Talk:SpaceX Starship development

Project Cost

The project cost (pcost) is currently in error, or at best misleading. It reads "US$5–10 billion, estimated".

In the 2018.09.17 livestream Musk, when questioned about BFR's development cost, repeatedly states $5B as his estimation. Upon musing further, he cites $2B and $10B as lower and upper bounds. Since the pcost is already qualified as 'estimated', I suggest we revert this to "US$5 billion, estimated" as this best represents Musk's statement. If a large and less precise range is preferred, the pcost entry should read "US$2–10 billion, estimated". Solardays (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Looking for further discussion of the two options presented above: 1) range of estimated cost, or 2) the estimated cost. In lieu of others stating preferences/opinions, I'm making the change. Solardays (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Length of first stage

I am sure the first stage is much longer than 63m: BFR is 118m tall, the upperstage has a length 55m including fins. The fins (landing-legs) go down from the body of the ship around 5m. If the body is 50m long the first stage has a length of 68m. At the other picture I got 49m for the ship and 69m for the booster. I found nothing from SpaceX about the length of the booster. The booster gridfins are between the landinglegs of the sfip, so the firststage is for sure taller than 63m.--Mars2062 (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can understand from the Musk's presentation, the upper stage is 55 meter long without fins. On the other hand, if we look at the picture of the whole BFR (118m), we could see that the numbers don't fit. I'd tell the first stage (w/o interstage) is approximately 65m long, the interstage is 4m long, and the upperstage is 49m w/o fins (53m with fins). But I am not sure we could rely on these pictures. I'd rather wait for some official info from SpaceX.Igor Krein (talk) 07:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

In the Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6vYaBZB1u0 from 45s to 1m02s You can read: "55m LENGTH Including Fins". I got from 48 to 51m for the ship without fins on different pictures - So I also wait for official numbers from SpaceX. --Mars2062 (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

2018 BFR update in a nutshell

Here is the core 7-minute video bits of Musk talking about the BFR updates at the Sep 2018 lunar mission announcement, published by Science News.

A pretty decent way to get the main intro SpaceX wanted to put in the presentation for the 2018 update (but of course, missing the details that might have come out/been clarified as Musk did a Q&A later in the announcement event.) SpaceX BFR to fly around the Moon, SciNews, 17 September 2018. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Mini-BFS to fly before BFS

It looks like the mid-2019 test flights of the BFS will not be the full scale version, but a smaller prototype: a converted upper Falcon 9 stage with actuated wings and heatshield (+other hardware). I am tempted to edit the "Test" section to reflect that the full scale BFS is not yet scheduled for flight-tests. Your thoughts? Rowan Forest (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

That's not the way I understood the recent news. On the one hand, SpaceX is moving forward with construction of a full-scale BFS test article, which will conduct short hops in Texas, the Grasshopper way. On the other hand, some Falcon 9 second stages will be modified to include a BFS-like heat shield and control surfaces, in order to measure stress levels during the necessary BFS re-entry profile; such tests will likely be conducted in post-mission campaigns after low-requirement payloads are safely delivered to orbit. This is the same path that SpaceX chose to test first-stage re-entry and landing: we have hardware already flying for commercial missions, let's maximize its usage to test improvements through a realistic flight envelope, instead of launching dedicated test missions. Scott Manley made a good video about the process: SpaceX Evolving Falcon 9 Stage Into 'MiniBFS' For Testing. — JFG ^talk 17:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Drastic changes to the BFR design to be announced soon. It shows they are still playing with general concepts at the drawing board. Rowan Forest (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Unless they found some problem with the dome section produced recently I would expect changes to the aerodynamics (exterior control surfaces) or engine arrangement only. Or maybe changes to the payload section. --mfb (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

As of 9 Dec 2018, the drastic changes have been clarified. The Starship will be made out of metal. See new section below. N2e (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The mini-BFS test was cancelled ~12 days after it was announced. Delete that entry, modify it, or show a footnote in the history section? Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Rowan Forest, it appears you recently commented out the following material in the article, and added the first sentence of this hidden text, recentlly.

