Talk:SpaceX Starship development/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Official page and merge

SpaceX have a page for Starship spacex.com/starship from the page:

SpaceX's Starship spacecraft and Super Heavy rocket (collectively referred to as Starship)

this mean BFR is no longer the collecive name for the system. this page should merge with Spacex Starship page. At alzayani (talk) 07:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Change name to starship super heavy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is a discussion about the "Big Falcon Rocket" article, which is now since moved to the "Starship development history". --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 04:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Its Been almost a year since the name change Tabbywabby7738 (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

"Starship and Super Heavy" and variations of it seems to get adopted more and more for a name of the combined system. spacex.com agrees: "Starship and Super Heavy (formerly known as BFR)". Starship and Super Heavy? Starship Super Heavy? --mfb (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I think so. I doubt that the planned SpaceX press conference on August 24th will involve another name change. Rowan Forest (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

If we're so close to a major update by SpaceX, we might as well wait a couple weeks, and conduct an RM after that. — JFG ^talk 02:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I remember on a SpaceX webcast saying “Starship Launch Systems”? But whichever way I agree with JFG and we should wait till the press conference. To be honest I think its been pretty unclear of what their naming system is but hopefully the press conference will clarify it. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 15:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah I think it is about time for this as well. "Starship and Super Heavy" (and in the lead; "Starship and Super Heavy (formerly known as BFR)") seems to be a routine enough name usage that it could be used for the overall system (agree with Mfb). I do agree that we should wait until after the next SpaceX press conference just to be safe (per JFG), but assuming there isn't a major terminology update, we should go ahead with the change. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 02:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it's nearing time. SpaceX has been fairly consistent for approx. 10 months now, and fewer media are calling the stack of BOTH rockets the BFR. But I'm with the editors who said let's wait 'til after the 2019 unveil/update that is (now, currently) scheduled for 24 August. Making a solid proposal then would likely get good discussion, and likely consensus. Doing so now, would lead to a likely number of opposes just from some editors suggesting we wait another 8 days. N2e (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's past time to rename it. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, just for evidence purposes, the draft Environmental Assessment released a few weeks ago for the vehicle(s) refers to them as either "Starship and Super Heavy" or "Starship/Super Heavy". "BFR" isn't used at all in the document. 82.16.49.231 (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

That's now scheduled for mI'd September HurricaneMichael2018 (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hop happened, Starship update will be September 28. I think we can move it before that, I expect a proposed move to get an easy consensus now. --mfb (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Poll

Informal poll to avoid a future move request die because of that: "Starship and Super Heavy", "Starship/Super Heavy", "Starship Super Heavy", "Starship-Super Heavy" or something else? All four are used frequently. Google finds about the same number of hits for the first one as for the others (which are all treated the same), although the second search includes hits like "Starship's Super Heavy". Personally I don't mind, but we can only have one main article name. --mfb (talk) 06:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• None of the above – Let's just wait until Musk's update. He is famous for changing naming schemes on a whim. — JFG ^talk 04:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The article title should change to official titles regardless of whether it is a whim or not. No point in having the wrong name for the article. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Daniel.Cardenas, we use the WP:COMMONNAME not the official name as titles for articles. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 01:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

And how do you determine common name? You use what name you like, because common name isn't BFR. All articles I've read on the subject for the past year have been using a different name. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 06:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

It is clear that the article should be renamed, but now we can wait 6 more days. I'm highly confident that Musk will keep using the name used everywhere now, then we can move the article. If we get yet another name we can wait a week more and see how that is handled by the press. --mfb (talk) 11:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Daniel.Cardenas, Yeah. We are all pretty much in agreement that some sort of name change is in order, but the exact syntax of that name change isn't entirely clear. If you read above we pretty much all say this. Some variant of "Starship and Super Heavy", or something. However, splitting the article into one historical article, one on the "Super Heavy booster", and one on the "SpaceX Starship" might also be the best solution (or perhaps only 2). Consensus takes a while to build and we all don't want to jump the gun when a big dump of info is about to drop in the upcoming presentation that might make it more clear what approach we should take. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME :

Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change is announced. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match.

This team did not follow this policy. Suggest the team comply with policy and stop making excuses. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

As has been explained to you above, Elon Musk is scheduled to give an update on the project at the end of this week, and he is prone to making name changes. So it makes sense to wait just a few more days before attempting to decide how best to rename the article. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Leave as is, if we were to rename the article every time SpaceX released a new name, we'd never stop changing the name of the article. Best to leave the name alone until SpaceX figures out the name of the rocket. Jeb³_{Talk at me here} 15:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Starship and Super Heavy considered separate

While we're patiently waiting for Musk's update, I have a feeling that SpaceX Starship will be the main subject, and that the Super Heavy booster will play a lesser role, being "only" here to boost the Starship on some mission profiles starting from Earth. Thus the BFR article treating them as a traditional two-stage rocket would be de-emphasized. The Starship is looking more and more like the Space Shuttle orbiter, adding SSTO capabilities, and Super Heavy plays the same role as the Shuttle's SRBs: without them the Shuttle could not lift itself from Earth's gravity field. In the Shuttle era, both the spacecraft and the boosters were re-usable, only the external tank was expended. The only issue was that the cost of refurbishment and re-use had been massively under-estimated. I wonder what my fellow rocketry enthusiasts think of this approach to the "rocket stack formerly known as BFR". — JFG ^talk 18:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The BFR was presented by Musk as a combo, so Wikipedia followed. The way things are developing, and pending the press conference, I agree to separate them, but this article must remain as the "parent article", maybe under a different name. Rowan Forest (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The reality is that the "orbital launch vehicle" is a two-stage-to-orbit launch vehicle, and necessarily includes both the first stage (Super Heavy) and the second stage (Starship). Super Heavy is not an orbital launch vehicle. Starship is not an orbital launch vehicle. So in my view, this article (renamed; soon I expect) will be. and should be, the main article.

Super Heavy does not have nearly enough info yet, nor rationale, for having it's own article at this time in Sept 2019. But this is a new world of launch vehicle development, where from the beginning, the manufacturer is separately flying the piece-parts of the launch stack, 'cause to realize full reusability, they simply have to fly like a new aircraft and be sure they can land 'em so they live to fly 'em again, and incrementally expand the flight envelope, of each stage separately as they learn how to land 'em best. So once a test article Super Heavy starts flight testing, we can revisit a separate article for that; no doubt it will be very notable, and easily pass WP:GNG at that time. Heck, it'll be the largest suborbital rocket ever flown when it starts VTVL testing, even without its orbital marriage partner 2nd-stage Starship on top. This approach is brand new for rocketry. Wikipedia will adjust and figure out how to best explicate it. N2e (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

In the presentation, he did talk about it separately, but also both together is also simply listed as 'Starship' and he verbally referred to it as "The full stack". I think we could easily rename this article simply SpaceX Starship, or something similar, and simply discuss the Super Heavy booster within the article (perhaps more briefly and with a separate article if the entire article becomes unwieldy). In any case, I think I prefer that sort of name over something like "Starship and Super Heavy". — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 03:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

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.

Resistance to change

Sigh. Things like this is why I don't contribute to Wikipedia much any more. [WP:OWN]. Anxietycello (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Huh? I don't think anyone would object to splitting up the History section into subsections. It is a bit long. But a year-by-year chronology probably isn't the best way to do it. The development process is pretty chaotic (typical for SpaceX) and poorly documented. Maybe splitting it by incarnation (one Musk name change to another) or something else. Someone wanting to talk about the right way to do it, on the Talk page, isn't resistance to change. Fcrary (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Fcrary, I actually support a year-ish chronology. I think it makes the timeline of development a bit more clear. I'd support Anxiety's change in the absence of any serious factual errors in the chronology suggested. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 02:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I wasn't the one who reverted the change. I was just summarizing what happened and trying to get some consensus on how to split the section. But I do think we should avoid overlapping dates in the subsections. I think the original edit had things like "2017-2018" and "2018-2019" sections. Which subsection do you look in if you want to find out what happened in 2018? Fcrary (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

That was the point of the revert; so that it might be discussed and consensus achieved here. I agree with Fcrary that, for a complicated, dynamic and nuanced history of a launch vehicle like the Space 9-meter rocket, having subsections headings tied to specific narrow date ranges is not the way to go. N2e (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I like Anxiety's change. Although not perfect, it is better than nothing. Should be thought of section heading names, rather than correct summary. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Merge and rename?

We have way too many articles on this launch vehicle, fragmenting the info and confusing the reader. We can't really rename this article "Starship and Super Heavy" when we already have a separate article on SpaceX Starship. Unlike the ITS launch vehicle, which became a historical article as a result of a major redesign and name change, this article has continued the edit in parallel to the SpaceX Starship article since late last year. We don't need two articles, and if we did, those two articles would be SpaceX Starship, and Super Heavy (SpaceX Starship booster). For now I believe that the Super Heavy can be discussed in a section in a section in a single article names SpaceX Starship. But we really need to merge these two articles together under a single name. Who else is in support of merging? Any other things to consider? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 03:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Just rename. The related pages are extensive and I see no benefit of a merge. During this press conference, there was no new nomenclature announced and notably: the old name "BFR" was not even mentioned once (or in the last several months for that matter). IMO that finally closes the case for a move to an all-inclusive title for this page as the parent article of this launch system, as discussed in the section above. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Rowan Forest, Sure, but why do we need another article at SpaceX Starship at all? Why not just name this article SpaceX Starship? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 04:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a merge is the way per "common name". The booster is just that. We way want to start a conversation under a different heading to start fresh. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 04:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

If we merge (I think we should - we can split out Super Heavy later), what do we do with the history part of BFR? Basically everything before they went to steel. The Starship article shouldn't go into detail about the carbon fiber history. Do we merge that into the ITS article, even though it wasn't called ITS any more? Do we merge ITS into BFR and cover the whole history here? --mfb (talk) 05:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Mfb, We keep it in the history section. It is part of the history of this vehicle, even prominently talked about in the presentation last night. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree can split out later. Agree merger is best. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd prefer to merge much of this with the ITS article and rename that. That is, have one single history article on the pre-Starship SpaceX concepts and one single article on the vehicle they are currently developing. Fcrary (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Bingo! -Rowan Forest (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Sure, we'll have a history section in Starship discussing earlier concepts, but it can be short and link to the ITS/BFR article. --mfb (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

It is usual in all Wikiproject Spaceflight launch vehicle articles to have an article on the entire launch stack, the launch vehicle that transports payloads to orbit. This article (now named "BFR (rocket)" for historical reasons of SpaceX naming at the unveiling, and having been through many proposals to name the article something else) does that. I agree, time to mod the name now; but it should not get combined with an article on a super noteworthy and newsworthy single stage and spacecraft that is, quite simply, not a launch vehicle by itself (as in "single-stage-to-orbit", and more notably, is already flying and returning from suborbital flights in a flight test prgram and flight envelope expansion routine; that is what the SpaceX Starship article is about. N2e (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The term, BFR, no longer exists

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.

