Talk:SpaceX Starship development

Short tons and long tons

How about just using metric tons?

I'd support that. No need to convert "tonnes" (metric tonnes) into short tons and long tons for this readership. The more difficult question is whether the average Wikipedia reader really groks "tonnes", and therefore a convert template into kg or lbs might be helpful. I'm for whatever furthers understanding. N2e (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

SpaceX used metric tons in the announcement. --mfb (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

NASA is officially all metric. I don't think there is an aerospace industry on the planet that isn't officially metric-based at this point. Therefore, regardless of what the typical Wikipedia reader understands, the article should stick to metric. If the reader doesn't get it, they can always click on the tonnes link. War (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not for industry experts! I would hope a reader comfortable with "kg" would be comfortable with "tonnes". As a former aerospace employee, even I do not "grok" metric tonnes quickly. Also, the "t" abbreviation adds to my discomfort. I do not like the complication of long and short tons. The existing conversions to "lb" work for me. I might try out "e3lb".User-duck (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The metric system is not "industry experts" system. It's the system the entire world uses, including many industries in the US. War (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

War, I was talking about "Wikipedia articles", not the "metric system". I disagree with your statement: "Therefore, regardless of what the typical Wikipedia reader understands, the article should stick to metric." I took this to mean no non-SI units, but I now realize I may have misunderstood. I agree that metric should be the "primary units." — User-duck (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with ITS launch vehicle

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

---

Both ITS Launch Vehicle and BFR (as described in their respective articles) have been referred to as BFR. The newer design is a derivative/successor of the former. Essentially, they are both stages in the design process of the same thing Skrelk (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment the proposed rocket has been called "BFR" for a long time. It's also been called 'Falcon XX', MCT launcher, ITS launch vehicle, and currently BFR/Big Falcon Rocket in ITS2.0/MCT?5? -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 07:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support as it is not a different proposal, it is an update of the design parameters. The old numbers can be mentioned in a "development history" section. I suggest Big Falcon Rocket as lemma for a combined article. --mfb (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I would agree but only if the name stays BFR (rocket). It seems to me like BFR is the brand name SpaceX is going for here as the old name wouldn't make as much sense anymore. Edit: I'd support the name Big Falcon Rocket Ouzhoulang (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support I started trying to argue this above in a manner to extend this discussion out rather than simply forcing this issue in this manner as a formal vote, but I really don't think this article should have been created the the first place. That there has been some major changes in the design is true, but the ITS information ought to be a part of the history of the vehicle. The only thing I could think might be more useful is that perhaps this article could be the "main article" and the ITS article be renamed as "History of the BFR" if there might be a concern that combining the two articles would simply get too large. I really don't want to remove everything in the ITS launcher article and as historical reference the information currently in that article is definitely worth preserving. --Robert Horning (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support renaming Interplanetary Transport System to either History of the BFR or History of SpaceX Mars colonization plans. I think this would be preferable to a merger as otherwise the BFR article will be dominated by historical information about the ITS. I would oppose moving the BFR (rocket) article to Big Falcon Rocket, as it's not the most common name (Elon used simply "BFR" in the latest talk), and there would of course a debate about whether Big Fucking Rocket would be a better title than Big Falcon Rocket. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 09:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Chessrat -- you might want to start a discussion on an appropriate name of that article, but if so, you should probably do it on that article Talk page, and not this one, 'cause that's a bit diff topic than this merge proposal. I think you are probably right, it's more about the SpaceX Mars architecture than about any particular rocket that might play a role in implementing that architecture. But suspect the other page would be a better place to discuss that. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Chessrat — I went ahead and started a proposal on renaming the Interplanetary Transport System article; discussion over at Talk:Interplanetary Transport System. Cheers. N2e (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 11:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I feel like a good solution would be to rename the old page to Interplanetary Transport System (2016) or something like that, then make the current page redirect to BFR as that is the most recent official name for the rocket. Quadrplax (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose--some of the comments above are confusing the SpaceX Mars system architecture (covered in the article Interplanetary Transport System, the most recent name SpaceX called it by, although it has had other names before) with the two specific vehicle designs that SpaceX has put forward for the rocket bits of that system: ITS launch vehicle in 2016, and now a much smaller vehicle, the BFR launch vehicle in late 2017.