<!-- Musk killed the mini BFR test 12 days after announcement, making it an irrelevant and non-historic non-development. Delete? (https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-ceo-elon-musk-kills-mini-bfr-spaceship-two-weeks-after-announcement/): Musk indicated it would be "upgraded to be like a "[[Falcon 9 second-stage mini-BFR test vehicle|mini-BFR Ship]]" but that the stage would not be used for landing tests, as the company already has a good handle on propulsive landings. The first test flight of the test vehicle is planned to be no earlier than mid-2019.<ref name=sn20181107>{{cite news |last=Foust|first=Jeff |url=https://spacenews.com/spacex-to-modify-falcon-9-upper-stage-to-test-bfr-technologies/ |title=SpaceX to modify Falcon 9 upper stage to test BFR technologies |work=[[SpaceNews]] |date=7 November 2018 |accessdate=2018-11-08 |quote=“Falcon 9 second stage will be upgraded to be like a mini-BFR Ship,” Musk said. The BFR’s upper stage is sometimes referred to as a “spaceship” }}</ref><ref name="teslarati.com">[https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-miniature-bfr-spaceship-falcon-9-launch-elon-musk/ SpaceX to build small version of BFR's spaceship for use on Falcon 9, says Elon Musk]. Eric Ralph, Teslarati. 7 November 2018.</ref><ref name="engadget20181107"/> -->

Let's discuss.

I think there are two problems with removing this material from the article.

1) it is a part of the History of the development process for this large complex set of next-generation launch vehicle technologies that SpaceX have been working on for over six years now, and was recently reported to be using over 5% of the SpaceX workforce on it. In that vein, it is something, something that was (or is?) being worked on, and thus a fair part of the History section, as long as we have verifiable sources.

2) the reliable secondary sources on this topic are all exceedingly spotty, are using the same super-brief bits of Musk's tweets on the matter, and are not all drawing the same conclusion. Clearly Eric Ralph from Teslarati, in the source you provided, thinks this means "that the mini BFR spaceship project [is] dead". Others seem to think that while there will clearly be no mini-BFR spaceship, Musk's tweets in no way make clear that SpaceX may not yet be planning to fly at least once whatever modified Falcon 9 second stage they were building as merely a test article for the rather different re-entry profile of a belly-first controlled-reentry into the atmosphere with the four-basic test-sized control surfaces that would facilitate SpaceX obtaining a lot of good test data, and is the (now, recently) announced reentry profile of the much larger BFR Starship.

My point is not that I know the answer. I clearly don't, and think that at present, only SpaceX insiders would know the answer. I'm just arguing that I don't believe deletion of sourced history is yet the correct course of action to improve the article. And perhaps, it may never be since this is, in fact, a part of the history of this multi-year LV development program. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Carbon footprint

I have added:
The carbon footprint of a single BFR launch is estimated to be about 660,000 kg of carbon dioxide.
Ref: https://steemit.com/steemstem/@procrastilearner/let-s-calculate-the-carbon-footprint-of-the-spacex-bfr
Don't take it out, or I will report this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.55.165 (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

It is not important enough for its own section. Go ahead and "report this page", whatever that means. --mfb (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

That is your bias talking. It is important enough, it is THE MAIN topic in all aspects of today's world. If you don't know that then you are not qualified to be an editor. You are trying to cover up a massive polluter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.55.165 (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree, unless someone wants to list the carbon footprint of ever launch vehicle in every one of those articles. And, even so, one sentence in a stand-along section doesn't make any sense. Further, I really question the neutral point of view and impartiality of any editor that starts off my making threats about "reporting pages" and then replies to a comment by saying there is there it is "THE MAIN" topic of everything in the universe. (With block caps, which is a nice touch...) Plus accusations agains editors who disagree with him and not using the quadruple tilde to identify himself... Fcrary (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The methane could be produced from CO2, making the flight completely carbon-neutral. Even if they don't decide to do that (and you don't know that): A few flights won't have a big impact on the climate. This won't replace economy flights, even if they reach the necessary safety it will stay a premium product. --mfb (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah by the way: The quoted number is also completely wrong, apparently the author didn't even bother to look up the right numbers. The source doesn't satisfy the quality criteria here. --mfb (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

IMO, an irrelevant factoid. Rowan Forest (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

You are living in the past. The carbon footprint of everything is an important point, and should have it's own section on every Wiki page about commercial products like this.