---

Rename it "SpaceX Starship-Super Heavy Launch Vehicle". In the past we have used two names for the rocket and the spacecraft such as Mercury-Redstone Launch Vehicle while still having separate articles for Project Mercury, PGM-11 Redstone and Redstone (rocket family). user:mnw2000

What do you think of something shorter such as: "Starship Super Heavy Rocket" or just "Starship Super Heavy"? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the Mercury-Redstone was not the spacecraft. It was just the rocket. Specifically the variant of the Redstone which was developed for the Mercury project and to launch the Mercury capsule. Fcrary (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

You are correct. Whatever you call this article, it should not be 'BFR'. How about just making it a empty article called "Super Heavy and Starship" that points to the Super Heavy (rocket) and Starship (spacecraft)? user:mnw2000

For one thing, we don't have a "Starship (spacecraft)" article. We've got one called "SpaceX Starship" which begins with the sentence, "The SpaceX Starship is a fully reusable second stage and space vehicle under development as part of SpaceX's BFR launch vehicle." I think the part about BFR needs to go, but renaming that article isn't an option. It just went through a request for move discussion on that last month, and "SpaceX Starship" was the consensus. Whether or not to also have a separate article on Super Heavy is another question. But as far as this article goes, I would like to presence the history, as we did with ITS launch vehicle. Fcrary (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. It is not for merely reporting the current status of a SpaceX or other rocket company rocket. It is for explicating the project, the program, the vehicle, the funding, the design use cases, etc. of a launch vehicle. The History section should be preserved. N2e (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

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.

Ways forward

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is a discussion about the "Big Falcon Rocket" article, which is now since moved to the "Starship development history". --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 04:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Lets discuss some general concepts on ways to go forward without getting stuck on specific article names for moves.

One way forward I suggest is to move out the information on the outdated three-legged carbon fiber iteration (the age of BFR) into whatever article deals with the history and past tests. (We could turn the ITS launch vehicle article into the project's History hub?) Next, rename this parent article with a current common name that encompasses the booster. Then, we could bring in here the general current info from the SpaceX Starship article, and let the article "SpaceX Starship" deal with the current details. Rowan Forest (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. We will have to back some things out of the BFR article. It has been (and is being, as we speak) edited to reflect the current specifications (e.g. 37 rather than 35 Raptors, payload capabilities, etc.) In the history article, we should probably describe it as it existed on November 2018 (when Mr. Musk changed the name) or at the time they shifted from carbon composite to steel. This would, however, be easier to agree on and coordinate if it weren't spread over multiple articles and talk pages. Can we also agree, as Rowan Forest suggested on the Starship talk page, to keep the discussion here? Fcrary (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Fcrary, can we just put everything before the name change/major redesign to steel in a subsection called 'BFR' under history? Then we can merge the rest of this article with the Starship one under the single name "SpaceX Starship". — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 05:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

We could do that, but IMO there's too much information about the history of BFR here to be merged into any article about the current version of the system. My suggestion would be to move all the current stuff from this article to SpaceX Starship and/or SpaceX Super Heavy, and either leave the history here or, perhaps better, merge it with the ITS article under the name History of the SpaceX Starship–Super Heavy or similar. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Rosbif73, So essentially, treat the pre-stainless/namechange vehicle as a different vehicle? That's not really correct though and the Starship is merely an iterative design change from the BFR, not a different vehicle like the ITS was. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 10:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Rosbif73, I think we should merge, and if it really is too much information, then we simply fork it off into something like "SpaceX Starship development history". — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 10:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

... which would have the same end result, namely one Starship article and one Starship development history (i.e. BFR, or possibly ITS+BFR) article. The big question is which is the easiest and/or best way to get there (the secondary question being where the existing edit history ends up). Then, of course, there's the elephant in the room, that we haven't addressed here: Super Heavy! Rosbif73 (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

What about Super Heavy? There is minimal information on it, but it is still part of the launch system so it is not being moved to the proposed History article. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The new, next-generation two-stage-to-orbit launch vehicle of this company named SpaceX is a long and complicated one. SpaceX began developing Raptor, in earnest, in 2012. From 2013 to 2016 they advanced a number of concepts, and vehicle names, including the massive 12-meter diameter ITS launch vehicle in 2016. All of those were concepts. SpaceX admitted they could not afford to build the 12-meter ITS LV, and unveiled a new 9-meter design in 2017, one that "we can actually afford to build" Musk said. Now, two years into development of that LV (currently named Starship/Super Heavy on the SpaceX website), and with more (often) confusing changes to the descriptors used by SpaceX, they flown an initial test article, and completed the structure and aerodynamic surfaces of a second prototype, and the bulk of a third. This particular 9-meter LV is on a path to becoming one of the seminal launch vehicles in spaceflight history. We need an article on the launch vehicle (the full two-stage stack). It would be fine to have one also on "The evolution of SpaceX second generation launch vehicle" or some such if there is a consensus for that. But any launch vehicle, and any super notable rocket that is just a part of an LV, is quite likely to (justifiably) have a briefer summary of History about that particular LV. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Nobody wants to delete the history. The point is that it just got a lot longer and it hijacks in volume the current information. The History can and will be preserved. The suggestion to move it to the ITS article is very advantageous, as it can become the parent article of the project's history of its development without restrains on size and details. For the fans that have been following this project, it seems intuitive to have separate articles for every major concept, but for Wikipedia purposes and readers, having one History article that keeps all iterations in context of each other, is invaluable and unambiguous. Of course, in this article, we will leave a compact summary of the development/History with a hatnote to the parent article (ITS - which would be re-named accordingly). Rowan Forest (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Rowan Forest, So basically rename the ITS article as "SpaceX Starship development history" or something like that, move the pre-starship name change BFR stuff there, then merge what is left of this article (current stuff) with SpaceX Starship under that name ("SpaceX Starship").

I'll also note that SpaceX does consider the entire stack of the Starship vehicle and Super Heavy booster together to be simply named "Starship" which is explicitly stated at their website's new Starship entry. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 09:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The fact that SpaceX now officially calls the entire stack "Spaceship" has implications for all their future press releases, which will be echoed by the media. I think Wikipedia has to adapt once more to the current name. See the new proposal below. Thanks, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

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.

A small step forward, given SpaceX new (once again) renaming of the vehicles

It could be that SpaceX recent use of the term "Starship" for the entire TSTO launch stack of both vehicle, and not merely the second stage/spaceship as they had defined it from the day they first used it in late 2018, may provide us a way forward on the natty naming/describing issue. As Insertcleverphrasehere just informed us above, it appears that SpaceX has switched yet again (sigh) their own terms for describing the vehicles and the vehicle stack. See their new entry for the launch vehicle here: SpaceX website's new Starship entry, which is new in the past 2 or 3 days.

Background: SpaceX is sometimes their own worst enemy for us editors clearly explaining on Wikipedia their next-generation rocket. SpaceX has made regular changes to the descriptors around the whole program and the vehicles.

• They've used "Mars Colonial Transporter" and "Interplanetary Transport System" (ITS) in the past to label the entire program or system they need to go to Mars,
• they also used MCT (circa 2013-2016) and ITS (2016-2017)to describe the full TSTO launch vehicle. So Wikipedia reached consensus in late 2017 on calling the entire system architecture to go to Mars "ITS" and the standard TSTO LV article we have on all launch vehicles the "ITS launch vehicle".
• in 2017, SpaceX switched to "BFR" (Musk: "we are searching for the right name, but the code name, at least, is BFR."), which led to the community (and later, Wikipedia) beginning to use the terms "BFB" for the booster and "BFS" for the second stage. This was the time SpaceX rolled out the new 9m vehicle architecture, and quit emphasizing only the Mars/interplanetary use case, and they stated then that they would replace all of their existing vehicles (F9, FH, Dragon) with the new 9m vehicles (even for Earth orbit satellite launch), and stated that the corporation actually had the capability to fund the new smaller vehicle architecture.
• in 2018, SpaceX clearly and unambiguously stated that the first stage would be called "Super Heavy" (a proper noun) and the second stage "Starship". (despite confusion from the term "super heavy" having been an used as an adjective in launch industry for years as in super heavy-lift launch vehicle)
• now, in 2019, another change. SpaceX website is calling the entire TSTO launch vehicle "Starship" Their new website says: "SpaceX's Starship spacecraft and Super Heavy rocket (collectively referred to as Starship) represent a fully reusable transportation system designed to carry both crew and cargo to Earth orbit, the Moon, Mars and beyond."

Personally, over the past year, I've been one of the editors arguing for consistency based on SpaceX naming: "Starship" is the 2nd stage and spaceship, and "Super Heavy" is the booster; therefore either "BFR" (the old common name; but no longer) or "Starship/Super Heavy" would need to be used to describe the TSTO launch stack.

A way out? Perhaps SpaceX this provides us a way out of the confusion. Wikipedia might, more simply, consistently use "Starship" to refer to the TSTO LV, and refer to the first stage as the "Starship booster" or "booster" (while noting as an aside that SpaceX also sometimes refers to the booster with the pronoun "Super Heavy"), and then refer to the the second stage as "Starship second stage", or "Starship spaceship", or "spaceship" depending on what part of the vehicle's use is being described. The goal, it seems to me, is to help the global Wikipedia reader grok the vehicles and concepts based on common terms.

I don't know that this would work, but if there developed a consensus about how Wikipedia might deal with the confusing, changing, and often overloaded terms SpaceX assigns, maybe this could help. Just an idea. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, N2e demonstrated that the Starship home page implemented updates, including the new name for the complete system [1]: "SpaceX's Starship spacecraft and Super Heavy rocket (collectively referred to as Starship)"
Where does that leave us updating & consolidating the multiple related articles in Wikipedia?