The two vehicles are quite different; both are notable, both designs are quite interesting in their own right, and both have a large number of quality secondary-sources in mainline media covering them. They both rather clearly meet WP:GNG. The ITS launch vehicle design and development project, which SpaceX put considerable engineering effort into before setting it aside, is interesting on its own, even though now, there are no plans to fully build it 'cause SpaceX said they couldn't figure out how to pay for it. Thus, SpaceX came up with a new design, with 1/3rd the payload capacity, and plans to make that new design their rocket to replace Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, plus serve as their Mars vehicles. The CEO has said they can pay for the smaller design. Both wiki articles thus cover different, but related topics. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a VfD, and certainly there are plenty of sources to back up an article on even just the current version of the BFR. The issue at hand is trying to find some sources that shows clearly that the ITS launcher and the BFR are two completely different rockets that have nothing in common and might even be built as two production lines of rockets. I don't think you can find that anywhere. There was some rumors within the SpaceX fan community talking about a separate "mini ITS" or "ITSy" vehicle, but this clearly isn't that mini vehicle other than how SpaceX has scaled back the design of the previously announced launcher and changed the name. That is the reason and rationale to justify a merger. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

If we're breaking articles apart, then the pre-ITS Mars Colonial Transporter (MCT) should be broken out. -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

That one was never publically unveiled as a specific rocket design. It was, rather, just a name for SpaceX concept of what they were going to do as a go-to-Mars vehicle. The first LV design publically unveiled by SpaceX was 2016: the ITS launch vehicle. — N2e (talk) 03:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

MCT would encompass the historical development of the project, prior to its unveiling as the ITS system last year. Thus we can separate out the historical contexts from the specific version from last year. -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 04:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – The 12-meter ITS booster will join the scrap heap of history among dozens of abandoned rocket designs, whereas the 9-meter BFR will very likely go into production and fly in a few years, maybe for decades. As N2e pointed out, there are more than enough quality sources to justify a full article on the ITS booster, whereas the BFR article will grow. I also agree with IP70 that our article on the Interplanetary Transport System should be expanded to include the BFR-based iteration of the Mars colonization plan, formerly known as MCT. In summary:
  • Keep Interplanetary Transport System and expand with BFR iteration of the concept
  • Keep ITS launch vehicle as a historical snapshot of the 12-meter design
  • Expand BFR (rocket) to include some relevant elements from the ITS article, especially things that were retained from the previous design and will go into production
  • Maybe revive an Interplanetary Spaceship article later as details emerge from the new design (and hopefully a better name than "BFS" -- although we could probably create a BFS (spacecraft) article already)

Comments? — JFG ^talk 14:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• I meant to break out a Mars Colonial Transporter article to cover the development of various planets (properly referenced) that existed as our MCT article prior to the ITS introduction last year. Thus we can have a clean ITS article for ITS-2016, and a clean 2017-architecture article for the 2017 revision. All the messy history would exist in it's own article without needing to muddy the waters too much in the 2016 and 2017 articles. -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 07:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like we have the same idea, just with different titles. Your MCT article is Interplanetary Transport System, your ITS-2016 article is ITS launch vehicle and your ITSy-2017 article is BFR (rocket). We seem to disagree on where to include the recent adjustments to the launch cadence and destinations: I would add them to Interplanetary Transport System whereas you would add them to BFR (rocket). I think it makes more sense to have a single article covering the iterations of SpaceX deep-space transport concepts, which went from MCT to ITS-2016 to BFR-based missions. Perhaps we should call this umbrella article "SpaceX deep-space transport architecture"? This would just involve renaming and refocusing the existing "Interplanetary Transport System" which already includes Elon's early vision for SpaceX and historical information about the MCT concept. Articles about the vehicle designs would remain separate. — JFG ^talk 08:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