And, yes, the figure 660,00kg per launch could be wrong. It is most likely MUCH higher, as you will find out if this obsolete technology is ever launched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.55.165 (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 20 November 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved (page mover nac) Flooded with them hundreds 11:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

---

BFR (rocket) → Starship (rocket) – Elon Musk tweets: "Renaming BFR to Starship" – XYZt (talk  |  contribs) – 04:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: Per another tweet, "Starship is the spaceship/upper stage & Super Heavy is the rocket booster [i.e. the first stage]". Urgh. – XYZt (talk  |  contribs) – 04:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Unsure if Elon is high right now. Imo we should wait for official confirmation via a change in the website and/or a tweet by @SpaceX. – XYZt (talk  |  contribs) – 04:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, let's wait at least a day, and longer if there is nothing besides this tweet. We'll probably get some update soon. --mfb (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support, conditionally. Assuming Elon continues to tweet about this, it should be moved. Given the frequency of his tweets, I imagine we could make a very solid decision within a week. theZcuber (talk) 08:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose because "Starship" is only the ship/upper stage, and this article is about the whole system including the booster. In any case we need to wait until something much clearer and more official is published, at least by SpaceX and preferably also by secondary sources. Right now all we have are Elon's tweets (which are not reliable enough as sources) and a few news reports based purely on the tweets, e.g. [1]. Also (pure speculation), the "Super Heavy" name hints that the booster may well actually be intended to be known as "Falcon Super Heavy". Rosbif73 (talk) 10:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Conditionally support and split as per theZcuber and Rosbif73. We should get some official confirmation before moving Starship, and if Super Heavy is in reference to the booster, then perhaps the article should be split in a similar manner to Falcon 9 and Dragon. --Natural R_X 15:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

  I don't think we should split the article, at least not in the near future. The topic is the overall system and they go together. Falcon 9 can have other payloads, the BFR booster cannot. It is more similar to the two F9 stages. We don't have separate articles for them. --mfb (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

  Mfb, Well, sort of. On earth the rockets are multi-stage obligatory, but not on other celestial bodies (mars/moon). I agree that splitting at this stage isn't warranted, but might be advisable later if there are multiple different upper stages for the rocket (i.e. cargo, crew, and tanker starships). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• Opposed - After smoking a reefer, Musk also Tweeted that he was putting Tesla on the stock market, and it was not so, so he was fined millions. Just wait. Besides, the suggested name "Starship (rocket)" is incorrect. The Starship is the BFS (crewed stage), and the rocket (booster) is the BFR. Rowan Forest (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Opposed for now at least. Let's give SpaceX and Mr. Musk a chance to converge on something and settle on it. There's already more than enough confusion about names and naming conventions for SpaceX hardware. Just one tweet isn't enough for us to make a big change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcrary (talk • contribs) 22:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose for two reasons. One, the name Starship is explicitly only describing the upper stage/spaceship. As is, and as this article has been for over 14 months now, BFR (rocket) article is about the entire BFR launch vehicle: the first stage and the second-stage/spaceship. Secondly, too soon. Let's wait for any article renaming, or split discussions, until this gets sorted and stabilized in reliable secondary sources. Give it a couple of weeks, and let's see what we've got. N2e (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Yes, it is best to wait, but disagree with the rationale above. For a straightforward matter such as this – the adoption and utilization of the new, proper name of a company's product – the secondary source requirement does not apply because there are no "novel interpretation" pitfalls to avoid in use of a name. See WP:PSTS. For example, should SpaceX post or release material directly citing the names Starship and Super Heavy, then that primary source should be sufficient to initiate the rename/move of this article. Our reasons for pausing now have more to do with the nature of Elon (and Twitter) than the need for a secondary source. Solardays (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for now Wait until an official SpaceX change on their website. Currently the SpaceX website still says BFR.[2] That being said, we need more clarification; Is it going to be Falcon Super Heavy? And what about cargo and tanker versions of BFS? Will they still be called Starship? To the latter, if so, and other stuff is confirmed as we expect, we would probably best change the title to something like "Falcon Super Heavy and Starship" or a split of page as another option. I expect each of the individual ships will have its own name anyway... on the lines of Starship Millenium but that will be another naming issue to deal with down the road. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name change from Big Falcon Rocket to 'Starship'

Ok what now? Do we change the article name straight away? Elon has had a whimsical notion to change the name of his biggest rocket to date. The prodigious scifi reader who names his landing barges after fictional sentient starships has given his heavy lifter the title of Starship. I guess if he stripped out the rocket engines and replaced them with an Orion pusher plate stuck to the end of 10 or so floors of shock absorbers he might convert them into slow Starships at a pinch. So technically it could be correct.

https://www.universetoday.com/140626/name-change-alert-spacexs-bfr-is-now-just-called-starship/

I'm a little disapointed as I made it my username on facebook and bought www.BigFalconRockets.com but its his ship. Shall we redirect this address to a new page and copy/paste everything over with the name edited all the way through? That's going to be fun. :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by anonymous (talk)