1. The parent article of the complete launch system, currently titled BFR (rocket), could be moved to an all-inclusive name. If the booster changes name in the future, we may benefit now by naming the BFR article: Starship launch system, or something similar.
2. The article dealing with the Starship alone, currently titled SpaceX Starship, should retain that title and content. Its History section could be trimmed and linked to the new parent History section, proposed to be the ITS article.
3. The Super Heavy. That is the booster's official name, it has no article yet and the related info is scant. It presents no problems with the current updates, especially if we name the BFR article in an all inclusive way —such as Starship launch system or similar.
4. The lengthy history, including the outdated three-legged carbon fiber iteration, could be sent to the ITS launch vehicle article (which would then be re-named appropriately). A consensus seems to be building up regarding moving the History text there, and we have not heard an oppose from N2e.
5. Under this proposal, there is no merge needed.

Your thoughts? Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

A simpler proposal

Thanks colleagues for debating possible ways forward to describe the various iterations of SpaceX's upcoming rocket. My suggestion would be to keep things as simple as possible:

• Keep ITS as is: too different from later variants of the design
• Keep this article focused on the 2017–2018 BFR iterations, i.e. the "carbon" designs
• Move all information about the current "steel" iterations to SpaceX Starship
• Create a section about the Super Heavy booster within the Starship article (thus acknowledging that SpaceX recently placed the whole stack under the "Starship" moniker)
• Super Heavy (rocket) should point to this new SpaceX Starship#Super Heavy booster section, instead of BFR
• Whenever more details emerge about Super Heavy, expand the relevant section, and possibly split it out to its own article, although I doubt that would be necessary.

Who likes that? — JFG ^talk 18:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

JFG, The only problem I have with that is that the BFR is not a different vehicle, it IS Starship, they just hadn't settled on a name yet. I don't think I support moving the BFR pre-steel stuff to ITS honestly, that article is about another vehicle, albeit a vehicle designed with the same goal in mind. In fact, the change to steel was made AFTER they changed the name to "Starship". Even though they changed the design material, this is the same vehicle as the BFR.

I like Rowan Forest's suggestion the best, as it gives us the easiest path forward (basically just renaming this article). I also like the suggested naming conventions that N2e has suggested. Starship launch system is a simple and easy to parse name that helps differentiate the spaceship from the complete vehicle stack, by simply renaming this article and following some new naming conventions on both articles we can avoid annoying mergers and move forward quickly. If in the future this article becomes unwieldy with the BFR/early starship history stuff in it, it can be forked to another SpaceX Starship development history article. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I guess there is some merit in getting rid of the two-article system and just going for following JFG's suggestions and also renaming this article SpaceX Starship development history straight away. I'd also support that as an option, but it will involve a lot more work as both articles will need to be re-tooled. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Certainly the ITS and BFR are different iterations of Musk's Mars spacecraft concept, but the fact is that they evolved into Starship. For people like us following SpaceX's project, it seems intuitive to keep them separate, but we are supposed to educate the casual reader into how Starship came to be and the various iterations in between, so having the FULL history together in a single article seems best for Wikipedia purposes. Still, I'm willing to give it further thought and listen to all the other editor's ideas. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

An advantage I see with JFG's proposal is that the ITS and the SpaceX Starship articles would undergo minimal changes at this time. I also accept the point that the engineering of BFR is much more related to Starship that it is to the ITS. My reluctance so far is mostly based in that Musk is already working on the next generation, which will have dimensions and features similar to the ITS, so I feel it is efficient to keep the sequence of iterations in a single "History" article. Rowan Forest (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with keeping the history in one place. Based on past actions, SpaceX and Mr. Musk will, inevitably, make significant changes to Starship. Most likely, before they build the first, non-prototype vehicle. If we put all the past versions together in a history article, then we've also solve the problem of dealing with those future changes. We just keep the article on the current vehicle current and expand the history as needed. Fcrary (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Darn, I hate to say it, but I'm just utterly confused by all the differing proposals, at the very same time that SpaceX has suddenly switched their own internal naming practices for the umpteenth time. In other words, it doesn't seem like all of us editors have the same ideas about what the descriptors even mean. And with that, given all we got is words to discuss with, we can't really move forward. I tried a simple approach to perhaps getting a core of interested editors on the same page with respect to descriptors, but now my head is spinning with that as just one of many proposals, most with multiple simultaneous article merges and reconsolidations.

My take: this vast breadth of rejiggering All Things SpaceX next-gen vehicles and systems is just too much, too fast. I'd recommend we just focus on one single task at a time, like remaming one article or so, or WP:AfDing some article that someone doesn't like. I can't see how we can possibly get new names and article merge/combine/delete swizzles all in place at the same time. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@N2e: There is something to be said about strategy and purpose when we have many related articles and overlap. However, sometimes that does not work in this open environment where a consensus is required. Hang in there, a couple more days. And thanks to mfb for taking the time and effort to craft the table below. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I tried to categorize, feel free to change it or add your name. --mfb (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the categorization table mfb! I've tried to summarize my proposal to the table for comparison. N2e (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

	Current scope of article	Proposal A by Rowan Forest	Proposal B by JFG	Proposal C by JFG	Proposal D by N2e	Proposal E by Insertleverphrasehere
ITS launch vehicle page	12-m diameter orbital launch vehicle	Include history from BFR article, rename	Keep as is	Merge into Starship development history	I'm okay merging the ITS launch vehicle chapter of SpaceX history with the history of the 9m TSTO LV plus the history of the 9m 2nd stage (For the record, my former proposal, from when the row heading went to a different article was this: Keep about the SpaceX Mars project. The overall Mars project should not be the story told in the launch vehicle article.)	Keep scope as is. Leave it alone, ya'll are trying to complicate this too much.
BFR_(rocket)	9m TSTO launch vehicle	Describes system, move to Starship launch system or similar	Whole system. Keep carbon fiber history, move rest to SpaceX Starship	Whole system. Rename to Starship development history and explain all iterations until Starship flies	Keep scope as is. The TSTO launch stack needs an article. Article does need renamed.	Keep scope as is. Rename to Starship launch system.
SpaceX Starship	9m 2nd stage & spaceship (+ suborbital test articles now being built/flown)	Keep as is (spacecraft only), short summary of development history	Describes spacecraft and booster	Whole system; 2019 version only; short summary of development history	Keep scope as is. This rocket is notable and meets WP:GNG now. It would overwhelm the TSTO launch vehicle article. Might need renamed	Keep scope as is. This rocket is notable, perhaps rename to Starship (spacecraft) to decrease ambiguity between that article and this one.
Supporters		Rowan Forest (2nd choice) mfb	JFG	JFG Rosbif73 Rowan Forest (1st choice) Fcrary mfb Soumya-8974 Keavon	Insertcleverphrasehere (2nd choice) N2e (2nd choice)	Insertcleverphrasehere N2e

Concerning implementation of the first proposal: Move this page and change "BFR" to "Starship" where not historical. Rename ITS to History of Starship or something like that. Move steel history from this article to the history article. Three steps that all work on their own and leave a coherent Wikipedia after each step. In parallel SpaceX Starship can get some rephrasing now that the overall system is called Starship as well. --mfb (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

After considering all comments, I would also support keeping all history of Starship development in a single article. The current BFR article could be renamed Starship development history, and the ITS iteration could be merged into it, although we don't need to do it all simultaneously. I am very strongly in favor of keeping the SpaceX Starship article focused on the actual launch system that is being built and will fly. Pre-steel development history should only have a brief summary paragraph there. Added an option C to table above. — JFG ^talk 08:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Option C sounds best to me. I also note that both B and C would have the added advantage of keeping the existing edit history in the same article as most of the text that it relates to. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• After reviewing of the proposed strategies (thanks to mfb for the table) and the thoughtful feedback, I now favor the proposal C. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• My ideal would be something like A, but without moving the BFR stuff to ITS and keeping it in the Starship Launch System article history section (this would be literally as simple as just renaming this article), because its simple and could be accomplished in about 2 minutes. Otherwise its probably C, with B as a secondary option. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I changed my mind, I basically only support a simple changing the name of this article to Starship launch system, The ITS article is fine where it is, leave it alone. The history here is fine where it is, leave it alone, the Starship spacecraft article is also fine how it is, leave it alone. Just rename this article and move on. If we decide on mergers later, then we decide on them later. (I know this is close to N2e's proposal, so appologies for creating a new column, but I'd prefer the ITS article left alone.) — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 05:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. I think some sort of merge is very important. As it stands, some people are editing the "BFR" article to reflect the recently announced changes. Some people are making similar edits to the "SpaceX Starship" article. Others (e.g. the one on the Raptor engines) link to one or the other launch vehicle article in a way which is not all that coherent. With the content spread over many, many articles, we're inevitably going to have inconsistent edits and contradictory statements. If we can decide what should go where, then merge and rename articles accordingly, we avoid all that. That's a real hassle, but I think it's going to be better and easier in the long run. Fcrary (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• Option C is closest to what I'd like (and I've edited the table to reflect that.) If we have one article on the past versions/development history, we can bypass the whole debate over whether or not Starship is just a new name for BFR or a different design. It also solves the problem where to put of the carbon-hull versus steel-hull BFR concept. I honest don't care if it's BFR being renamed and ILS content being add, or the other way around. Fcrary (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Woah. Hey Rowan Forest. Check the change you made here. diff. That may be what you think is the scope of that "ITS" link there in the table; but it is not. The link that is actually there in the table now, and has been all the time people have been putting there !votes/preferences is this: ITS ("[[Interplanetary Transport System|ITS]]"), which links to Interplanetary Transport System, and NOT ITS launch vehicle, which may be what you mean given you changing the "scope" as in the diff.

My point is that all the people, including me, who've weighed in to this point thought it was what the link actually pointed to, and that is the Mars Transportation Architecture, not the ITS launch vehicle. So it kind of invalidates all the !votes to this point.