JFG and 70.51.46.15, I guess some of us are thinking on the same lines. I started a proposal on renaming the Interplanetary Transport System article just yesterday, over at Talk:Interplanetary Transport System. Initially, just on whether it ought to be renamed at all; figuring a second discussion might be needed to figure out the best name. But, heck, through your idea into the mix as well if you'd like. Cheers. N2e (talk) 10:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support Indeed the situation is very confusing between the two articles right now. BFR and MCT were the original rumored codenames until the 2016 IAC called it ITS and gave a concrete design. The 2017 IAC then removed the ITS name and updated the design, however it still refers to the same fundamental concept which needs its own singular article. The ITS article should be restructured to include a section summarizing the 2016 ITS design, but that whole article should pertain to all currently known information about the concept as a whole, SpaceX's Mars colonization rocket/spaceship/architecture. That article should then be renamed to something that is not ITS, because that is now an outdated name. Either "BFS" or something like "SpaceX Mars rocket". But it should stem from that article, not this one, because that contains a rich edit history as the design has changed. This article may have the correct name, but it is an orphan from the ITS article's content and history. Keavon (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
• Opposed - Wikipedia has many examples of articles on design concepts that later become a product under a different name. In many cases the articles are separate and the former simply links to the latter. There are also many examples where an article contains the history of development which includes the concept design with the associated name(s). From what I've seen the difference is the quality and notability of the unrealized design. Given that the SLS has at least 6 years of work and it quite a long article it appears that it has more than enough content to stand on it's own. Therefore I oppose merging. War (talk) 05:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Again I ask.... where are the reliable sources that show that this current iteration and design is anything different from the ITS lander discussed at the IAC 2016 presentation by Elon Musk as anything other than a design iteration? For that matter, even Elon Musk admitted the term "BFR" is simply a code name for some other name that eventually it will be called by.... so create yet another article when that name change happens? What is happening here is that the thing being presented here is shown as snapshots of the current state of the design, but it doesn't show the step by step gradual changes over time. There is also no evidence at all that SpaceX is internally treating this as a different rocket. This isn't even a product fork. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Based on how he presented it, it is clearly an updated design for the same project. --mfb (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment—adding this summary, just so persons involved in the discussion have a high-level picture of the use cases and principal specs of the two rockets. The two particular launch vehicles are, it seems to me, rather different.

• ITS launch vehicle (SpaceX design of 2016)

• 12-meter diameter, 122 meters long
• 300 tonnes payload to LEO, 450 tonnes payload to Mars, after refueling on orbit
• 6,975 tonnes mass (15,377,000 lb) when leaving the pad at liftoff
• no delta wing
• Announced use cases: Mars missions and colonization efforts; interplanetary missions generally

• BFR launch vehicle (SpaceX design of 2017)

• 9-meter diameter, 106 meters long
• 150 tonnes payload to LEO, 150 tonnes payload to Mars (1/2 as much to LEO; <1/3 as much to Mars)
• 4,400 tonnes mass (6,680,000 lb) when leaving the pad at liftoff
• delta wing inherent in the spaceship/second-stage design
• Announced use cases: replace both the existing Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch vehicles in all SpaceX launches after early 2020s; replace Dragon spacecraft for on-orbit spacecraft for all SpaceX spacecraft missions; Lunar missions; Mars missions and colonization efforts; point-to-point Earth transport between major cities, in 30-60 minutes.

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

Comments on what BFR stands for

A discussion of what BFR stands for belongs on this talk page, not imbedded as comments in the source text of the article. That's both hidden from most editors and virtually unreadable with the default wikipedia interface.

Specifically, the following hidden text:

Musk: "we are searching for the right name, but the code name, at least, is BFR"

have not seen a source for this rocket design, in Sep 2017, where Musk called it the Big Falcon Rocket'

neither source, TheVerge nor Neowin, attribute this name to something Musk said, but each article author did use the term

Which I have just removed from the article's source.

Fcrary (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The Musk statement on the name can be found at 2:38 here: "we are searching for the right name, but the code name, at least, is BFR." Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

•Comment It has been stated from multiple sources that the "F" in BFR stands for Fucking, as a reference to the "BFG", or Big Fucking Gun, in the doom series, set on mars. When questioned on this, he has not given a definitive answer, but has indicated that this is the likely scenario, eg. BBC Radio 4 Today Programme, interview with Professor Alan Duffy from Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne.