Firstly, it is conventional to add new sections to the end of talk pages, and to sign your comments. Secondly, if you'd scrolled down to the end, you'd see that the proposed move has already been discussed, and so far consensus seems to be that we should wait for a more official announcement of the name change. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Please forgive me if I'm not posting my comment in the right place. I noticed several new articles have appeared in support of Elon Musk changing the name of his largest rocket from BFR (I understood the joke, I'm a proud child of the Doom and Doom 2 generation, not too hard to infer knowing what the acronym BFG stood for...) to a classier name, Starship.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/26/elon-musk-says-there-is-a-70percent-probability-he-will-go-to-mars.html

There are dozens of articles reaffirming the name change. Are we just waiting on official thumbs up from Musk or a news article posted on SpaceX's website perhaps?63.248.80.202 (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

In this case, we wait for an official announcement by SpaceX or a change in their official web page. Don't worry, they won't leave for Mars without you. :-) Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

As far as the other articles mentioning a new name, I don't think they are really confirmations. The ones I've seen are simply reporting Mr. Musk's original tweet.Fcrary (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The name is used in the article, its just a matter of WP:COMMONNAME catching up before we change the title. Most people still know this as the BFR, and SpaceX is referring to it as such on their web site as well. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 08:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

More importantly, Starship and Super Heavy are not simply renamed versions of BFS and BFR. Elon has mentioned that there have also been major design changes, but without giving any details for now. IMHO all mentions of the new names in the article (except in the Nomenclature section) are premature and should be reverted (indeed, I've reverted some, but it's a losing battle). What was known about the BFR design may well no longer apply for Super Heavy, and likewise much of what we knew about BFS has almost certainly changed for Starship. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Rosbif73, Where is your source for further changes to the design of BFR/BFS? (as far as I know the most recent changes were clarified in the #dearmoon livestream). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 09:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Elon tweeted more recently than that about "radical" design changes (tweets at top of [3]), and went on to give out tidbits such as [4], the implications of which are discussed at great length in the remainder of that nasaspaceflight.com forum thread, for example. Forums aren't citable as a reliable source, of course, which is why we need to wait for further announcements and/or reliable secondary sources. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

What is the sourced/supported/common name for the entire launch vehicle?

This article is (currently) about the entire launch vehicle, both the first stage (now named Super Heavy) and the second stage/ship (now named Starship). That's clear, and that is what sources say. And that has now all been reflected in the article prose.

But what do we call the entire launch vehicle now, when we are not speaking of just one stage or the other? Not sure, but all the sources we have for the entire launch vehicle seem to say either BFR or Big Falcon Rocket. SpaceX did not recently release a new name for the entire stack, and (since Musk's new names for the piece parts), we haven't yet seen how Gwynne Shotwell will refer to the LV when speaking with customers. Thoughts? N2e (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

We should get an update soon, Musk indicated some larger change. Let's wait for that. --mfb (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

That is what we are waiting for from SpaceX. Used to be that the complete "system" is called BFR. The first stage was the BFR booster and the second stage the BFS (spacership). It is unknown if he is renaming only the spaceship or the booster & spaceship. I expect the new nomenclature will be revealed along with the announcement on the re-design he hinted recently. Patience. There is no deadline. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

That works for me; and that is pretty much how the prose reads right now. If we are referring to ONLY the ship, it's Starship; if ONLY the first stage booster, it's Super Heavy. If it's the entire stack, then go with what we had before, and don't yet have consensus to change: BFR or Big Falcon Rocket. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 3 December 2018

BFR (rocket) → Starship-Super Heavy – SpaceX has now changed the name on its official website. Additional reasons being Elon tweeting about the change and the media now using the term. – XYZt (talk  |  contribs) 05:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support This is not a matter of interpretation. The source in question is primary, authoritative, and final. On SpaceX.com I count four occurrences of the combined formulation, the full 'Starship-Super Heavy' name. Were an individual with a WP article to legally change their name we would not hesitate to rename/move that article. SpaceX have even re-titled two related YouTube videos. Let's move the article, with BFR (rocket) redirecting. Solardays (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support - After looking at the SpaceX website, this indeed appears to be the new name, and the move would follow. Jusdafax (talk) 05:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support this now-official name change, though I do think the time might have come for a split between SpaceX Starship and SpaceX Super Heavy rocket (or whatever precise names we can agree on for the two components). Rosbif73 (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support Yep. This is what we were waiting for. Clarification on how they intended to treat the naming convention when referring to both at the same time. Seems a straightforward change at this point. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 08:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• COMMENT: SpaceX actually seems to be using the locution "SpaceX's Starship and Super Heavy Rocket (formerly known as BFR)" and not "Starship-Super Heavy" This matters to us, 'cause I suspect we need to go with exactly what they say about the combo launch vehicle (the first stage booster plus the second stage/ship) OR we need to wait a just a bit longer to see what becomes WP:COMMONNAME for the thing after a couple of months or more of LOTS of news articles and new sites talking about it by some (yet to be determined) common name. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