Maybe restart a new table, and add a row for ITS launch vehicle, and clarify/spell out the ITS redirect to [[]], and start over with a new empty table? I don't know. But what we have is people thinking different things about the terms, which invalidates parts of the discussion. (This is hard; and SpaceX changing the names and meanings 3-4 times now has made it very hard for Wikipedia editors.) Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

No way. Excuse me but when I and other editors refer to the ITS in this discussion it has always been referred to AND linked to the ITS launch vehicle. One person transcribed the proposed options into the table, and mistakenly he used a redirect from ITS into SpaceX Mars transportation infrastructure, which was incorrect and not what was discussed, so I fixed it, but that does not invalidate the discussion and iVotes explicit for the ITS launch vehicle. We can deal with that article (SpaceX Mars transportation infrastructure) much, much later as it is exclusively focused on Mars and its base. I understand and acknowledge quite respectfully that you have been an important driving force behind all those articles, but the discussion and consensus has taken us here. You make it not unanimous, but there is a consensus nonetheless. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with most of what Rowan Forest wrote. I've been talking about the ITS vehicle and how to describe it as a previous concept for what is not Starship. I don't actually follow evert link in every comment on a talk page, so I didn't even notice the redirect to the "SpaceX Mars transportation infrastructure". So that has no impact on anything I've said and doesn't invalidate a vote (as far as I'm concerned.) As far as SpaceX Mars transportation infrastructure is concerned, we'll have to update it based on whatever we decide to do with the article(s) on the launch vehicle. In the process, we might want to look it over and fix anything which has become obsolete since the ITS days. We'll also have to update Raptor, since it says it's the engine for BFR. I was going to hold off on mentioning that. There's no point in making those changes until we settle this. Fcrary (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, then it's clear you two both thought that, but I did not, as can be seen by my comment. Other editors can speak for themselves. As for me, if someone want to change the link, and the name, on that row to what Rowan is saying, then I'll try to get back here and adjust my comments/proposal in Column D. But as for how the table actually is, right now, my comment still holds as the link goes to Interplanetary Transport System (the "system" that Musk talked about in 2016, of which the launch vehicle was only one element), and not to ITS launch vehicle as both Rowan and Fcrary say they were thinking it meant. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, to be more explicit, maybe change THAT line to ITS launch vehicle and add Interplanetary Transport System/SpaceX Mars transportation infrastructure (since they both go to the same target) to a new row added to that table. Just a thought. It might help, 'cause I'd probably have less problem with THAT (ITS/SMTA) merging into the new history article some of you are proposing. N2e (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

It is weird that Interplanetary Transport System redirects to the Mars article, not to the article about the proposed Interplanetary Transport System. Maybe we can fix that at some point, but I don't see the relevance here now. Just for the record: I always understood the discussion to be about the rocket article. --mfb (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Title for the ITS/BFR merger

It seems that option C above has most support, and I see no benefit in delaying the changes. Since there is a clear preference and there is nobody stonewalling the process, can we move on with the next steps and implement that option? Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed names for the ITS/BFR merger article

(Doesn't have to be perfect, as a placeholder it can be moved later)

No	Title options	Supported by:
1	History of the SpaceX Starship–Super Heavy
2	History of SpaceX Mars vehicles
3	SpaceX Starship development history	mfb (2nd); Insertcleverphrasehere (2nd);
4	Starship development history	Rowan (1st); mfb (1st); Insertcleverphrasehere (1st); Rosbif73 (1st); JFG; Keavon
5	Evolution of SpaceX Mars launch vehicles
6	History of Starship	mfb (3rd); Insertcleverphrasehere (3rd); Rowan (2nd);
7	History of SpaceX super heavy lift vehicles	Fcrary; Rowan (3rd)
8	Evolution of SpaceX super heavy lift vehicles	Fcrary
9	History of SpaceX Starship	--Soumyabrata (talk • subpages)
10	(add another option)

• I favor option 4, then 6. Rowan Forest (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• I'm for a modified 2 or 5. I'd rather we could say "super heavy lift" instead of Mars. I'd rather not say "Mars", since they have said it will be used for other destinations as well. I'd rather not say "Starship" or "Super Heavy", since they may change the name again. It will always be "super heavy lift." Fcrary (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• I prefer 4, 3 or 6 in that order. The vehicle might have started as Mars rocket but it went beyond that narrow scope. Starship is the common name of what we have now and it is the history that lead to this vehicle, Starship should be in the name. SpaceX is not needed as disambiguation (it is the only Starship with a long development history) but it would increase similarity to the main article. --mfb (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a disadvantage to using "Starship" for the article on development history. Based on past history, SpaceX and Mr. Musk will almost certainly change the name again before it enters service. Potentially more than once. I'd rather keep name of the article on the current vehicle updated to reflect the nom de jour, and find a name for the history article that won't need to be changed. Do any of us really want another discussion like this one, each and every time Mr. Musk decides to change the name? Fcrary (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• I don't like 2 or 5 as Starship isn't intended only as a mars vehicle but also for replacing satellite launch capability, moon launches, etc. 4, 3, or 6 in that order. "super heavy lift" as suggested above might also work but it fails WP:Concise. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 00:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I know. I wasn't happy with "History of SpaceX super heavy lift vehicles" myself, but I couldn't think of anything more concise. I was struggling to find something that covered all those different names and concepts, and which wouldn't have to be changed with the next SpaceX name change. If anyone can think of something less wordy which does that, I'd probably like that more. Fcrary (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• Another !vote for 4, for all the reasons above. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• I can support the idea of shrinking the 9m TSTO LV article and 9m Starship article by consolidating history elsewhere. I don't support the premise that is currently in the title of this Talk page subsection: "Title for the ITS/BFR merger", 'cause that presumes an outcome that I don't believe a consensus has yet been reached on: that the article on the overall SpaceX Mars architecture ("ITS" as listed in the mfb table above is just a redirect to that article at present) should be merged with the article describing the 9m TSTO launch vehicle that will replace ALL of SpaceX current LVs, and is not merely a Mars-centric launch vehicle, even if Mars may be a principal motivation of the CEO. N2e (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

  This section only applies if an option is chosen that does this merger, obviously. --mfb (talk) 11:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• I support № 9, as it is less ambiguous than any other options. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 09:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Number 9 (History of SpaceX Starship) is not a bad title, but it seems unnecessary to include SpaceX in the title. You mentioned ambiguity, though I must ask, is it likely that "Starship development history" would cause confusion by anyone as to what it refers to? The only idea that comes to mind is that one might assume it refers to the development of starships as a fictional concept, except that is unlikely to be the topic of an article as titled "development history" because "development" implies physical engineering/design/construction in such a context. "History of starships in fiction" might be a more apt title otherwise. Once Starship begins launching more frequently, its name will likely become more widely known and its meaning even less likely to cause any confusion. It is for the same reason we do not have "SpaceX" in the title of List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches and List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters, since it is not really necessary. I think it's a worthwhile trade to have the phrase "development history" in place of "history" and "SpaceX", since "development history" is a word that more clearly indicates the purpose and contents of the article compared to merely its "history", which has a broader implication that will not be as much the direct focus of the article. Keavon (talk) 05:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Keavon, Even if it was, "SpaceX Starship development history" would be better than "History of SpaceX Starship" IMO. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 06:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I think "SpaceX" is important in the title. Unlike "Falcon 9", "spaceship" has a more general meaning. A reader unfamiliar with the names of launch vehicles might be confused. That's not a problem for "Falcon 9" since readers unfamiliar with the name wouldn't take it to mean something else. Fcrary (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Fcrary, I'm personally fine with that logic. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Fcrary, Well, it ended up here. I'm still on the fence about whether there is too much ambiguity or not. I'd say probably feel free to start a requested move discussion if you feel strongly about it. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm flexible. But considering the fictional Star Wars' spaceships are very common, I would support adding "SpaceX" to this title. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Since "SpaceX" is the second word in the article, and someone put in the "other uses" template immediately above the text, I think this is clear enough. Fcrary (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

SpaceX has a new webpage on Starship and Super Heavy that clearly defines that BFR is now Starship

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This was an older discussion about article structures. --mfb (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

---

SpaceX just released a new webpage that will clear this up once and for all. The webpage can be found at https://www.spacex.com/starship.

The page says "SpaceX's Starship spacecraft and Super Heavy rocket (collectively referred to as Starship) represent a fully reusable transportation system designed to carry both crew and cargo to Earth orbit, the Moon, Mars and beyond. Starship will be the world's most powerful launch vehicle ever developed, with the ability to carry in excess of 100 metric tonnes to Earth orbit. Drawing on an extensive history of launch vehicle and engine development programs, SpaceX has been rapidly iterating on the design of Starship with orbital-flight targeted for 2020."

There you have it. Starship is both the spacecraft, by itself, and when joined with Super Heavy. So this article should be renamed "SpaceX Starship (spacecraft and booster)". user:mnw2000 00:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mnw2000: Look at the section above. Rowan Forest (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid that doesn't clear up much. See the two discussions, above. We already have an article on SpaceX Starship. Are you saying we should delete it and replace it by renaming BRF (rocket)? That doesn't make sense to me, since the "Starship" article is more up-to-date and doesn't have a large amount of baggage describing past designs. I also don't think that's where the consensus in the above discussions is headed. Also, just to make it fun, the SpaceX web page doesn't say whether BFR was a past design concept which has now been replaced by Starship, or if Starship is simply a rebranded BFR with a few modifications. I'd personally say the carbon composite version is fundamentally different from the steel-hulled one, but that isn't a universal view. Fcrary (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Fcrary: I guess I should put this in the discussions above but at www.spacex.com/mars, SpaceX says "...will help fund development of SpaceX's Starship and Super Heavy (formerly known as BFR)", but this was before they switched to Steel. This also says that per SpaceX that the "BFR" and Starship are the same vehicle? OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 02:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

My take: we are trying to do too many things at one time, making any cogent discussion of the many matters problematic. I had suggested there might be a way to just work on getting names/descriptors straight, and limiting ourselves to that as a first step. But it seems most ideas/proposals are combinations of merging articles, renaming things, and dealing with yet another SpaceX new use of terms, all at the same time. I said a bit more about this in the previous section. I'd recommend someone make a Proposal to do one single thing. Say, WP:MOVE an article, or WP:AfD an article, and see if we can't get agreement on that. I kind of seriously doubt we can get consensus on a complex and multi-dimensional change, when we are all likely still using names and descriptors from thee different epochs in SpaceX next-gen rocket history. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, these things largely depend on each other, but I showed how proposal A can be implemented step by step in the comment below the table. The same works for C. The first step is the merger that you oppose. --mfb (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

My only take was on the name BFR which is longer accurate. I would call it SpaceX Starship. The question as to whether we should have three articles (SpaceX Starship, Starship (spacecraft) and Super Heavy (rocket)) is up to debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnw2000 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Please make your opinion to the section above, especially in the summary table of possible courses of action. — JFG ^talk 07:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

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.