I think we should remove "Big Fucking Rocket" from the opening sentence and add a section about the origin of the name. It does come from BFG after all, but since the other names (MCT and ITS) didn't stick, they want to use the family friendly version of "BFR" publicly. DiThi (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Reference 7 Grush, Loren (2017-09-29). "Elon Musk plans to put all of SpaceX’s resources into its Mars rocket". The Verge. Retrieved 2017-09-29. which is used to suppport "Big Falcon Rocket" claim actually states it is a "Big Fucking Rocket". It should be removed. I do not want to remove it not to loose reference to the article altogether as it can be later used to support other claims. --Jan.Smolik (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Side note. "BFR" has been around WAY longer than the DOOM video game. DOOM borrowed it from previous usage. The military used it to refer to a tool for doing odd jobs, like pounding in tent pegs. "Need a mallet?" "Nah, I'll just use this BFR." In this case it meant Big Fucking Rock. see: http://acronymsandslang.com/definition/5322708/BFR-meaning.html and BFR War (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

BFR as a point-to-point terrestrial transportation possibility

It just occurred to me that:

a) Elon Musk showed in his talk at IAC2017 last week a snappy little video segment showing BFR being launched from various floating launch platforms outside of a number of large global cities, and popping to other distant cities in 30 minutes to an hour, anywhere in the world. Examples here, here, here, or here were the first four google hits.

b) quite a lot of media (bona fide secondary sources) have picked up on this aspect of the new rocket design,

yet

c) at this time, this wikipedia article does not reflect that use case, even as a potential use, at all.

Now if you are active in the Spaceflight Wikiproject, as I have been for some years, then one might be just a tad suspicious that this is an important thing, or even a "real" use case that SpaceX really cares about. I'm personally agnostic about adding that use case for the BFR launch vehicle to the article; and it is not on my nearterm priority list for adding (with citations, of course) to this article with the bits of volunteer time I put in.

However, my personal opinion on that, based on my relative insider status in following spaceflight and space advancements for many years, should have no bearing on whether it should be or should not be in the article. That should be determined by Wikipolicy, most notably, WP:GNG, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:UNDUE.

In fact, I made a similar argument (in the helpful, academic sense of the term) with fellow editors a few sections above on this Talk page that this new rocket, with new uses including replacing the entire existing operational fleet of SpaceX rockets, is not, and should not be represented as, merely a "Mars rocket", even though Musk has been clear for over a decade that he is heavily motivated by achieving a functional and low-cost space transport capability for moving quite massive amounts of cargo and many people to and from Mars; that we should not see BFR as "merely an extension of some previous Musk Mars rocket design that, although it was announced in 2016, SpaceX now cannot afford to build, and isn't currently planned to be built and developed further. In other words, we space industry insiders who play "inside baseball" might perceive it as merely a 3/4-size with 1/3-the payload capacity turn of a design, but our perception is not, and should not be, what controls Wikipedia articles.

So, wrote all this to just flag the issue. And invite other editors to think on the matter, and weigh in with thoughts (or edits) if they wish. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

We do need a section on the ballistic transportation vision, which could grow into its own article if/when exact plans are announced. Plenty of sources have commented on this part of the talk already, and we can expect similar announcements from Blue Origin anyway. As an "inside baseballer", I always thought that "space tourism" with New Shepard going purely vertical was a bit silly, and the vehicle could easily be launched on a medium-range ballistic trajectory competing with domestic flights on private jets, with bonus "I've been to space" bragging rights. The vehicle is already here, and its launch + landing infrastructure support is minimal. OK, OK, WP:NOTFORUM… JFG ^talk 08:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thinking this over, what I think would be better for now is listing specific examples of what this vehicle is being designed for as simple bullet points that can include links to other Wikipedia articles. On the other hand, the general article point-to-point suborbital spaceflight could use a whole lot of loving as clearly it has become quite notable of a concept on its own with many reliable sources... and now some attention being thrown upon it by SpaceX as well which is giving it some prominence. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Musk did an AMA on BFR yesterday

The CEO of SpaceX did an AMA (Ask Me Anything) limited to the topic of BFR yesterday. While what he said is clearly a primary source, it is likely able to be used to back up certain facts in the BFR article since they are the utterances of a corporate CEO who is speaking about and making public statements about, a development program that said company is funding at present.