  N2e, Source? here they seem to be using "Starship-Super Heavy". Ok sorry, I think I see what you mean. on that page in the prose they sometimes write it out longhand like "SpaceX's Starship and Super Heavy Rocket represent a fully reusable transportation system designed to service all Earth orbit needs as well as the Moon and Mars.", but here they are kind of referring to them separately. A few sentences later they say "SpaceX can redirect resources from Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy and Dragon to the Starship-Super Heavy system—which is fundamental in making the system affordable." "Starship-Super Heavy" is also used in all of the title headers, which makes me think that this more concise wording is quite appropriate as a title. If another commonname comes up, we can of course change it again later. I'll still support "Starship-Super Heavy" for now. Per Rosbif73, I'm also not adverse to a page split. I don't think a page split will solve anything at the present time. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

  Oh, I did not realize SpaceX themselves are using it both ways. Hmmm. Thanks for finding that and clarifying it to me, Insertcleverphrasehere, 'cause I missed that. N2e (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support - SpaceX now hows the name "Starship-Super Heavy" ("formerly BFR") in their official home page. Rowan Forest (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not yet. Marketing names change far faster than common acceptance of the names. There also seems to be some ambiguity on the exact naming, Starship, Super Heavy Rocket, Starship-Super Heavy System, ... Give it a month and let it settle out. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Looking on their current website, I find mention of "Starship and Super Heavy Rocket", which suggests that at least part of SpaceX is still distinguishing between upper stages and lower stages with different names. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Tarl N., What is your feeling towards splitting the article in two? This might be a solution that everyone can agree on, and it is getting towards that time anyway. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 09:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC) Struck this question as I'm not really sure that a split is the best idea anyway and wouldn't solve anything. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 16:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The waiting is over. There is no ambiguity any longer since Musk's Tweet and the update of SpaceX's web site. "Starship" and "Super Heavy" are their official and verified names now, and SpaceX calls the complete system "Starship-Super Heavy". That is that. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Rowan Forest, Given that our choice seems to be between "Starship and Super Heavy Rocket" and "Starship-Super Heavy" (as both are used by SpaceX), I definitely lean toward the latter for being far more WP:CONCISE. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 16:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the hyphen in "Starship-Super Heavy" (as used by SpaceX) relates the 2 components as the new name of the complete system, and the subject of this article. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: What's the hurry in renaming the article? Even SpaceX's website still uses BFR (see the "Rocket Capability" list on the mars page). Tarl N. (discuss) 16:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Because it is the new official name. And I am not in a rush, the policy is to wait 2 weeks for editors to comment on the move proposal. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

That part is an animation and I think it's taking them a while to update it. All of the html text on the website refers to it as Starship or Super Heavy or a combination of the two. – XYZt (talk  |  contribs) – 16:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose – There is still no rush, and article scope should be taken into account. I would rather advocate creating new articles for the super heavy booster and for the Starship, then focus this article on the MCT/ITS/BFR iterations that were disclosed while SpaceX was evolving the concept. See #Detailed suggestion below. — JFG ^talk 17:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose — this one is hard, and SpaceX makes their names hard by the fluidity and frequent change in their descriptors for this rocket, but I'm still seeing secondary sources mostly use BFR for the entire launch vehicle even though the first stage (Super Heavy), and the second stage/ship (Starship), clearly now have individual descriptors. So by WP:COMMONNAME, I think we stay with BFR for a while longer until this is clarified by more common and consistent use of some new descriptor. This is illustrated in the most recent source added to the article just today to document the rocket's construction material change to some sort of metal rather than carbon composite. (, from Teslarati: quote=wide-reaching changes to BFR’s general structural composite ... the BFR program has officially moved away from carbon fiber composites as the primary material of choice for the rocket’s structure and propellant tanks, instead pivoting to what Musk described as a “fairly heavy metal”.) This will all settle, eventually, but there is no need to add to our reader's confusion now. N2e (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Honestly, given how we've gone through four or five redesigns and about as many name changes as Brightline (Florida East Coast->All Aboard Florida->Brightline->Virgin Trains USA), it would make more sense until we have an absolutely finalized version and identity to simple title the page something like "SpaceX Future Launch System" or something along those lines. Because with our luck, Elon will change his mind again next year. (will say, the name BFR did grow on me) Metropod (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose this malformed title. If "Starship" and "Super Heavy" are to be joined into a name, they would need an en dash, not a hyphen; that is, there's no "Starship-Super" entity here. Why don't we wait until SpaceX at least clarifies what's to be called what in the long run. Chasing after new official names is a bad idea. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment This is precisely why I was opposed to the creation of this article independent of the ITS launch vehicle. This is the same situation all over again, and a reason I still think the two articles need to be Merged and not just a page move here. Yet another name change with yet another major update (as promised by Elon Musk in a few weeks) is going to cause all of this to be tossed aside as old news. Since shortly after Christmas there will be an update and since the naming convention is really in flux right now, there is no point to bothering with a page move... yet. Just wait it out and frankly even let this discussion last for a month or so until there is some more resolution to the matter. Let it be a muddled mess for now. --Robert Horning (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Split?

