User talk:Redacted II/Archive 4

More information The Downlink ...

	The Downlink	The WikiProject Spaceflight Newsletter
		2025 1 — 30 April

Close

More information Volume 3 — Issue 4, Spaceflight articles by quality and importance ...

Volume 3 — Issue 4
Spaceflight Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Open tasks • Popular pages • The Downlink
In the News On 1 April, Fram2 became the first crewed mission to enter into a retrograde orbit around Earth's poles.
Article of the month Apollo Abort Guidance System The Apollo Abort Guidance System (AGS, also known as Abort Guidance Section) was a backup computer system providing an abort capability in the event of failure of the Lunar Module's primary guidance system (Apollo PGNCS) during descent, ascent or rendezvous. As an abort system, it did not support guidance for a lunar landing. The AGS was designed by TRW independently of the development of the Apollo Guidance Computer and PGNCS. It was the first navigation system to use a strapdown Inertial Measurement Unit rather than a gimbaled gyrostabilized IMU (as used by PGNCS). Although not as accurate as the gimbaled IMU, it provided satisfactory accuracy with the help of the optical telescope and rendezvous radar. It was also lighter and smaller in size.	Image of the month Falcon 9 Full Thrust Starting development in 2014, the Falcon 9 Full Thrust is a variant of the Falcon 9 that is the first orbital rocket to have a first stage successfully land vertically after launch. The stage shown here is from the April 2016 SpaceX CRS-8 mission, after landing on the autonomous spaceport drone ship Of Course I Still Love You.
Members New Members: Willbill6272 (14 April) Elleh3113 (16 April) Number of active members: 208. Total number of members: 433. April Launches All times stated here are in UTC. See a current list: here. Falcon 9 Block 5 — Fram2 (1 Apr. at 00:46 UTC) (success) Long March 2F/G — Shenzhou 20 (24 Apr. at 09:17 UTC) (success) Atlas V 551 — 27 KuiperSats (28 Apr. at 23:01) (success) Firefly Alpha — LM-400 Demo (29 Apr. at 13:37) (launch failure)	Article Statistics This data reflects values from 30 April 2025. Spaceflight articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 7 28 15 8 58 FL 3 4 4 11 FM 123 123 A 1 2 2 5 GA 11 27 33 55 1 127 B 15 84 200 221 1 521 C 45 162 581 774 31 1,593 Start 16 144 1,017 2,584 444 4,205 Stub 9 204 2,049 244 2,506 List 10 120 108 236 1 30 505 Category 1,264 1,264 Disambig 47 47 File 223 223 Portal 55 55 Project 109 109 Redirect 2 42 131 1,243 1,418 Template 528 528 NA 1 1 Other 29 29 Assessed 105 579 2,206 6,064 3,623 751 13,328 Unassessed 14 125 139 Total 105 579 2,206 6,078 3,623 876 13,467 Monthly Changes Since March 2025, four new high-importance, two new mid-importance, twenty new low-importance, and two new NA-importance articles have been created. Four unknown-importance articles have been removed, for a total of 24 new articles. One article has been promoted to Featured Article status. There are also five more B-class articles, eighteen more C-class articles, eleven more Start-class articles, six fewer Stub-class articles, and six more lists. Special thanks to Neopeius for significantly working on some of the Timeline of spaceflight articles (specifically 1953, 54, 55, and most recently 56). Thanks also to Sotakarhu for table work in the latter.
Discuss & propose changes to The Downlink at The Downlink talk page. To unsubscribe from the newsletter remove your name from the Mailing list. Newsletter contributors: Ships&Space

Close

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey Redacted, your repeated closure of discussions at Talk:Space sunshade#Second merge proposal are not appropriate. Have a look here for how discussions should be closed Wikipedia:Closing discussions. Please stop doing it or I will have to report you. Thanks! {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures Redacted II (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

(Also, your repeated unclosure is borderline edit warring) Redacted II (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Redacted you are pretty wrong on this.