Temp solution while we sort out mergers?

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.

---

It looks like we are headed in the direction of some complicated mergers between the three articles. But while we sort out what the ideal merge might be, would anyone object to just moving this article to Starship launch system in the meantime? Having it sit at an obviously not commonname title while we sort all the merger stuff is not ideal in the least. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

It has existed with this title for years, so a couple more days does not matter. The discussion in the strategy is not at a dead end, and it is progressing very well. Hang in there, please, Rowan Forest (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

"A couple more days" seems to have turned into "a couple more weeks" and unless something happens, is on its way to turn to "a couple more months." When is the time to stop waiting? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Geoffrey.landis: I agree, the delay game worked. I would love to close it based on my assessment, but an un-involved party has to do it. Rowan Forest (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Rowan Forest, I guess that especially with all the recent news coverage, having it at this title is a disservice to the reader. The discussions can continue, and I think that something approaching Option C will get approval, but that is going to take quite a bit of time to actually talk out and also to implement. In the meantime, there is no downside to having this article sit at Starship launch system in the meantime. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Rowan Forest, I guess, don't let perfect be the enemy of the good. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll just note that a few days ago I did suggest that perhaps we'd get there sooner/faster/better with a simpler and more narrow agreement on terminology, and what the various descriptors mean, between a number of interested editors. ... and leave the more complex article refactoring for a secondary step. Before that narrow convo could happen, the larger multi-article merge and all got proposed, with many having many differing and fairly complex views. I too appreciate the good faith everyone is showing a collegiality. But I do think we are not really getting close to a consensus, and the differing views on what the terms mean, even when a link is used in (for example) a column heading in the (otherwise) helpful table mfb added, is being, and likely to continue to be, a substantive impediment to getting a solid consensus in place.

I will participate in whatever process is joined by editors here. But i did suggest that this complexity might make it quite challenging to come to a workable consensus. YMMV. N2e (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

In that spirit, but in the opposite direction, I'll restate my preference in a way which does not use any names or terminology. Just the structural concept. If we could come to a consensus on that, perhaps we'd be in a position to decide on names, terminology, what goes in which article.

I am suggesting one article on the current super heavy launch vehicle being developed by SpaceX and one article on the past incarnations, versions and concepts for SpaceX super heavy launch vehicle. The article on the current vehicle would have a section on its history, but a brief one with a link to the other article. Neither would go into great detail about any plans or ideas from SpaceX about a transportation system, interplanetary or otherwise, but would certainly mention them with appropriate links. Does this sound like something we can agree on? Fcrary (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, N2e. The process of identifying a way forward was certainly complex but very cordial and we already came up with a consensus for the strategy that involves mergers, moves and updates. The very last thing under discussion is just the name for the merged ITS/BFR page (a place-holder name will do), which can be done today. The process worked fine, and the consensus is clear, but unfortunately, it is not unanimous: You voice is valued and valid, but I hope you understand that you are the only editor that voted for all articles in question to remain basically unchanged. Invalidating everybody's iVote and performing a repeat in order to include a page focused on Mars (that apparently nobody cared in this discussion to mention) is not a reasonable way forward. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Rowan. I agree with with the cordial attitude of all editors working on this thorny issue, made much harder by SpaceX frequent change of names, and WP:COMMONNAME sometimes varying with that. And no problem about us having differing positions on various parts of the matter. That's why we discuss. But I will say that I don't believe there was a finished consensus on any change. I don't think the discussion had even been going on for 7 days. Also, I think on this one we involved editors will definitely need to request an outside editor to do the closure of the discussion. This one is very complex; much more so than a regular knotty discussion. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Rowan Forest, I'm going to have to agree with N2e on this one, we are pretty far from consensus. Also I've changed my mind and my thinking is much more in alighnment with N2e, we are trying to complicate this too much by trying to merge everything together. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 05:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Fcrary: I am suggesting one article on the current super heavy launch vehicle being developed by SpaceX and one article on the past incarnations, versions and concepts for SpaceX super heavy launch vehicle. The article on the current vehicle would have a section on its history, but a brief one with a link to the other article. [...] Does this sound like something we can agree on? Yes, I think it totally matches the spirit of what we have all been saying above. I'm also coming round to the idea of starting by simply renaming this article to Starship launch system or similar (largely to avoid us getting so bogged down in discussions that we never actually achieve anything). Splitting off the history into its own article would be a good second step, and we already have some vague consensus that it should be named Starship development history. We can discuss subsequent steps, such as merging the ITS launch vehicle page into that history, at a later date. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm against a "temporary solution" which would only last a few days, and would possibly re-ignite debates. We are faced with a complex web of issues, due to incremental development of the articles as news emerged. Now that there is clarity on the eventual spacecraft that will fly, it is the right time to sort the history into order. Let us just do it. — JFG ^talk 08:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

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.

Discussion on the closure and implementation

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.

---

• The iVotes above indicate that option #4, Starship development history, is the preferred name for the ITS launch vehicle/BFR merger page. I would like you to think of it as an appropriate "name/place-holder" that was assessed by the community, and that changing its name again in the very near future can be done if needed. This was the last step in the process, although there is one valuable editor against some changes, I request we now implement all the outcomes of the strategy (Option C) and the page title (Option #4), as agreed through the discussion, consensus and iVotes. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid they don't. I don't believe the discussion is finished, nor a consensus reached on this complex set of many different proposals by several different editors. I do not believe the discussion has even been gone for a full 7 days. Also, we should definitely ask for an outside editor to do the closure of the discussion, rather than any one of us involved editors doing it. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. The nature of the strategy surpassed the use of the usual templates for a single action. And it worked. All interested editors participated and a clear consensus was reached on every point. I am aware you disagree with the changes to all the articles involved and on the strategy and its outcome, but you are the only one in record. I love you too much to throw the Wiki-book at you regarding consensus (WP:Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity.)  :-) I see no need to stall the process any further, considering some editors even posted requests for a quick fix so that the BFR page gets updated ASAP. Being that the Starship presentation has attracted a large traffic to these articles, I agree with those editors to proceed ASAP and implement what this community already decided. If you plan to appeal to an Administrator to delay and even prevent the implementation of the strategy that this community already agreed upon, lets get going. And yes, and outsider will be requested to perform the changes already agreed. Rowan Forest (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Rowan Forest, Discussions are meant to continue for a week minimum for mergers and complicated proposals, specifically to give time for other ideas and opinions to emerge. N2e has brought me more around to his thinking, (or, at least, convinced me that my first instinct was correct and that we don't need all these mergers). The !votes above for the Starship development history name were predicated on that being the preferred way to go forward, however, it isn't entirely clear yet if that is the path we should take. The cart is going before the horse at the moment and everyone is rushing around trying to get it done quickly without thinking if we SHOULD be doing the mergers. That's why I suggested just updating this article's name in the meantime, so that we don't have to feel rushed, but you shot that down. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 05:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks like we have rough consensus for option C above and title #4. No worries keeping the discussion open for a couple days, though. Bear in mind that we will better be able to improve articles once they are sorted logically as proposed. — JFG ^talk 08:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The strategy is now clear and simple: one merge under a new name. This simple step will also take care of the unsustainable duplication in multiple pages. Make it happen here. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the strategy, but I don't see the point of opening a separate thread at the ITS talk page. Let's finish the discussion here. If you want to gather more feedback by adding a merge notice to the ITS article, you can point it to this discussion. — JFG ^talk 18:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Think that we should have continued the discussion here, not bifurcated it off to yet another place, after they are already nearly a half dozen sections of this page talking about it. N2e (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, in the normal world, but because of the unreasonable antics and Wiki-lawyering, the formal merge has to be done. Discuss here if you will, iVote there. Rowan Forest (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Be careful, Rowan. You know Wikipedia well enough to know that we ought to keep it about improving the article, and not make it personal. This discussion had been going on for only about four days, and had people with a somewhat divergent set of views on the best way forward given the complex set of proposals tabled. Calling out your colleagues on Wiki-layering just 'cause the consensus is not imediately going your way borders on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Slow down. Stay collegial. Talk to improving the article, and not to the editor. We'll get through this. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

If you could actually state actual valid reasons. Invalidating the consensus of the original discussion because you could not understand it (SpaceX Mars transportation infrastructure vs ITS launch vehicle) is not an honest action, it is BULLSHIT. Stating that it is invalid because a formal merger template had not been used during the merger discussion is BULLSHIT. Telling the community at the Spaceflight Project that we are doing a complex merger of several pages is BULLSHIT (it is a normal 2-page merger). Refusing acknowledge and accept that WP:Consensus does not require unanimity is BULLSHIT. Bullshit attitude is not collegial. Be careful. And while you are at it, please review WP:Ownership of content. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it'd be good Rowan to return to speaking about improving the article and not attacking an editor who seems to have simply come to a different position than you in a complicated discussion on article content that had been going on for only 3 or 4 days at the time I registered my own position in the table you set up to assess other editor's views on the matter; and I did it with a rationale provided. (Interestingly, that there is not yet a consensus on the matter is a reflection that other editors have also seemed to also share a sense that we did not yet have a full consensus, in some measure or the other. Even today, it's not yet been seven days since the various proposals started, and less than half that since you seemed to want to take it to an early conclusion. So it is not surprising that some editors may still be thinking/reading/discussing and we are not yet "there".)