As I suggested and others concurred in the above RM, the article could usefully be split. But in what way? It seems to me that we would actually need not two but three pages: one for the SpaceX Starship-Super Heavy system as a whole (which would include its history, i.e. MCT/ITS/BFR), plus detailed articles for each of the components . In other words, the RM would stand, and we would then go on to create new pages for the components of the system. Comments? In particular, it would seem useful to discuss potential variants of the article names for the components before we actually create them. Should we have SpaceX Starship and SpaceX Super Heavy rocket, or Starship (spacecraft) and Super Heavy (rocket), or some other variants thereof? (Note that some of the variants have already been created as redirects, and of course other variants could also become redirects). Rosbif73 (talk) 12:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

At some point: Sure. At the moment we don't have that much information, especially about the booster, to need separate articles. --mfb (talk) 13:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Rosbif73, Yeah I didn't think about it, but the history stuff is going to necessitate a third article anyway, so I guess a split isn't really a solution to the naming issue anyway. As mfb says, its not necessary for length reasons at the moment, but might be in the future. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 13:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The booster and spaceship work as a single system. Just because they are given different names it does not make them unrelated. I see great harm in splitting them into separate articles. Regarding the history, missions and potential uses, that is another story. I suggest we first finalize moving the title of this article (the whole BFR system) to "Starship-Super Heavy". Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Detailed suggestion

We had a long discussion about a year ago where article scope and naming issues were clarified and agreed. We ended up with:

• ITS launch vehicle, the 12-meter diameter concept unveiled at IAC 2016, and later downscaled to the 9-meter BFR. Composed of ITS booster and Interplanetary Spaceship.
• BFR (rocket), the 2017 iteration, which included three unnamed versions of the upper stage for cargo, people and fuel.
• Mars Colonial Transporter, the former informal name, redirecting to BFR
• SpaceX Mars transportation infrastructure, covering the requirements and agenda of the Mars transport system that relies on the spaceship.

The newly-named Starship is yet another iteration of the design, which focuses on human transport and optimized re-entry (which is complex to design to accommodate the very different atmospheres of Mars and Earth). Critically, we don't know yet how the upper-stage vehicles unrelated to human transport will look like. There has been to my knowledge no news on this front since the September 2017 concept update. SpaceX may end up producing totally different styles of upper stages on top of the Super Heavy booster, to meet the needs for in-space refueling and satellite delivery; when those appear, they will likely need their own articles as well. The new Starship is also likely to be the basis for the proposed ballistic transport on Earth to compete with long-haul airlines. Gwynne Shotwell repeatedly stated this was one of her top priorities. I wouldn't be surprised to see Starships flying from LA to Tokyo long before reaching Mars.