1. I did not reopen the discussion. I wrote underneath it that it should be reopened and at least another user agrees.
2. the closing editor himself has acknowledged that he shouldn't have closed it as an involved editor ( @Chidgk1 do you agree?)
3. you are edit warring by inappropriately closing my discussion multiple times despite my message here

I will ask you to self revert your third inappropriate closure of my discussion or I will be forced to report you for disruptive editing. I hope you can stop this unnecessary behaviour and let the discussion play out as other editors have asked you to do. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

When did I close it after it?

If I accidentally did that as part of readding the auotarchive I'll go fix that. Redacted II (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Nowhere in my last edit to that page did I reclose that: for the diff.

I've only closed it twice: , , both of which were before you sent a message here. Redacted II (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry. You are right of course. I misread the diff of your revert. See you on the talk page! {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

More information The Downlink ...

	The Downlink	The WikiProject Spaceflight Newsletter
		2025 1 — 31 May

Close

More information Volume 3 — Issue 5, Spaceflight articles by quality and importance ...

Volume 3 — Issue 5
Spaceflight Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Open tasks • Popular pages • The Downlink
In the News On 6 May, Hakuto-R Mission 2 successfully entered lunar orbit. The Soviet probe Kosmos 482 crashed into the Indian Ocean after 53 years in orbit on 10 May. According to Roscosmos, this happened at 06:24 UTC.
Article of the month 2001 Mars Odyssey 2001 Mars Odyssey is a robotic spacecraft orbiting the planet Mars. The project was developed by NASA, and contracted out to Lockheed Martin, with an expected cost for the entire mission of US$297 million. Its mission is to use spectrometers and a thermal imager to detect evidence of past or present water and ice, as well as study the planet's geology and radiation environment. The data Odyssey obtains is intended to help answer the question of whether life once existed on Mars and create a risk-assessment of the radiation that future astronauts on Mars might experience. It also acts as a relay for communications between the Curiosity rover, and previously the Mars Exploration Rovers and Phoenix lander, to Earth. The mission was named as a tribute to Arthur C. Clarke, evoking the name of his and Stanley Kubrick's 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey. Odyssey was launched April 7, 2001, on a Delta II rocket from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, and reached Mars orbit on October 24, 2001, at 02:30 UTC (October 23, 19:30 PDT, 22:30 EDT). It was estimated to have enough propellant to function until the end of 2025, and as of April 2026, it is still collecting data. It currently holds the record for the longest-surviving continually active spacecraft in orbit around a planet other than Earth, ahead of the Pioneer Venus Orbiter (served 14 years) and the Mars Express (serving over 20 years), at 24 years, 5 months and 18 days. As of October 2019[update] it is in a polar orbit around Mars with a semi-major axis of about 3,800 km or 2,400 miles.	Image of the month International Space Station after LF1 Starting with Zarya in November 1998, the assembly of the International Space Station continued on a regular basis until the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, which resulted in a nearly three-year pause from November 2002 to July 2005. This image shows the ISS following the installation of the second External stowage platform. ESP-2 was launched on 26 July 2005 on board Discovery as part of STS-114.
Members New Members: Animalculum (1 May) Luckytent (21 May) Number of active members: 209. Total number of members: 434. May Launches All times stated here are in UTC. See a current list: here. Starship — 8 Starlink Simulators (27 May at 23:36:28 UTC) (partial failure) Long March 4B — Tianwen-2 (28 May at 04:00 UTC) (success)	Article Statistics This data reflects values from 30 May 2025. Spaceflight articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 7 28 15 8 58 FL 3 4 4 11 FM 123 123 A 1 2 2 5 GA 11 27 33 55 1 127 B 15 84 200 220 1 520 C 45 163 583 784 32 1,607 Start 16 143 1,017 2,591 444 4,211 Stub 9 205 2,043 245 2,502 List 10 120 108 236 1 33 508 Category 1,266 1,266 Disambig 46 46 File 223 223 Portal 55 55 Project 109 109 Redirect 2 42 132 1,244 1,420 Template 527 527 NA 1 1 Other 28 28 Assessed 105 579 2,209 6,075 3,623 756 13,347 Unassessed 12 123 135 Total 105 579 2,209 6,087 3,623 879 13,482 Monthly Changes Since April 2025, three new mid-importance, nine new low-importance, and three new unknown-importance articles have been created, for a total of 15 new articles. There is also one less B-class article, 14 more C-class articles, six more Start-class articles, four less Stub-class articles, and three more lists.
Discuss & propose changes to The Downlink at The Downlink talk page. To unsubscribe from the newsletter remove your name from the Mailing list. Newsletter contributors: Ships&Space