I consider your now thrice repeated shrill discussion of other editors on article Talk pages, rather than about improving the encyclopedia, to be personal attacks. And whatever any others may choose to do, I'll state here that I perceive them to be attacks on me under Wikipedia:No personal attacks criteria "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on the wiki." If you think that I have done some sort of editor behavior that is inappropriate, you know where to take it to have it fully dealt with using diffs and fully laying out whatever it is that you wish about my behavior. This article talk page is not the place for it. Your personal attacks should stop now. I recommend a couple days of chill, and see if we can't return to the collegiality we've had on every other matter for years now of editing many spaceflight and space articles together, both under your current and former usernames. I'm confident it'll quite workable from my side if you can just chill, and return to working on improving the articles. N2e (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I expose the (Redacted) of your arguments, not of your values. Live with it. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

N2e and Rowan Forest, could we all just step back and take a deep breath? I know both of you aren't happy about how you've been discussing this. But this isn't worth fighting about. With the current edit war on geophysical planet definition I'm sort of maxed out on obnoxious Wikipedia editors. I'd really would rather not see two editors I respect and enjoy working with getting into a fight. Fcrary (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I respectfully request Fcrary that you review the discussion above and please help me see where I have been obnoxious in the editor behavior department. This discussion started (in some 7 sections on this page by many editors) just seven days ago. I've made substantive comments on improving the article and provided rationale to support my position on the various topics brought up by others. Other editors seem to have also come down on the sorts of positions I supported. Never have I attacked another editor. But when another editor began moving it away from arguments about the article and moved to expletives and accusations about another editor who just happened to have taken a position on the questions being discussed that was different then theirs, and even began using expletives in that, I did ask for it to stop. Heck, I even suggested where the forum was for taking issue with my behavior (if the editor felt they actually had substance to their argument) so it wouldn't continue on this article Talk page. Your comment implies you see something inappropriate about both my behavior and Rowan's, and your comment is now a permanent record on this Wikipedia Talk page. Please clarify just why you have found my behavior on this page obnoxious. N2e (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe Rowan Forest was not nice with the phrasing, but he summarized quite well the problems with your discussion style here. --mfb (talk) 06:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I have requested to an uninvolved editor or administrator to close the discussion to determine consensus. Seven full days are passed since the discussion. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 10:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

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.

What do we do now?

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.

---

The discussion to merge BFR and ITS has been open for a month now, and I think we've had enough time to debate it. I think the consensus was to have one article on the current vehicle (Starship) and one merged article on the development history of Starship (which would be a merge of BFR and ITS.) But that was hardly an unanimous consensus. We really ought to get someone outside this discussion to confirm this. Unfortunately, requests to the Spaceflight project haven't attracted an response. I'm inclined just to do it at this point. Instead, I guess I'll just ask if the dust has settled, and if people find the above change to be acceptable. Fcrary (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that two editors here posted separately at the Administrator's noticeboard a request to close this. Their lack of response (x2) is strange, so I do think we have to proceed. I'll stand by, but I too support to implement the change as proposed. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree that only an uninvolved editor should close. I don't however find it strange that the requests-for-closure have not been actioned yet; they both only just hit a month, and its only after that when volunteers on that board seem to start whittling the list. N2e (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Despite I am an involved editor, I have determined the consensus and found that N2e's consensus is stronger than anyone else. Of course, I am not closing the discussions unless an uninvolved editor determined the consensus. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 08:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, what? There can't be more than one consensus - by definition. N2e writes more comments (subjective, didn't count), but that's not a basis for making a decision. --mfb (talk) 13:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I assume Soumya-8974 meant that the consensus in favour of N2e's proposal was stronger than for anyone else's proposal. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

This is why we are waiting for an administrator. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I see 2 users supporting N2e's proposal and 7 supporting JFG's proposal. This is no consensus, and JFG's proposal has much more support. --mfb (talk) 04:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

It's reopening a can of worms, but I'd really like a restatement of the proposals. I think several people have suggested several different ideas, or at least variations on a theme. Which one of N2e's or JFG's proposals are you writing about and counting? Fcrary (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The one in the table. --mfb (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

If we're talking about the same table, you're name is attached to three options, as is Rowan's (although with 1st, 2nd and 3rd choices noted). I'm listed as favoring two of those possibilities and it doesn't look like N2e's listed in that table at all. Oh. Wait. There are two tables. I was describing the more recent one. Does that explain why I've sort of lost track of who was for what at which point? I think some us have changed our minds (at least a little) since this whole discussion started. Fcrary (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

These two tables are for different things. The first table is the article organization, where only C and E are relevant options, all others are clearly inferior to C or E. The second table is about the name of an article of option C, and only relevant if option C is chosen. It has number 4 as clear favorite. --mfb (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I have requested an uninvolved admin at the Administrators' noticeboard to determine the consensus. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 13:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

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.

Proposal for name and history of this and the "ITS launch vehicle" article

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.

---

BFR is no more. MCT is no more. ITS is no more.

SpaceX has a real name, a real web page dedicated to the launch vehicle ( https://www.spacex.com/starship ), and a real development program that has already built real bent-metal hardware.

There is a clear point between history and current progress. That split occurred one year ago during the switch from carbon composite to stainless steel. After that point, it was also finally named Starship and Super Heavy. Before then, there was very little hardware built, and the concepts kept changing. We went from BFR to MCT to ITS back to BFR. These carbon composite variations mainly changed on a year-by-year basis in-between Elon Musk's presentations, and this time scale also approximately aligns with the major internal concept changes. This is an important history, but each of those pre-Starship concepts are very different from Starship.

So I propose we have two articles: SpaceX Starship and SpaceX BFR history (or some variation on those names). The former is an article for the current vehicle, named Starship, along with its Super Heavy booster used for reaching orbit from Earth. This is a stainless steel spacecraft and launch vehicle, and it has always had the name Starship. It is being built, tested, and flown (Starhopper and the suborbital prototypes and first orbital prototypes are currently under construction). The history article should cover all phases of development from the early SpaceX days up through the various IAC presentations until the final carbon composite concept with the #dearMoon presentation just over a year ago. A chronological history would be a very useful way of representing this.

At the moment, the ITS launch vehicle article is nonsense because ITS was a name used for only one year during the carbon composite vehicle concept history. That should be part of one article describing all the carbon composite history. And also at the moment, this article's title of BFR (rocket) is extremely wrong. That is simply not the same of the vehicle anymore. It needs to be renamed. It should probably have a short, paragraph-length summary of pre-stainless steel history since the Mars vehicle's inception, with a "Main article: SpaceX BFR history" link.

Keavon (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Keavon, This entire proposal hinges on a false premise that the BFR and Starship are different vehicles. They are not. Even after the name change, Starship was intended to be carbon composite (see the dear moon presentation). It wasn't until several months after the name change that the construction material was changed to stainless steel. The vehicle now known as Starship was referred to by the codename BFR until late 2018, and also in late 2018 the construction material changed from carbon composite to stainless steel; correlation does not imply causation. In the most recent Starship presentation, Elon musk's comments clearly confirm all of this as he talks about the history of development and design changes.

The current title of this page is incorrect because it is not the WP:COMMONNAME for the vehicle any more, but is not "extremely wrong", because it is the same vehicle. We are working on fixing that and such a proposal is currently pending closure of the discussion over on the ITS talk page.

The ITS was a proposed vehicle, and the article is not nonsense. Perhaps the design was only considered for a single year before being scrapped in favor of a smaller ship with the dimensions of what would become BFR/Starship, but that doesn't make it any less notable or worthy of an article. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere: Please don't present a minority opinion as fact here. @Keavon: See previous sections, and feel free to add your name to the big table listing preferences. --mfb (talk) 09:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Mfb, A minority opinion? Elon musk has clearly stated it as fact. BFR/Starship is just a name change. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 10:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Keavon, thank you for being a non-involved participant. Can you determine the consensus of Talk:ITS launch vehicle#Merger proposal? --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Soumya-8974, HAhahaha. Non-involved? The comment above clearly speaks about his preferences in emotionally charged language. I think you need to read WP:INVOLVED again. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Soumya-8974, I have given my opinion about the sensible approach for this quandary but I am not familiar with the process for determining consensus, nor do I have a good grasp on what an "uninvolved participant" means. But in lending my opinion, that seems to mean I am involved, right? Insertcleverphrasehere has pointed out as much also. I'd prefer to err on the side of letting others, hopefully with more experience in these matters, do the consensus determination. Keavon (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Keavon, I was a bit flippant in my comment just above, but yes we need someone to bug some admins over at WP:AN so that one of them comes over to close the discussion. I think that it is pretty clear how it should close, but it still needs an uninvolved closer. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 23:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Soumya-8974, Keavon, Mfb, I have closed the Talk:ITS_launch_vehicle#Merger_proposal discussion as we need to move on with this and not get bogged down in procedure. See my comment in the close with regards to why I closed it even though I am involved in the discussion. In any case, lets get on with the merger. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

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.

Talk page cross-references

Just to keep an overview:

• Talk:BFR (rocket) - after the original article was moved away: This article was a draft for the merged history article.
• Talk:ITS launch vehicle - formal merger proposal was there
• Talk:SpaceX Starship - no extra discussion there
• Talk:Starship development history - this article got the history and talk page from the old "BFR (rocket)" article. Most discussions are here.