In light of the current state of knowledge, I would advocate splitting this article immediately between SpaceX Starship and SpaceX Super Heavy, with Mars Colonial Transporter redirecting to Starship, and BFR (rocket), Big Falcon Rocket and friends either describing the 2017 iteration only, or redirecting to the new booster article. — JFG ^talk 18:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• This is a system made of two components to be used together for crew, cargo, and Earth ballistic transport. Splitting them at any time makes absolutely no sense, especially under the motivation that future Starships might come in variants. In a few years, if/when those variants develop, then we could write spinoff articles on the particularities of the tankers, cargos, or the interplanetary Starship version as compared with the Earth-bound "airline" version. Wikipedia will always need to keep this article that encompases the complete BFR system, in its full context. Spinoffs will come later when developed and documented. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Certainly an overview article about the whole system makes sense, but I still maintain that we should have detailed articles about each component. Prior space transportation systems have routinely been split between the carrier rocket and the crew vehicle: Apollo CSM/LEM+Saturn, Soyuz spacecraft+Soyuz rocket (bit of a naming issue in Russia), Orion+SLS. The Starship+Super Heavy design is similar to the Shuttle system, in that the crew vehicle also contributes to orbital insertion, whereas other vehicles have been limited to in-orbit and re-entry maneuvers. It has been specified that Starship would take off and reach orbit fully on its own from Mars and the Moon. It only needs the SH booster to overcome Earth's stronger gravity well. Therefore I see Starship as a self-contained launch system. We can't even be sure that the "ballistic airline" version wouldn't be able to make shorter hops without a booster. This system is quite different from a normal carrier rocket whose first, second and third stages consist "merely" of tanks and engines, whereas the Starship is a full payload-carrying spacecraft also acting a second stage and a re-entry vehicle, and the SHB is much more than a first stage, given its flight dynamics, landing and re-use features. — JFG ^talk 16:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

As long as we keep a main article for the system as a whole, I don't see this potential split as fundamentally any different from, for example, the Saturn V system, for which we also have detailed articles on the S-IC first stage, S-II second stage and S-IVB third stage. The components were designed to be used together, but we have enough information about them to warrant separate articles. You might well disagree as to whether we have enough information to warrant a split yet for Super-Heavy and Starship, but there's no justification for saying that it makes no sense at any time. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Spinoff articles are OK. Splitting the only article that gives the full context is not and never will. Perhaps you can also split the -for example- Boeing 727 article into its components: 727 wing, 727 propulsion, 727 landing gear, and let the reader figure by himself what the whole system might actually look like, and only imagine it performance when assembled. What is so incomprehensible that this single system got a different name for its booster and its spacecraft? It is a single system, and I see great harm in killing the full perspective and context of this article only because the booster is named different from the spacecraft. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

JFG, Rosbif73, Rowan Forest Would it work to split it into BFR (2017-2018) (design up until the #dearmoon updates) and have a separate article for Starship-Super Heavy? Otherwise we could just section all of this info as a section indicating the design up until the #dearmoon update. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 16:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

As long as this parent article (Starship-Super Heavy) remains and is allowed to describe the full system, I see no harm in creating spinoffs on the history and its subsystems, if you think the text is already unbearably long. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: Nobody is talking about "killing the full perspective and context", but the present article is utterly confusing to new readers, as it not only discusses this vehicle combo, but also prior paper variants, and speculation on future evolutions or extra components. I believe the overview article should be very short, essentially covering the MCT/ITS/BFR continuum of design as a concept. The actual vehicles contributing to this overall system should be treated in their own detailed articles. — JFG ^talk 16:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem detailing (splitting) the history elsewhere, but you can't split the description/context of its essential components: booster + Starship. Unlike the other launchers you mention, this booster is not designed to launch a variety of capsules and payloads for a variety of clients. This booster is unique to the Starship, and the Starship is unique to the booster. That is why both were first given the single codename BFR. A single system, a single article. Feel free to create daughter articles, though, and shorten this article within reason. For now, I want to make sure this proposed split (daughter articles) does not undermine the move of the title from BFR to Starship-Super Heavy. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

You say this booster is not designed to launch a variety of capsules and payloads, but how do you know that? Quite the contrary: Musk's decision to split the names and to communicate almost exclusively on the spacecraft may be an indication that SpaceX is preparing to offer their booster for other purposes, and/or that their own designs for cargo and tanker vehicles may end up markedly different from the Starship. They will anyway be marketed differently.

But Wikipedia is all about consensus, and perhaps we can agree on another evolutionary path for our coverage. Move this article to the simple SpaceX Starship title, focusing on the current spacecraft, with a section for the "Super Heavy booster". Then move out the history of various concepts to SpaceX super heavy rocket designs (which would evolve from the current ITS article), and finally fork out a separate article about the SpaceX Super Heavy when more data becomes available. — JFG ^talk 18:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