Close

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Why you do not accept that payload mass low earth orbit for Starship Block 3 expendable is 400 tons. The comparison is not fair, Starship has reusable payload and the other rockets have expendable payload 109.236.46.146 (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Your editing is disruptive.

Your failing to integrate the Block 3 expendable with the other Starship vehicles.

(Also, is expendable Starship even planned?) Redacted II (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Because I don't know how to integrate with other starship vehicles. About expendable Starship if it is planned, it doesn't matter because this is a comparison and to be fair you should compare it in same conditions because is misleading. There are included reusable rockets with expendable payload, so do the same even with Starship. 109.236.46.146 (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

If an expendable Starship isn't planned, then there is nothing to be gained from including it Redacted II (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

We don't know what happens in the future, important is to be a fair comparison and not misleading, some rockets are and some rockets are not. 109.236.46.146 (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

If an expendable version of Starship isn't planned, then it shouldn't be included. Redacted II (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

It is becoming more subjective, I don't like this methods you are the boss. We like or not, is planned or not, Starship can send in low earth orbit 400 tons. I am reading the same reply from you, and don't feel this as informative, it is more what information we like to show. I can suggest this is all I can do, if you don't like ok this is it I can not do anything only writting here. 109.236.46.146 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't really understand what your trying to say here Redacted II (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I think it is clear enough, Starship capability is 400 tons not 200 tons that is a fact. In this case you are not allowing to show this information. You are the boss in this case and I can't do anything to show the expendable payload mass for Starship to have a fair comparison. 109.236.46.146 (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Starship Block 3's payload capacity is 200 tons, not 400.

An expendable version (the one with 400 tons) is not planned. Thus, adding it makes no sense. Redacted II (talk) 03:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I understand your answer. But Saturn V is not reusable and makes no sense to compare with Starship reusable, we should compare with the same conditions. I feel like this comparison is not apples to apples but apples to oranges. Put the same conditions, like falcon heavy payload mass reusable and expendable. Long March 9 payload is expendable, why? While for Starship is reusable. Also we don't know if at the future won't have expendable Starship. 109.236.46.146 (talk) 06:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Expendable Starship is not planned.

Therefore listing it is a false comparison.

Comparing expendable Saturn V to reusable Starship is the only comparison that accurately shows the vehicle's performance. Redacted II (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

It is the opposite what shows the vehicle's performance. What if Saturn V would launch 250 tons hypothetically, would you say that is more capable than Starship ? Of course not because Starship performance is 400 tons. The amount of fuel, the total mass, the engine performance, the specific impulse, and the total delta v that Starship has make the performance of 400 tons. Thats why you should apply the same condition because is misleading. 109.236.46.146 (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Saturn V couldn't launch 250 tons LOL.

And if it could, then yeah, I'd say its more capable in a single launch. Redacted II (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Couldn't launch? I know what payload mass has Saturn V, It was said hypothetically. About " more capable " sorry but in fact doesn't make sense. What make sense would have been that Starship is more capable at a single launch. Doesn't matter if you stick in this opinion, it is not what we like, it is what is the fact. And the fact is that Starship would have been more capable at a single launch you like it or not, because if they want they can launch 400 tons at a single launch. 109.236.46.146 (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Starship isn't expendable.

It isn't planned to be expendable.

Listing its payload as an expendable makes 0 sense. Redacted II (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

It can be expendable if they want, no body can stop them. So listing the payload 400 ton makes sense in fact. 109.236.46.146 (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

IT ISN'T PLANNED TO BE EXPENDABLE.

What part of that do you not understand?

