing but failures, in stark contrast to every other rocket design in the past 50 something years.

RedactedII, why are you so hardline about forcing this article to be an advert without being anywhere near neutral? Seriously, what is your motivation for this? 75.164.26.191 (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

"Nothing but failures" is quite false

You've demonstrated a complete disregard to NPOV. Redacted II (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Are we in agreement to keep launches details to the launches page? 2A02:A03F:622D:9800:A0DF:23A7:6CC1:3F2 (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

No Redacted II (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

this is the easiest fix for this page and the least controversial. It doesn't delete anything and doesn't change any meaning to let the details of the launches on the launches page. 2A02:A03F:622D:9800:A0DF:23A7:6CC1:3F2 (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Going through currently flying rockets:

Atlas V: Includes launches

Vulcan: Includes launches

New Glenn: Includes launches

H3: Includes launches

Falcon 9: Included launches up until April this year

Ariane 6: Includes launches

Electron: Inclues launches

Alpha: Includes launches

SLS: Includes launches

Soyuz 2: Includes launches

Angara: Includes launches

Proton-M: Does not include launches

Long March 2F: Includes launches

Long March 2D: Includes launches

Long March 2C: Partially includes launches

Long March 3C: Includes launches

Long March 4B: Includes launches

Long March 4C: Includes launches

Long March 5: Includes launches

Long March 6: Includes launches

Long March 7: Includes launches

Long March 8: Includes launches

I'll hope I don't have to continue

Why should Starship be any different? Redacted II (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Falcon 9 doesn't since April this year. None of those pages contains details of each launch twice. That's ridiculous. None of those pages have the equivalent of all launches narrated lengthily and then a second time in a table format 2A02:A03F:622D:9800:6CAC:AEA5:3232:C7B7 (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)