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)

Orphaned references in BFR (rocket)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of BFR (rocket)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ars20160918":

• From ITS launch vehicle: although in an AMA on Reddit on Oct 23, 2016, Musk stated, "I think we need a new name. ITS just isn't working. I'm using BFR and BFS for the rocket and spaceship, which is fine internally, but...", without stating what the new name might be. Berger, Eric (2016-09-18). "Elon Musk scales up his ambitions, considering going "well beyond" Mars". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2016-09-19.
• From Interplanetary Transport System: Berger, Eric (September 18, 2016). "Elon Musk scales up his ambitions, considering going "well beyond" Mars". Ars Technica. Retrieved September 19, 2016.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

•  Fixed N2e (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Old Rocket/New Article?

While I appreciate the notion of this rocket showing up in Wikipedia, the name BFR (Big Falcon Rocket) has been kicking around for quite some time and even the rocket itself is pretty much the same thing that was unveiled in the 2016 IAC meeting by Elon Musk last year. It is the ITS with just a minor name change and an updated design. From that perspective, why does the lead sentence suggest it is something that was unveiled... basically today? --Robert Horning (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The name of the rocket has indeed been kicking around for a while, as shown by many sources. The engines too are the same Raptors they've been developing since at least 2012.

However, the rocket is an entirely new high-level design (9m diameter rather than 12m; delta-wings on the booster now vs. none before; much shorter; 31 engines on the booster rather than 42, six engines on the second stage/spaceship/space tanker rather than nine; three versions of the second stage rather than only two in the ITS launch vehicle; ect. It is a very new design, albeit it is going to use some of the same materials (carbon fiber composite) of the old vehicle. N2e (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Those look like tweaks to the design of the same rocket, more of a refinement as is typical for any sort of design process as you move from concept to the final stage of development. You can find similar kinds of design changes on other rocket systems like even the Space Shuttle that changed considerably from the first draft of the design to what finally flew for STS-1 and arguably even over what happened on the Saturn V. I'm suggesting it is still the same vehicle and it is really stretching any sort of definition that this is something new and different.

From the perspective of Wikipedia, it seems like an article fork of the same topic, which is why I'm bringing this up. This is just a name change to the Interplanetary Transport System and talking about the latest design iteration for that rocket. Generally speaking, I'm against article merges and speak up against them, but in this case it really seems like the same thing. It even says in the ITS article that this is a design iteration of the ITS. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the overall mission architecture (especially the relatively new concept SpaceX is championing with both the ITS launch vehicle and with the BFR of using the spacecraft vehicles as both as second-stages (nearly empty at orbit) and also as long-duration reusable spacecraft, on-orbit propellant transfer, Mars methalox manufacture from the Martian atmosphere and water ice, etc.) has great similarities.

So you bring up a good point, and that might make an argument for why the Interplanetary Transport System—which is all about the overall mission architecture, and the meta-system that is much more than just a launch vehicle or the two or (now) three spacecraft that might ride that LV to orbit—should keep the mission architecture and system description story it has today, and just morph with diff vehicles and changes over the years. (as long as the history section doesn't lose the old info)...

But the contrast between the two particular launch vehicles is huge. The two diff rockets are simply very different things. Diff designs. Both with huge numbers of sources that make both of the designs, as is, meet WP:GNG many times over.

• 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

• 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

See what you think. But maybe the problem is mainly in the prose in the second paragraph, where the BFR is contrasted with the Interplanetary Transport System, when it should probably be contrasted with the ITS launch vehicle. Whadayathink? N2e (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Do a comparison between Falcon 9 v 1.0 and the new upcoming "Block V" configuration. It seems like almost a similar kind of comparison.... yet they are the same rocket name and contained in the same article. I simply look at that as design iterations. For that matter, the same thing happened with the Falcon 5... other than the fact that SpaceX actually sold a Falcon 5 before the design was updated to become the Falcon 9. Given the length of the current Falcon 5 article and the lack of sources, it could even be merged into the Falcon 9 article with hardly a fuss and not lose anything either.

More to the point though, SpaceX isn't even really calling this a new rocket but rather an update rocket design and a partial renaming. I don't even see the designs being really all that different other than getting into the pesky details of a rocket which is still not finalized and set in its design or any significant "bent metal" happening (although Elon Musk did say that is going to change by next year). I'm still not seeing why this needs to be a separate article. --Robert Horning (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Reference to BFG?

Unconfirmed from what I can tell but BFR looks a lot like a reference to BFG (Big Fucking Gun) from Doom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbieling (talk • contribs) 12:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It is, it's referenced in one of the other Mars Colonial Transporter articles. (DOOM takes place on Mars as well..., before you jump into the hell dimension.); some of the prior presentations/discussions of the rocket called it the Falcon XX also. -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 07:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with ITS launch vehicle

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)
• 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)

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)