Starship is reusable. They are not planning on an expendable version, so listing one makes absoloutely no sense. Redacted II (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

You keep writting the same thing. Doesn't matter if you stick to this point. What makes sense is to compare the capabilities of the space rocket and for Starship is 200 ton reusable and 400 tons expendable so adding both of them to comparison is what it makes sense. Even in their website they MENTION and WRITE the EXPENDABLE payload mass. 109.236.46.146 (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

They even mention on their website expendable payload mass to low earth orbit. Including both makes sense 109.236.46.146 (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but they have said that they will never do an expendable Starship.

So it has a 200 ton capability...

Not 400. 200.

Which is still insane Redacted II (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't matter expendable capability should write even here like in their website. Planing or not planing they still include expendable payload mass in their website. And expendable payload mass is 400 tons. 109.236.46.146 (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

No.

Just stop.

Expendable capacity is irrelevant. Because it isn't a planned capability. Redacted II (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Starship is able to send 400 tons at low earth orbit. Expendable payload is shown on their website despite you call it irrelevant. So the same principle should apply even at this comparison, their true capability 109.236.46.146 (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

The payload capacity of Starship is 200 tons.

The payload capacity for an expendable version that won't happen is 400 tons.

Why list the version that we know isn't planned? Redacted II (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

For the same reason that it is shown on SpaceX website. Doing that it is informative, and a comparison that makes sense with other rockets that are not reusable. 109.236.46.146 (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Adding worthless information does not improve Wikipedia.

Why add data for something that doesn't exist, has never been planned to exist, and will never exist? Redacted II (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

It is the right information to show, like SpaceX does in their website that it is informative. What makes you think that Wikipedia is more special then SpaceX website for their rocket, in fact adding more information makes better Wikipedia than it is by making the right and true comparison. 109.236.46.146 (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The information does not improve the encyclopedia. Why add something about a version of the ship that isn't planned, and has never been planned? Redacted II (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The right information that makes sense, the true comparison like expended payload 400 tons improve wikipedia. It is not a version it is the true capability compared to other non reusable rockets 109.236.46.146 (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The capacity of Starship is 200 tons.

Not 400. 200.

Comparing other rockets to a version of Starship that does not and will not exist is nonsensical at best. Redacted II (talk) 02:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The capacity of starship is 400 tons and because of reusability goes 200. Comparing other rockets that are expendable with Starship expendable is what it makes sense. 109.236.46.146 (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Starship can lift 200 tons to orbit.

A hypothetical version that is explicitly not planned to happen can lift 400 tons.

Comparing the version that is planned for flight (Because right now they're on the 100 ton version, and I highly doubt it can send up that much, but that's going into WP:FORUM) makes way more sense than comparing something that WILL NOT HAPPEN.

EVER

Comparing the versions that fly is the ONLY logical form of comparison. Redacted II (talk) 04:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree with you, rocket comparison should be done on same conditions. That shows the true performance for each rocket. You can make a comparison for reusable and a comparison for expendable, one comparison for each of them and that is more fair. Also I checked in the morning and was blocked not able to edit or post a comment. Because I have a different opinion doesn't mean that you have the right to block me and not able to write coments. 109.236.46.146 (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The condition is: "What is planned/flown". An expendable Starship does not meet that criteria. So there is no reason to include it.

Also, I'm not an admin: I can't block IPs or editors.

Furtheremore, I checked your block log and your IP has a grand total of... 0 blocks. So it might have just been a bad connection. Redacted II (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. The condition to a fair comparison is reusable or expendable. Expendable payloads compare to each other and the same with reusable payloads. Show the true capacity for each of them. 109.236.46.146 (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

The true capacity of Starship is 200 tons (for Block 3).

It can lift "only" 200 tons to LEO (WHICH IS STILL INSANE).

400 tons is a hypothetical number for an expendable version that is explicity not planned to exist.