--mfb (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Mfb, Thanks for that. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 04:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Section summary

The section entitled "Starship and Super Heavy" must be trimmed considerably and render it a summary of the parent article. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I lost sight of the scope. This article is meant to document the developmental history of the various iterations. As the Starship Mk3, Mk4, etc., get built and tested, those details will eventually be transferred here. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

"SpaceX Mars base" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect SpaceX Mars base. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 12:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

has been retargeted. --mfb (talk) 07:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

"Launch mount landing pad" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Launch mount landing pad. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 10:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

"Launch mount landing pad" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Launch mount landing pad. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 12:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

"Autogenous pressurization" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Autogenous pressurization. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 08:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Starship SN8.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Accident with SN9

Today, there was an accident with SN9 in the highbay. Is this importantbfor the article? —-(nob) (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

It's currently in the article, probably in more detail than necessary as it turned out to be easy to fix. --mfb (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Table of Static fires

With several vehicles, especially SN8 and SN9, it is not practical to list every single static fire and proof test in the large table of prototypes. Maybe we should make a short table for each listing them in the article body. N828335 (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Update: I have already implemented this. Let me know if you have any feedback. Specifically, should the tables default to hidden? N828335 (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

AlexE Hi - I'm a bit new to these 'talk' pages. Gosh there seems a lot of old 'talk' for this page. I updated the large table, partly as I was thinking of creating my own resource - but thought this could do a good / better job and think its helpful. I'm thinking to update it further with 'rollout' dates. I think there is room to include dates of static fires (e.g. as bullet points) and some very brief text, but also remove the long 'notes' column. As someone has already said, its good for most of the notes info to be in the main body really. Also, could be good for the table not to 'need' references but rely on references in the main body instead? There could be too many or duplicate references otherwise. I'd suggest your SN8 / SN9 tables not be hidden - or we merge the essential data from that into the main table and have more descriptive text in their relevant sections? Welcome your thoughts before I walk all over this content :) Though I'd intend to improve the table mostly, if you could look after the rest of the text body. I may be able to help with the references in the main body a bit. Cheers, Alex

PS - its possible EverydayAstronaut spotted this table, bit of a coincidence to see his 2020 tweet a couple of days later :) https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut/status/1355926780679487494 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexE (talk • contribs) 21:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@AlexE: I don't want to remove the Notes column all together, because minor prototypes like SN13 & SN14 need a short description, but not really a place in the body. We could make it thinner though. I'll be working on removing a lot of the notes in the table and placing them in the body over the next couple days. Along with that, I will continue adding preflight activity tables for a lot of the other prototypes. Also I think this talk page should be archiving and removing old sections, not sure why it is not. N828335 (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

​Also, I know EverydayAstronaut occasionally uses Wikipedia. I have reasonable suspicion to believe Falcon9guy is his account (or someone related to him). Not sure who else would be able to upload a selfie of Tim that does not originate from anywhere else on the Internet. I am preparing to contact him a usage inquiry for some of his SN9 flight photos. N828335 (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@N828335: LOL, though looks like that account may have been deleted - possibly after he was 'spotted' e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/125.238.168.114 . He seems pretty contactable on Twitter etc. I'll have a go at improving the table a bit, but may leave the notes to you to clean up further. Cheers. - AlexE

@N828335: I have finished adding 'roll out' dates to the table. I've also added one example multiple-date launch to the Starhopper cell. Its a bit messy now, but if the notes column is reduced it should free up space for more info in other columns. Could even include basic info like '150m hop' in the launches column bullet points. If you don't like feel free to revert. If you like, we can reduce migrate info from the notes column into the other columns. Is there a way to show 'beta test' content? I guess it could be pasted in here. - AlexE

SN8 & the FAA

Controversy

After the flight, it was reveled that SpaceX sought a waiver from the FAA to go beyond the maximum safety level for the public for the SN8 flight. Despite the FAA denning the waiver, SpaceX launched SN8 intentionally violating their launch license. The safety violation caused the FAA to suspend all testing that put the public to the risk, delaying the SN9 flight. However, after corrective actions the FAA allowed SN9 to fly.

References

Is is the best wording for the whole SN8-FAA issue? We still don't have a lot of info. Probably under the SN8 heading. cc:@Jared.h.wood: (per the other talk page) OkayKenji ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see what backs up the word "intentionally". It seems more likely to me that SpaceX introduced some extra safety measures and thought these were sufficient but there was some misunderstanding and these hadn't been fully cleared as adequate by FAA at the time of SN8 launch. crandles (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Removed, was iffy if I should include it. I'm not a fan of safety violations, but gonna wait a few more days until introducing the above into the article or at least until I understand the situation more. OkayKenji ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@OkayKenji: I suggest removing the Controversy heading and just putting it in line with the chronological events. To me that means putting in one of the existing Starship SN8 or Starship SN9 sections and adding some dates to make it flow with the rest of this article. If you choose to focus the new content on January 25 and 28 when SN9 launch attempts were cancelled because of newly revealed SN8 FAA violations, it will fit nicely in the SN9 section. Otherwise you can focus on SN8 flying without FAA approval which would later be revealed, delaying SN9. In that case it would fit well in the existing SN8 section. The source seems to think that all of this will recede into the background and I tend to agree. Only time will tell. Either way, this is a good add and a good source for future editors to reference. JaredHWood💬 19:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

SN9 outcome dispute

Discussion on going here. Potentially should be considered differently than SN8. N828335 (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Pro-Musk bias goes against normal engineering practice and terminology

There shouldn't be a prototype section since none of the vehicles yet built by Space-X concerning a possible future Starship would be considered by any engineer to be a prototype.

For example, during Apollo, NASA built several flight simulation vehicles to help train future Lunar Lander pilots. None of these were Lunar Lander prototypes.

It's not unusual to build partial structures for testing. But, even if these are identical to later structures, they are not prototypes. For example, the main wing section of a new airliner built for load testing is not a prototype -- it's an engineering test article.

The atmospheric test vehicle built by Sierra Nevada was not a prototype Dream Chaser. The DC-X was not a prototype. The Ares-1X was a prototype since it was capable of doing what the Ares rocket was supposed to do, namely reach orbit. Space-X is a long way from anything like that with its SN series. Could we uphold the credibility of Wikipedia and make this article consistent with normal engineering practice rather than using Musk's incorrect terminology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brehmel (talk • contribs) 20:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I will point out that prototype in engineering parlance is a WIDE cross section of things. And even the Oxford Languages agrees saying "a first, typical or preliminary model of something, especially a machine, from which other forms are developed or copied." and the Starships SpaceX has been testing are very much a set of preliminary models that are being tested to ensure it works for the final design.

I also find it Hilarious that you are saying Ares-1X was a true prototype because it was capable of reaching orbit. It wasnt not at all. Ares-1 were supposed to use a 6 segment SRB which are just now being testing and qualified, the 1X flight was a 5 segment SRB with a 6th segment that was mass sim only. and the Upper Stage was completely inert and just ballast to give it the right weight. the upper stage had no engines on it and no fuel loaded. the whole point of the flight was to test the structures and make sure the control system worked. which I will point out is exactly what SpaceX is doing with the Starship prototypes down in Texas.

Also their name is stylized ″SpaceX″ not ″Space-X". and calling it pro-Musk bias is a bit extreme in my book. it is just people very interested in spaceflight and watching the most visible company there is.

WeylandsWings (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

When are these crashes going to be reported as crashes and not success? there is so much Pro Musk bias that one almost becomes a "denier" to properly report failure. Do we want another Space Shuttle disaster? Clapping and hooting a crash landing, really? People are supposed to be traveling using these engines, relatively soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.8.108 (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Where are they reported as success? They've been listed as "partial failures" in the table of tests. Whether or not to call them this or "failure" is an ongoing discussion. It's not like they are going to be flying people in these for a significant amount of time, allowing them to work everything out. SpaceX has a very different engineering philosophy than NASA with the space shuttle. N828335 (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

SN12 SN13 and SN14 Cancelled

Chris B Nsf on Twitter: [2]

SN9 has experience a major failure in ignited engine too

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starship-sn10-launch-plans-asap/

"It’s unclear why the ill-fated Raptor failed to ignite or why the engine that did ignite appeared to experience a major failure shortly thereafter but rocket propulsion is extraordinarily difficult – and Raptor is near – or at – the end of that scale." 79.100.158.26 (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Absurd level of detail in the article

It is great to have enthusiastic new editors join the project of writing good encyclopedic content for the global readership of the English Wikipedia to consult and learn from.

That said, recent additions to this article, with exceeding detail about the existence of each and every road closure test on each of the various test articles is, in my view, excessively detailed. I think it is inappropriate detail for the encyclopedia.

I just offer this observation to suggest that some considerable curbing of new editor enthusiasm might be in order. Happy to discuss. But I'm not really here to talk anyone into this. It's just my view. But if a full on WP:RfC were to be done, which would likely draw more than a few outside editors, I strongly believe that the level of detail currently in the article would not be deemed appropriate by that larger and more experienced body of editors. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree to some extent. We can probably do away with the timeline tables, instead just presenting the important static fires and such in the article itself. Are there any other specific areas in the article with too many details? Also note there is a lot of duplicate info that needs to be addressed. N828335 (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Even the static fires are not that important. Think about what a reader five years in the future will be interested in. --mfb (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

​​​ I also agree. I really like the comment about "a reader five years in the future". We could try to capture and formalize these ideas for an Article Guidance notice at the top of this talk page. I've created a draft below. Feel free to edit it directly or replace it entirely if there is a better model for doing this. If it turns out to be a good idea, we can move it to the top of this page when it is finished and refer editors to it. Jared.h.wood _{is now} JHelzer💬 18:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, static fires are not overly important, probably deserve a sentence or two for major prototypes. Other tests (like cryoproof) should get a slight mention or nothing at all. Unless of course something goes notably wrong, like with SN4. N828335 (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Generally I'm against removing information from the encyclopedia wholesale if it is relevant and properly sourced. If this page is getting overly detailed, maybe some of the test records could be shifted to another page? Maybe something like Testing timeline of SpaceX Starship or equivalent. There definitely appear to be editors who would be interested in maintaining such a page, as this one proves. BlackholeWA (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I removed all of the Timeline tables over the last couple days, incorporating only the important into the article prose. The notes column on the table has also been removed, in favor of placing info directly into the article. Hopefully these help with the issue. N828335 (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Article guidance draft

This page is receiving an influx of new editors (who typically don't check the talk page before editing), so maybe we should try to adding an Edit notice also? N828335 (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Recently removed content

I removed a lot of content from the article recently because very few people want to read that much about the interplanetary Transport System. We should maybe make another article just for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.212.131 (talk) 11:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Starship development history/Archive 2. Basically the whole page is about the article arrangement. You'll need to get more support first if you want to change that. --mfb (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

NASASpaceflight YouTube videos as a citation.

Several citations of NASASpaceflight Starhship YouTube videos were marked with by N2e. This user provides the following rationale:

YouTube does not publish original content; it is merely a channel for video content to be posted on. Full citations are needed. YouTube is not a publisher or |work= site for Wikipedia citation purposes.

Unfortunately, first sightings of Starship prototypes generally does not create very many full news articles, but I have tried my best to prioritize those. Given that Mary (BocaChicaGal) is the person typically responsible for spotting these new prototypes, a citation would probably need to come from NASASpaceFlight. Sometimes they mention it in an article, but often times the only time I can find it is through their forum or in one of their videos. I figured YouTube would work better out of the two. On the list of perennial sources, YouTube (WP:RSPYT) is marked as "Generally Unreliable," but this is because most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable. However, as mentioned there, content from a verified news organization, such as NASASpaceFlight, can be reliable.