Here is one non-news source summary of some of Musk's statements:

• Primary source table summary of questions and answers provided by Elon Musk, as organized by some redditor
• link to the entire AMA thread on Reddit
• An ordered list of the 23 questions and 23 answers Musk provided

Would imagine some bits of these statements will be covered in secondary source news media in the coming days. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

As long as we don't interpret Musk's statements, we can use the primary sources as announcements of SpaceX's plans. Added three more news articles, avoided the futurism.com article because their average quality is miserable. --mfb (talk) 06:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Secondary sources

Started to find some space media covering Musk's remarks. Enjoy. N2e (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• spacenews.com; citation: <ref name=sn20171015>{{cite news |last=Foust|first=Jeff \url=http://spacenews.com/musk-offers-more-technical-details-on-bfr-system/ |title=Musk offers more technical details on BFR system |work=[[SpaceNews]] |date=2017-10-15 |accessdate=2017-10-15 }}
• theverge.com
• techcrunch.com
• geekwire.com (pre-AMA but still with information)

Article Title

"BFR (rocket)" is redundant and a bit silly-looking. Is anyone else game for simply changing it to "Big Falcon Rocket"? Solardays (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not because that's not it's name. War (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I also disagree with the change. I have never seen a reference which actually had SpaceX calling it "Big Falcon Rocket". All the references seem to be news reports where the reporters made that up on their own. Fcrary (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I thought Elon himself had called it 'Big Falcon' but, upon revisiting the 2017 IAC presentation, find he did not. Perhaps it was another interview. If found, I will cite it here - thanks. Solardays (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Do not change the title yet. As far as I am concerned, the names: "Big Falcon Rocket", "Big F**ing Rocket", "Big (fill-in-the-blank) Rocket", "Big F--king Rocket" and "Big Fucking Rocket" have no basis in fact and are all synthesized by writers. I have yet to find a "reliable" secondary source. Ideally, I would like to see a trademark application, but these probably do not exist (yet). (I know SpaceX uses them, Falcon is trademarked.) I think we may need to rely on the primary source, Elon Musk, for this one!User-duck (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, they aren't synthesized by writers, but rather are things that Elon Musk has mentioned as the origin of the name. He specifically said that the name BFR is derived whimsically from the BFG 9000 found in the video game Doom and can be sourced. In the same statement, he also said that "in polite company" he would call it more "Big Falcon Rocket". None of that is synthesis. All this said, he also said at the IAC conference talk itself (you can look this up) that the BFR is simply an internal code name within SpaceX as a company and that he abandoned the ITS moniker in favor of some future brand name that would be applied to the vehicle in the future. There is no reason to rename the article when in fact SpaceX as a company will likely rename the rocket in the future. Then again, speculation about what that might be is WP:Crystal. The only legal document I've seen so far related to this name comes from the corporate charter document I mentioned above with the BFR Corp that was founded in 2003 and may have lapsed as a corporate entity in the State of California. --Robert Horning (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Why so many references with quotes?

I am not sure of the official policy on quotes in references. But there seems to be too many lengthy quotes in the reference citations. If they are content for the article they should be moved into the article and footnoted. Also, the use of italics for the quotes. I kind of like the appearance in the citation BUT the templates simply quote normal text. I would remove the italics.User-duck (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Be careful of "synthesis"

As Wikipedia editors we cannot do "synthesis of published material" no matter how obvious the conclusion. This, however is not true for other writers, especially website, news and magazine writers. I have already discovered "crew" changed to "passengers" and two interpretations of /tʌn/ , "tonne" and "(short) ton". Be careful of what you write and the sources used. There are plenty of good sources for this article. I may remove bad ones. (The ones that state that the Musk's plan is to send passengers to Mars in 2024 may be the first to go.)User-duck (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Launch cost