Why compare the Saturn V to something that there are no plans for? Redacted II (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Planned or not it is the true capacity, Elon Musk mentioned not forums that payload. Despite what happens in the future it is the true capacity for Starship, so adding both is the right comparison, so everyone can compare even expendable even reusable. 109.236.46.146 (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Elon Musk also said that they won't do an expendable Starship Redacted II (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned Elon Musk because you said hypothetically like it was a result from forums. About "they said that won't do expendable Starship", I have read this phrase in all your comments here. However it doesn't matter what is planned or not, the future we don't know what happens, important is to have a fair comparison expendable and reusable to see their true capacity. Sorry but I don't agree with you, I think that should include both of them. 109.236.46.146 (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

How is the lack of any plans for it irrelevant?

Its not planned to exist.

Its explicitly planned to not exist.

The only info on it is a number.

Including it only adds a false boost to Starships (already incrediable) payload capacity.

(This discussion should probably be on the Super Heavy Lift Launch vehicle talk page, and not here) Redacted II (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

It has the capacity to launch 400 tons that matters. If someone would calculate delta-v for expendable Starship would result in 400 tons based on the fuel mass, total mass, engine performance, specific impulse etc. To have a fair comparison make one for expendable payloads and one for reusable, planned or not planned it doesn't matter, important is to compare their true capacity. 109.236.46.146 (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Planned is the most important thing.

If its not planned, its nonsensical to include.

We don't include things like Sea Dragon in that table, and it was at least somewhat planned. Redacted II (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, this is extreme WP:OR, but my calculations gives Block 3 a payload of 170 tons reusable, 250 tons partially reusable, and "only" 300 tons expendable. Redacted II (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense in my opinion, because we are speaking for real rockets not on paper rockets. Starship it is real and it is expected to have a Block 3 in the future. What matters and makes sense it is to compare apples to apples, expendable with expendable, reusable to reusable, to show their true capacity. About the calculations ask SpaceX and Elon Musk why they say 200 tons reusable and 400 tons expendable. 109.236.46.146 (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Expendable Starship is a paper rocket.

Not only that, its a paper rocket that was discarded. Redacted II (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Starship rocket it is real that matters, expendable or reusable configuration shows the true capacity. I wrote you above that you should compare the performance and capability, apples to apples, expendable to expendable, reusable to reusable. 109.236.46.146 (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Starship is real.

And yeah, its performance should be compared to other rockets.

But a version that won't happen isn't Starship. Its a cancelled paper rocket.

Those don't go int the comparison table. Redacted II (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Starship has capabilities 200 tons and 400 tons, not versions. Versions are like Block 3 for example. And to be fair for the true performance should show both of them on the table when you compare with Capabilities of other rockets expendable and reusable. 109.236.46.146 (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

No, expendable is a version. Redacted II (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

While a version is contested, common practice is to revert to the original (the version without mention of expendable) until a consensus is formed.

So, please self-revert. Redacted II (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

While you can call it version or not the expendable, important is what capabilities Starship has for expendable and reusable mode compared to other rockets expendable and reusable respectively. So including both is the best thing, a fair and true comparison 109.236.46.146 (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Its not planned.

Thus, comparing a reusable Starship to expendable rockets is the only valid comparison. Redacted II (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

You said this so many times. But no I don't agree with you planned or not important is to show the capability for a fair comparison with other rockets, and for this the best is to include both expendable and reusable. 109.236.46.146 (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

A fair comparison is comparing what is actually going to fly. Redacted II (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

A fair comparison is to include both, comparing expendable to expendable and reusable to reusable for the true capacity. 109.236.46.146 (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

No.

A fair comparison is comparing the planned versions.

Adding expendable Starship makes less sense than adding Sea Dragon: at least Sea Dragon had development work. Redacted II (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes a fair comparison is including both for a fair comparison. While it is nonesense to mention a paper rocket compared to Starship a fully developed rocket that only one decision it needs to make it happen. 109.236.46.146 (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think you realize how different a expendable Starship would be.

Also, Starship is NOT fully developed Redacted II (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I think your comment makes nonsense, at least Starship is more developed than a paper rocket. I think also that an expendable Starship is not something imposible for SpaceX. 109.236.46.146 (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Its not impossible (never said it was).

But an expendable Starship is a paper rocket.