Another potential issue with using YouTube is WP:No Original Research. We cannot add our own conclusions after watching a video. I would argue that is not the case with the majority of citations in this article, take for example SN13. The fact that SN13 was first spotted then is clearly mentioned in the title, description, and on-screen annotations. I believe this is not WP:OR or WP:SYN to add SN13 was first spotted in November, 2020. As mentioned earlier, we could also use the NASASpaceFlight forums or @BocaChicaGal on Twitter, which probably both provide similar information. I just think YouTube is the best and most easily accessible out of the options. N828335 (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The addition of "full citation needed" tag was just to flag that we should not attribute to YouTube alone, but to the actual source/publisher, which at the time, was missing from all of those citations. If the publisher or channel is identified (which I believe was NasaSpaceFlight.com, the "news" side of NSF), then that would seem to satisfy the request and justify removing the tag.

It seems to me that we should probably not cite info from the NSF forums, as I'm certain I've seen wiki discussions on that in the past decade or so and forum convos on internet forums are not considered by most to be an acceptable source. But the news side of NSF is quite different. I believe that those daily and weekly videos produced by NSF are from the news side of NSF, and have some variety of checking and editing before each video is produced; I do not think they rely strictly on the videographer in the field, but on that plus all other editorial and reporting resources they have at their disposal. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

My interpretation of {{full}} was that a news article or "fuller" source was needed, not that the citation itself needed fixing. I have not seen this tag before, guess I should have read the documentation on the template first. Thanks for your comments regardless. I had wondered beforehand if we should use the NSF forums. N828335 (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Reorganization of prototype section

I think it would be a good idea to split the prototype section into "Starship prototypes," "Superheavy prototypes," and "test tanks." Right now, in the big table, a lot of the columns don't apply to all the prototypes, like "number of flights." The table is also getting overly long with every new prototype. In the process, we need to remove all the unnecessary and unsourced information. N828335 (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

N828335 What do you think about removing the Notes and significant developments column from the the table entirely? I could help you move that stuff to the appropriate sections. Jared.h.wood → JHelzer💬 23:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, the slight downside would be prototypes like SN12, SN13, SN14 that don't have a spot in the article. Maybe add a heading about minor prototypes to put the info there. N828335 (talk) 05:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@JHelzer: Starting work on the reorganization and removing of the notes column now. N828335 (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The tables look so much better without the bulky notes section! I've copied and pasted each note cell under their respective heading. However, this leaves a lot of duplicate information that needs to be properly merged. I've left cleanup notices. N828335 (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@N828335: Table data has been merged to paragraphs in the prototype sections. Jared.h.wood → JHelzer💬 22:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@N828335: I have moved SN2 to the Test Tank section. Remember that SN2 is not an airborne prototype and is instead a test article. Be careful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FinTGM (talk • contribs) 09:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@FinTGM: Thank you! I realized that, I just never got around to moving it there. That is why I left a comment. It looks like one user reverted your helpful edits, that you later reinstated. Please be sure to type short edit summary, so others know what is going on. Also, remember to sign your name with ~~~~ on talk pages, N828335 (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I have been thinking about adding a section displaying all the Raptors used for the Starship Prototypes as a table. This will involve the Raptor’s serial number next to the date of first use next to the decomission date next to the location made next to the status next to the firings and next to the flights. Phew. That was a lot of saying there. But what do you think about the idea? I think this would be useful for researching and looking into the activity of the raptors for reference. Should I make a new page for this? Should I add it into the Starship Development History Page? Or should I not do it at all? Your opinion would be great.FinTGM (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@FinTGM: Probably a new article. In fact, there is already a draft for that at Draft:List of SpaceX Raptor Engines. It was declined, because it needs significantly more work and references. You can continue working on this, if you would like. On its talk page, mfb left some important notes about the proposal. At the moment, it is very difficult to find much information about the Raptor engines, because SpaceX is a private company. We don't even know one of the engines used in SN9. N828335 (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@N828335: Thanks for the link! Will get working on on it very soon. I will post a reply when I start. FinTGM (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@N828335: UPDATE: Now working on the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FinTGM (talk • contribs) 21:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@N828335: As I had started working on the Raptor Engine List page, I had not found that much information online explaining all the details for each Raptor serial number. Yesterday, a Twitter user named Artzius posted an image of all the Raptors with their information I wasn’t able to find online. Will get back working on the page again with this information now.FinTGM (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Potential article split

I'm not entirely sure on this myself, but would it be beneficial to split off the prototype section into a new article? See WP:WHENSPLIT. At 42,933 characters, the length wouldn't justify a split on itself, but the length will only increase in the future with more prototypes. On a content level, the section on physical prototypes feels like it doesn't fit with the beginning.

If we were to split of this section, what should we name the new article? Some ideas:

• Starship prototypes
• Starship and SuperHeavy prototypes
• Starship prototypes and testing

Another consideration would be the article issues. Do these apply to both? Or does only the prototypes section suffer from original research and excessive detail? N828335 (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think it's a little early for this now. This article is already essentially a split from the main Starship page. Perhaps it'll be necessary once there is a lot more text. At the moment, I think it's best to keep this consolidated. BlackholeWA (talk) 09:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, seems like this is not well supported at the moment, I will remove the page notice. However, I do think we should split it once they go orbital, and keep all the Starships on the same page (test or operational). N828335 (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@N828335: - I actually came here to do propose the same thing. ITS and BFR should get split out. They are effectively proposals for entirely different rockets. Different scales, different materials and have little realistically to do with what we know as Starship today. Seddon ^talk 16:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

HLS mockup (white) nosecone and stubby nosecone (possible strucutral test article) inclusion

Should the HLS mockup nosecone be included somewhere within the article at all, and if so, should it be in its own category with the stubby nosecone that is reportedly a structural test article? I believe that it would useful to mention both, although there are not really many sources that I can find on the structural test article that could be considered a reliable source for its purpose. Should they even have a small section for example - test nosecones, or is that too much detail? I know that there were at least three other test nosecones made possibly for production and manufacturing guidance and pathfinding, which were all scrapped, or is this again too much detail for the purpose of the page? Perhaps a spinoff page? Pythagorasboy5 (talk) 08:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Invitation

Everybody who edits this article should edit the draft, Draft:Starship SN11. 64.121.103.144 (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Everybody who edits this article should edit the draft, Draft:Starship SN15. 64.121.103.144 (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Starship Prototypes AlexE (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

AlexE here, I modified the Starship Prototypes to remove the now 'repetitive/obsolete' Construction Site column with a more interesting calculation, and commonly asked question of 'days til flight'. Extremely simply "maiden flight date" MINUS "rolled out date", showing how fast things are progressing. This was rolled back for having 'no references'. I suggest simple math for a useful column should not require references. In terms of 'original research' it is analogous to calculating someone's age from their date of birth on a Wiki profile page - e.g. The Queen - so not original research at all. Likewise, the simple count of number of flights is of a similar level of 'research'. Here's the table with my calculations. I suggest readers will find it more interesting. Thanks, Alex.

Name	First spotted	Rolled out	First static fire	Maiden flight	Decommissioned	Days til flight	Status	Flights
Starhopper	October 2018	8 March 2019	3 April 2019	25 July 2019	August 2019	139	Retired	3
Mk1	c. December 2018	31 October 2019	—	—	20 November 2019	—	Destroyed	0
Mk2	c. December 2018	—	—	—	November 2019	—	Scrapped	0
SN1	c. September 2019	26 February 2020	—	—	28 February 2020	—	Destroyed	0
Mk4	c. September 2019	—	—	—	November 2019	—	Scrapped	0
SN3	March 2020	29 March 2020	—	—	3 April 2020	—	Destroyed	0
SN4	March 2020	24 April 2020	5 May 2020	—	29 May 2020	—	Destroyed	0
SN5	April 2020	24 June 2020	27 July 2020	4 August 2020	February 2021	41	Scrapped	1
SN6	May 2020	12 August 2020	23 August 2020	3 September 2020	January 2021	22	Scrapped	1
SN8	July 2020	27 September 2020	20 October 2020	9 December 2020	9 December 2020	73	Destroyed	1
SN9	August 2020	22 December 2020	6 January 2021	2 February 2021	2 February 2021	42	Destroyed	1
SN10	September 2020	29 January 2021	23 February 2021	3 March 2021	3 March 2021	33	Destroyed	1
SN11	September 2020	8 March 2021	22 March 2021	30 March 2021	30 March 2021	22	Destroyed	1
SN12	September 2020	—	—	—	February 2021	—	Scrapped	0
SN13	November 2020	—	—	—	February 2021	—	Scrapped	0
SN14	October 2020	—	—	—	February 2021	—	Scrapped	0
SN15	November 2020	8 April 2021	Not yet	Not yet	Not yet	Not yet	On launch pad	0
SN16	December 2020	Not yet	Not yet	Not yet	Not yet	Not yet	Under construction	0
SN17	December 2020	Not yet	Not yet	Not yet	Not yet	Not yet	Under construction	0
SN18	January 2021	Not yet	Not yet	Not yet	Not yet	Not yet	Under construction	0
SN19	February 2021	Not yet	Not yet	Not yet	Not yet	Not yet	Under construction	0
SN20	March 2021	Not yet	Not yet	Not yet	Not yet	Not yet	Under construction	0

@AlexE: I do agree the construction site column has become unnecessary recently, and a simple comment of the two prototypes that were constructed elsewhere would suffice. I also agree that a simple arithmetic operation, such as this, should not be considered WP:SYNTH. However, I have a more pressing issue with such a column: WP:WEIGHT. You are adding this column to "show how fast things are progressing." Despite being a commonly asked statistic, by introducing this into the table, you are inputing your own bias into the article. In other words, we should not add statistics solely to make a point. Instead, I recommend removing the column entirely. A smaller table will make it easier for small screens to see. Thanks, N828335 (talk) 04:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@N828335: Thanks for the reply. As I said, I was adding the column as it answers a common question on Facebook, Reddit etc. "Wenhop" even. This gives that information in a very simple way, and one 'side effect' or benefit is it also shows how things are progressing rather than everyone having to do some basic math to work it out for themselves. I've already edited it once and had it removed, so will leave others to do as they will. Cheers AlexE (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)