Indirectly Musk revealed the launch cost to be below the launch cost of the Falcon-1 which according to its Wikipedia article is about 8M Dollars adjusted to inflation. The price-tag of a passenger-flight to mars approves this as well, since you need 6 launches for one mars flight which makes for a cost of 48M dollars for the entire mission divided by 100 people gives you about 480,000 $ per person which is close to the proposed 150,000-300,000$ price tags published by SpaceX in last year G0000k (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Corrected $68M to $48M. P.S. I do not consider $480,000 that close to $300,000. User-duck (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Since Musk stated that a BFR launch would be below the cost of a falcon-1 launch 480,000$ is the maximum price it might as well be far lower. I should have made this clearer, sorry. G0000k (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

That is not even an official estimate for the launch cost, and even such an estimate now (if it would exist) would be very preliminary. I don't think we should add anything at this point, it would be too much original research. --mfb (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a tonne of information in this article that is based on Elon's presentation in September, both slides and his remarks. How is this different than the rest? I suppose since he didn't state an exact number it could be considered original research to enter any number. However, I would be fine with saying something like "below $480K" or whatever the falcon-1 cost to launch, given this is direct consequence of his words.War (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I just took a look at the Falcon-1 page and doesn't say what the launch cost was. If it's unknown then there's no way to put any number down. If it is known then that page should be updated first. I doubt through this information is known given that it only delivered one payload into orbit.War (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Right. Keep speculation and wishful thinking out. — JFG ^talk 01:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

6 to 9 million for Falcon 1 as advertised numbers, as there was just one commercial flight these numbers don't have to say much. $480k is less than the fuel cost of BFR. Both numbers are for information here only as they don't have a proper source. --mfb (talk) 03:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

mfb, how did you obtain/figure the fuel cost? I realize it is probably OR, I just want to learn your method.User-duck (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

$168/t estimated by Musk in 2016, $480,000 would only buy 2850 t. The second stage alone has 1100 t, and most of the 3000 t of the first stage are fuel as well (>2500, but we don't know its dry mass). --mfb (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

G0000k. Musk does not state "far lower".User-duck (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Image for the article

It does not appear that SpaceX has released to their Flickr account, with the CC-SA license that Wikipedia likes, any of their CAD drawing renderings of the BFR. This is unlike what they did in fall 2016 for the older and larger design, the ITS launch vehicle.

The image of BFR that currently is in this article, appears to have not been properly licensed; it is currently under challenge, so would expect it to be removed soon.

Thus: why don't we just grab one single (appropriately-sized) shot from the BFR videos Musk showed in fall 2017, and add that to the article under the WP:FAIRUSE criteria. I'm not personally a wiki video expert, but I believe that policy allows a single image, not too large, to be used in Wikipedia under the Fair use legal doctrine. N2e (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The former image has been deleted, as I suspected it would be. If this article is to have a correctly-licensed image, I'm guessing it's going to be under the Fairuse criteria, for now at least, until such time as SpaceX licenses more images via CC licenses. User:Huntster, might you care to help create a fairuse image of the BFR from the videos that SpaceX has released? Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Since I've been unsuccessful in recruiting someone who is knowledgeable about Wikipedia FairUse images to help add an image, I struggled through the process myself. I believe that the image I added does meet the valid WP:FAIRUSE criteria, and should withstand review. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

N2e: hey sorry, I didn't see any notifications, and just came across the talk page update in my watchlist (I'm so behind). You did just fine with the fair use criteria. Just remember that images have to be low resolution. A good rule of thumb is maximum of 400px across either dimension. I've updated the file for this. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Huntster, for reviewing what I did, and for taking care of the miss on the image resolution bit. N2e (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey Huntster, that image is great, as noted above. Thanks. However, I just noticed that, possibly because it is in the infobox, it does not show that this article has any photo at all when the article is looked at from a mobile device, where the Wikipedia mobile presentation preferences seem to hold sway.