To give you an idea of what would have to be changed:

First, you'd have to remove the nosecone and payload bay assembly. This is already a substantial modification, but not impossible (SN1-SN6 lacked these parts, after all).

Then, you'll have to add on a completely new payload fairing. There is no sign that development was ever even considered for this.

Oh, and you'll have to design a separation mechanism for these fairings. Easier said than done.

Anyways, time for the tankage. All piping related to the header tanks must be removed, due to these having been removed (they are located in the tip of the nosecone). This is also a major redesign, but again, not impossible (they've significantly altered the design of that before).

With that out of the way, the chopstick lifting points, since those are present on the nosecone, will have to be grafted to the top of the methane tank. That won't be easy, and there isn't an alternative mode of stacking the vehicles.

The thermal protection system mounting points would all have to be removed. For making a new ship, this is easier done than said: it takes 0 effort to not add them.

Then we get to the flaps: the forward flaps are already gone (they are integrated with the nosecone), but the aft flaps will have to be removed. That substantially changes the structure of the aft bay and LOX tank. Ships have lacked, and even flown without flaps before, but not since SN6, and that was a 150 m hop.

In short: you basically end up redesigning the entire vehicle. Only the tankage, engines (maybe), and name would be unchanged. Redacted II (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes exactly it is not imposible, Starship might need modifications but it is developed more than enough to have the expendable system. To remind you, SpaceX (and everyone on the world, other companies) challenge is more to make a reusable rocket than expendable one. 109.236.46.146 (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I never said it was impossible. Far from it.

But it'd basically be a completely new rocket. There'd certainly be more differences between an expendable Block 2 (which will never happen, since AFAIK they've built the last of those) and a reusable Block 2 as there are between a reusable Block 2 and the last Block 1 (S31).

And those were quite a set of truly immense changes.

Thus, an expendable Starship is also a paper rocket.

And listing paper rockets in the comparison table makes no sense whatsoever. Redacted II (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. First you were saying it is not planned and now it is a paper rocket, while as I said the challenge to develope a rocket is more for the reusable than expendable. The main components are developed and it is a matter of configuration. SpaceX has developed already the main parts, the engine and also other materials for the manifacturing process. While the rocket you were saying was mainly draws and pictures with a tough challenge to make such a large single engine. 109.236.46.146 (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Why is it so important that a hypothetical Starship which is antithetical to Starship's whole reason for existing, be included in the Heavy-lift table? It would be like comparing reusable Falcon Heavy to a 'hypothetically developable' reusable Saturn V... Largely Legible Layman (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

They've continued to add it repeatedly.

Can you remove it (I'd do it myself, but I'd be more than approaching edit warring at this point)? Redacted II (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Will do! Just a sec'...Largely Legible Layman (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

You need to read the discusion first then ask. Doesn't matter if you don't like it is your choice, I made my choice and nobody can judge me for that. 109.236.46.146 (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, please self-revert Redacted II (talk) 04:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Why it is irrelevant, SpaceX shows on their website the expendable payload even if it is not planned. Why you don't show even here in this comparison the true capability 400 tons, like SpaceX does, because you are not the person who can judge SpaceX for their website and their rocket. 109.236.46.146 (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Also your comment was " Your failing to integrate the Block 3 expendable with the other Starship vehicles ". So if I integrate the Block 3 expendable with the others would you allow me to edit it ? 109.236.46.146 (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

References from astronautix show different values for payload mass for Comet HLLV. Do you have any reference for the values you made again. 109.236.46.146 (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

The values were modified for LEO and TLI respectively 254.4 t and 97.6 t based on resources. 109.236.46.146 (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

1: Don't delete the templates: just modify them.

2: If you are going to change the templates, add a source. Saying you have one isn't enough.

3: Do not revert the reversion of your bold edits. Discuss first.

4: Those values are supported by the source that was already present.

5: This belongs on the Super Heavy Lift Launch vehicle talk page. Do not continue to misuse my talk page. Redacted II (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes I will continue the conversation on Super Heavy Lift Launch. It is better to have a source ththan not at all, the link on Comet HLLV also support the values I modified. 109.236.46.146 (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

More information The Downlink ...