"Move this article to the simple SpaceX Starship title". -JFG. Again: the parent article (this one) by definition, must be about the whole system, the entire concept and complete context. Why rename it after the Starship only? Who is to say which half of the system is more important when they are complementary. The parent article of this [BFR] system must obviously cover both the booster and Starship, therefore the proposed name Starship-Super Heavy, as named by SpaceX. After that move, I have no problem creating daughter articles covering the detailed aspects of whatever subsystem. I will not discuss whether the booster "might" be used to launch capsules from other companies, and that wild speculation should not play any role on this naming process. Rowan Forest (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Understod. Let's see comments from other editors. — JFG ^talk 20:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: I have to note that Boeing 727 analogy is not correct. The upper stage of BFR (or what was its name) is planned to be pretty independent in cases when it is (a) lifted from the Earth surface by the lower stage high enough and (b) launched from the Moon or Mars surface. I would say, when its missions are limited to the Earth's orbit / Moon / Mars flights it is fully independent from the lower stage and can't be compared to the Boeing wing. Igor Krein (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Igor Krein, Agreed, the Super Heavy rocket is only needed for lifting off from earth, If Starship is travelling between two other solar system bodies, it is entirely independent of the booster. This indicates that the Starship craft will have uses independent of the Super Heavy, so should probably (eventually) have a separate article. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 10:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• OPPOSE an immediate split* The Wikipedia Spaceflight convention is to have an article on every launch vehicle. This article is about the new next-generation two-stage-to-orbit launch vehicle. And I think it covers that LV pretty decently. SpaceX name changes certainly complicate the explication of it all to the typical, barely-interested global reader; but SpaceX changing names need not drive us to spliting into two articles (at this time), one for the booster, and one for the second stage/ship.

I have no doubt that, eventually, there will be sufficient reason for the Starship to have its own article; i.e., it will be notable and meet WP:GNC on its own. But it's not a "split". This article would still cover the overall launch vehicle, how some payload gets to orbit from the bottom of Earth's gravity well. Perhaps this will be appropriate when the Starship low-altitude tests start, currently slated for 2019, as it is quite likely that (notable) test flights would be explicated in the encyclopedia, and might start to be too much detail for the overall LV article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there should be one parent article – this article – covering the system as a whole, with some of the content being "split" off into detailed articles on the history, on each of the subsystems, and so on, as needed. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• OPPOSE for now. Let's allow time for the system to stabilize and mature before splitting the article. Agree that history/design iterations is confusing and should be de-prioritized and moved toward bottom of the article. Solardays (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Starship will be "metal"

Musk tweeted early 9 Dec (UTC), late night US time on 8 Dec, that the construction material of the ship, Starship, would be "metal", "Fairly heavy metal, but extremely strong.".

I've added a very short sentence on this to the History section of the article, with sources. I would expect to see this in several secondary sources within a day or two, and we can improve the entire article on this point as this is clarified. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the article. I wonder if this change includes the Super Heavy booster. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

🤘 No word on the booster as far as I've seen. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)}16:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with Insertcleverphrasehere, the tweets would seem to only speak to the Starship, and then we would just not know for the Super Heavy. However, the media sources that cover those same tweets we can read may tend to say it is the whole BFR launch vehicle, which is sorta/kinda how I read Eric Ralph who wrote the Teslarati article I cited this morning. So let's all watch for other sources, and see if all of the secondary sources make the same claim, whatever it is. As news media, it is of course possible that some get info more directly: interview, or answer to questions, or other means. So I think we kind of just have to read the sources and see what they are basing their claims on. N2e (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Confirmation that the upper stage "Starship" is still based on carbon composites: "...massive composite parts that are expected to eventually make up the structure of a spaceship prototype." Is this limited to the prototype? Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

N2e, perhaps this tweet was simply confirmation that Ozzy Ozborne had been invited on the #dearmoon launch? He specifically pointed out that it would be heavy metal. 🤘 🤘 — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I would not put it beyond Musk to pull such prank. Rowan Forest (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

"The new design is metal" - quite sure passengers are not a design. --mfb (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Care with reuse of refname cites that use a non-news website

Someone in the recent edits changed a reference of <ref name="SpaceX.com">https://www.spacex.com/mars</ref> to <ref name="SpaceX.com"/>

There are a couple of problems with this. First is that the original citation is not a full citation, it was actually a , cause it had no access date, and therefore no one knows when that source was consulted to support the adjacent statement. The second problem is that, when someone changed it to refname "SpaceX.com", and that refname was used a half dozen or more times in the article; very likely different editors consulted that website at different times over the past couple of years, not all of them the 2016 date that that <ref name="SpaceX.com"/> citation said it was consulted. SpaceX has changed numbers on that primary source on several occasions.

So I changed the refname to clarify the date the source indicated it was accessed, so that it would be harder for someone to reuse it carelessly. But that could leave some of the "facts" in the article actually not supported if others had read off different facts in 2017 or 2018 consults of the SpaceX Mars-related webpage. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)