Do you know how to fix this? So that an image will show at the top of the article when viewed from a mobile device? N2e (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

N2e, absolutely no idea why its looking like that for you. Just pulled up the article myself on mobile and it shows the image in the infobox just fine (heading off for the night, will catch any replies tomorrow). — Huntster (t @ c) 08:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Works for me as well, I see the image in the mobile version. --mfb (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thanks for your input on it mfb and Huntster. It's not showing for me on two different platforms: my Galaxy S&7, and also my Amazon Fire tablet. Both of those run Android, but I wouldn't think that should be the issue. Hmmm. Curiouser and curiouser. N2e (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. I tested on a Droid Maxx 2 (Android) and an Amazon Fire tablet. Why would mine work and your doesn't? Very odd indeed. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Time for a consensus-building discussion

I've stayed out of the controversy over the prose in the article speculating on what "BFR" might mean, until now. It is clear that some media sources have used the terms Big Falcon Rocket, or Big Fucking Rocket, with reference to the SpaceX announcement of the BFR in September 2017. Some of those media references are tied to previous informal uses of that term, by media or even by Musk, with reference to earlier designs for a large launch vehicle to follow the Falcon-series of launch vehicles, including the 2016 ITS launch vehicle which had been informally referred to as BFR/Big F... Rocket in the past.

It is equally clear that SpaceX has not recently, in the context of the BFR used either Big Falcon Rocket or Big Fucking Rocket to refer to this launch vehicle. Moreover, Musk is directly quoted, in the article prose, as saying:

"we are searching for the right name, but the code name, at least, is BFR." (sourced to citation <ref name="musk20170929"/>). I've been unable to find a recent source of SpaceX/Musk refering to this rocket, the "code named" BFR, as either one of those two terms.

So my problem here is not with the mention of the possible meanings or derivations of the names, since both Big Falcon Rocket or Big Fucking Rocket have been used in web media, and the latter term is particular useful for driving advertising clicks. I think they can be mentioned in the article text.

My problem is that I think it is WP:UNDUE to so prominently mention them in the lede, and in the first sentence of the lede, of this aticle. This prose takes up over 40% of the words in the first sentence in the lede. The potential meanings behind the letters BFR, when there is no definitive source and sources are not in agreement, is not worth taking up 40% of the lead sentence. It is undue weight on a minor matter.

Therefore, I PROPOSE that the explication of the possible meanings or derivations of the names behind "BFR"—Big Falcon Rocket or Big Fucking Rocket—be moved out of the lede, and into the body text of the article.

• SUPPORT—as nom, I support this proposal, for the rationale provided above. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Sure That makes sense, but it raises the question of where in the body of the article to put it. I'd say we should keep it in the first paragraph or two. Stylistically, I like defining acronyms as soon as possible. But others might think it belongs in the section on Mr. Musk's announcement of the launch vehicle. Fcrary (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support – Excellent suggestion. Solardays (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Musk said that there is no official defenition yet and that is why the title still uses the acronym until it is officially defined. Giggett (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

With a week passed and no dissent, it would appear to be a reasonable consensus on leaving the detail in the article body rather than the lede. I've moved it there. N2e (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Why 240 tons methane and 860 tons oxygen

CH4 burns to CO2 and 2 times H2O, so 4 oxygen atoms are necessary to burn one CH4 molecule. C has 12 weight, H has 4 weight, so CH4 has 16 weight. 4 oxygen atoms have 64 weight. So there should be 4 times more oxygen than CH4.

So why is there 860 tons and not 960 tons oxygen?

Pege.founder (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

It does look like a typo, but I think it's correct. The article on the Raptor engines lists a mixing ratio of 3.8 not 4.0. That still doesn't give 860 kg, but it's closer. It's fairly common for rockets to run rich or lean. The mean molecular mass of the combustion products effects specific impulse and performance. Some of the carbon is probably coming out as CO. Fcrary (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Correct. Rocket engines are rarely operated at their stoichiometric ratios of fuel and oxidizer. But either way, our job in WP is to just use the data we have from the sources. N2e (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)