	The Downlink	The WikiProject Spaceflight Newsletter
		2025 1 — 30 June

Close

More information Volume 3 — Issue 6, Spaceflight articles by quality and importance ...

Volume 3 — Issue 6
Spaceflight Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Open tasks • Popular pages • The Downlink
In the News On 5 June, Hakuto-R Mission 2 crashed attempting to land in Mare Frigoris. The Parker Solar Probe achieved its 24th perihelion on 19 June.
Article of the month Gaganyaan-1 Gaganyaan-1 (from Sanskrit: gagana, "celestial" and yāna, "craft, vehicle") is the first planned uncrewed test flight of the Gaganyaan programme. ISRO has officially scheduled the mission for H2 2026. The spacecraft will carry Vyommitra, a half-humanoid robot, to simulate astronaut conditions and provide critical data on life-support and environmental systems. The mission will demonstrate the performance of the crew module and service module in low Earth orbit, serving as a precursor to future human spaceflight under the Indian Human Spaceflight Programme. The launch was originally scheduled for December 2020, then in December 2021, but it was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The flight plan was finally ready by April 2022 and the launch is expected to take place in early 2025, after the TV-D1, TV-D2, TV-D3 and TV-D4. It was proposed in April 2022 that the crew module should be depressurized, something kept in the final planning. The Gaganyaan spacecraft will be launched, with the humanoid robot Vyommitra, by a Human-rated LVM 3 from Satish Dhawan Space Centre and inserted into a 170 x 408 km orbit. The circularisation maneuver will be performed at the third orbit. The landing should follow the same pattern as the TV-D1. The mission will also validate the life-support system, crew escape mechanism, and re-entry technologies.	Image of the month Hybrid-Propellant Rocket Fuel Rocket engines typically use one of two types of propellant: Solid or liquid. Hybrid-propellant rockets use a combination of these two forms of fuel, and lack some of the disadvantages of both. Their specific impulse is usually between solid-propellant and liquid-propellant rockets. The image shown here is of a 3D-printed grain, designed for a small hybrid rocket engine which would be used to demonstrate rocket combustion. On the left are two helical fuel ports, on the right a de Laval nozzle.
Members New Members: SpaceNerd13 (2 June) Canadien1867 (2 June) Number of active members: 210. Total number of members: 436. June Launches All times stated here are in UTC. See a current list: here. Falcon 9 Block 5 — 26 Starlink (13 Jun. at 01:30) (success) Angara A5 — 2 Kosmos (19 Jun. at 03:00) (success) Falcon 9 Block 5 — Axiom Mission 4 (25 Jun. at 06:31) (success) H-IIA — GOSAT-GW (28 Jun. at 16:33:03) (success)	Article Statistics This data reflects values from 30 June 2025. Spaceflight articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 7 28 15 8 58 FL 3 4 4 11 FM 123 123 A 1 2 1 4 GA 11 27 33 56 1 128 B 15 84 200 223 4 526 C 45 164 586 788 37 1,620 Start 16 144 1,015 2,600 446 4,221 Stub 8 205 2,037 245 2,495 List 10 120 109 237 1 36 513 Category 1,268 1,268 Disambig 47 47 File 222 222 Portal 55 55 Project 109 109 Redirect 2 42 134 1,248 1,426 Template 527 527 NA 1 1 Other 26 26 Assessed 105 580 2,211 6,088 3,627 769 13,380 Unassessed 9 122 131 Total 105 580 2,211 6,097 3,627 891 13,511 Monthly Changes Since May 2025, one new high-importance, two new mid-importance, ten new low-importance, four new NA-importance, and twelve new unknown-importance articles have been created, for a total of 29 new articles. There is also one fewer A-class article, one more GA-class article, six more B-class articles, 13 more C-class articles, ten more Start-class articles, seven fewer Stub-class articles, and five more lists.
Discuss & propose changes to The Downlink at The Downlink talk page. To unsubscribe from the newsletter remove your name from the Mailing list. Newsletter contributors: Ships&Space

Close

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)