Talk:Super Heavy (rocket stage)

Tags

@CommanderWaterford:You added two tags, unreliable sources and Third Party. I do not understand this. The sources are news companies specializing in space exploration. They are created by people who are experts on the subject. I do not think these tags apply. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 23:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Requesting More Sections

I request more sections of this draft form to fit with Wikipedia's article guidelines. Though it is short and somewhat misleading, I would suggest creating sections about the background, the development. With this being said, please include references/cites that are secondary sources. This means news from CBS News, The Washington Post, The New Yorker, and such. The reference list needs to be expanded. Jack Reynolds (talk to me | email me) 12:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@JackReynoldsADogOwner: Thanks for the feedback. I will work on those things. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 14:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@JackReynoldsADogOwner: Also, all the sources there are secondary sources. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 14:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@StarshipSLS: Yes, I am adware of that. But, most of the references are from nasaspaceflight.com. All I'm saying is that the reference source needs to expand to reliable news outlet such as CBS, The Washington Post, etc. Jack Reynolds (talk to me | email me) 14:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@JackReynoldsADogOwner: Why isn't nasaspaceflight.com reliable? StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 14:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@StarshipSLS: I did not say the website was not reliable. All I'm saying is that you need to expand the reference source to other news outlet. Jack Reynolds (talk to me | email me) 15:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@JackReynoldsADogOwner: Ok. So you mean there should be more sources which are not focused on space? StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 15:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I will be working on these new sections at User:StarshipSLS/sandbox/Super Heavy sections. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 15:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@StarshipSLS: That's not what I meant. The topic should focus on the topic of the article, but you need to find more sources to cover all grounds. Jack Reynolds (talk to me | email me) 15:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Some comments

The article is far too light on general characteristics about the vehicle, and focuses far too much on individual prototypes. Not even reusability is mentioned (well, it's in the "engine" section of the infobox... but it doesn't belong there). Or its enormous size/thrust. See SpaceX Starship#Super Heavy booster for existing coverage of the booster. Everything beyond BN3 is speculation and needs to be removed. "it’s expected that" is not a clear plan, and not even the source speculates about the flight numbers - things might be reused. Water splashdown for BN3 is speculation. SpaceX explicitly said that Starship will perform a splashdown but chose different words for the booster. We don't know what that means. The whole "development" section is not specific to the booster and should be removed. Starship is not derived from the Falcon rockets. Rocket family is Starship, it's the only rocket of its family at the moment. Given the lack of other rockets in its family you can just remove that parameter. --mfb (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mfb: The Development section shows the past designs of Super Heavy. It should be kept. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) I am taking a vacation in summer and won't edit in July and August. 16:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mfb: Also, you are welcome to implement those changes yourself. I do not really have much time today. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) I am taking a vacation in summer and won't edit in July and August. 16:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mfb: I have implemented some changes. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 17:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

These are not past designs of SH, they are past designs of the full system, which is covered elsewhere. --mfb (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mfb: Look at the table. It says MCT first stage, ITS first stage BFR, Super Heavy. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 12:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I did look at the table, that's why I know the table is wrong. Adding "stage 1" to the names doesn't make the table about the first stage. The only relevant number there, the payload, is for the whole system. And the version numbers are purely your personal invention. --mfb (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mfb: Incorrect. The version numbers are from the source provided in the table. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 12:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

That's the author numbering his sections. I'm annoyed by your discussion style here. This table doesn't belong in a SH article, it's bad even if it would be within the scope of the article, and it has no chance to survive in an actual Wikipedia article. If you want suggestions how to improve the article, see above. If you just want to argue, I'm out. --mfb (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mfb: Ok, I will remove it. Any other feedback? StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 15:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mfb Don't use Convert template along with abbr=on, rather use the proper cvt template alone, which does the abbr=on by default. Chandraprakash (talk) 09:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't add the template. --mfb (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Frozenprakash, Cvt is just a convenience version of Convert; neither is right or wrong. Carter (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, Cvt does the abbr=on by default, but Convert doesn't do it by default. Chandraprakash (talk) 11:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mfb You didn't add the convert template, but you did multiple abbr=on modification, rather you can rename the convert to cvt which would do the job.

In general it'll avoid multiple parameters esp while the page is filled with templates. Chandraprakash (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I made exactly one edit, adding "|order=flip" to an existing template. I'm not seeing any point in this discussion. --mfb (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments

A few suggestions.

• You should be using Template:Infobox rocket stage instead of Template:Infobox rocket, I think. Some of the parameters you have in the current infobox seem to be more for the overall Starship system, not specifically the Super Heavy stage (capacity, for example, is about the Starship spacecraft, not Super Heavy).
• I went ahead and put the infobox in a vertical format. It's a matter of personal preference, but I find it makes it much easier to read when editing.
• Your first reference is to the general Space X web site. You really need to the citation point to where the information is. I found some of it in the Starship Users Guide other bits on the Starship page (hard to link directly to the info since the Super Heavy specifics are in a slideshow carousel).

Carter (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about StarshipSLS, but I agree with most of this. I had originally added citations to the Starship page, as you linked above (the 'slideshow carousel' one), but I think they changed that to the more general link.

I'd add that again, but with a more easily parsable, less slideshow-y source available (like the other one you linked), then I think that one should be preferred when referencing wherever possible.

I can work on transferring some of the information in the current infobox to a new infobox using Template:Infobox rocket stage and also change out some of those sources as long as there's no opposition. Juventiuscinna (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Juventiuscinna:@Tcr25: I agree as well. But I think Wikipedia is having a problem because I tried to transfer the information from the current infobox to the suggested infobox already a few times over the past week, but when I do that there is no infobox but only the wikitext. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 21:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

StarshipSLS, looking at this diff, the issue appears to be that the HTML comment at the end of the engines= parameter wasn't closed (the --> was missing after "SpaceX does not have a fixed number of total engines yet." making the rest of the article a hidden comment.) It's the sort of simple omission that can be hard to see when you have all the infobox code collapsed to a horizontal format. Carter (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Juventiuscinna@Tcr25

• Support - That would be a great improvement.

StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 21:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the issue you were encountering. I've replaced Template:Infobox rocket with Template:Infobox rocket stage. I left some blank parameters in there (mass, etc.) that I couldn't quickly find data for. Carter (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Further suggestion

Given the ratio of text to tables/boxes on the page and given that much of the current List of Super Heavy boosters table just says "N/A," I'm thinking it might be best to just present the relevant information in the text and to eliminate the table. As it currently stands, the table isn't providing comparable or sortable information or summarizing anything that can't as easily be given in the text. Carter (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tcr25: Oppose - I disagree. I think the table is very helpful. When more boosters start flying, it would be too much to create a section for each one. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 13:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

StarshipSLS, that may be true in the future, but right now, it's not really telling people anything. At least look for ways to consolidate it, for example, move "Production Pathfinder" from the name column to either a footnote or incorporate into the "N/A" for flight information. That would make each of those a single line, which would reduce the visual clutter. As an aside, I'd also question the straightforward use of the phrase "production pathfinder"; that seems to be SpaceX/Musk-specific jargon.

If you're committed to the table, consider incorporating the booster descriptions currently after the table into the Development section. Make it more of a narrative showing how one builds on the other (and do more to explain the "pathfinder" process that Musk employs). Having a table follow that might seem less repetitive.

Also be careful with time-relative terms like "currently" (which is in the Booster BN2 subsection). You should use Template:Asof or something like to note that the information may be outdated at some point in the future. Carter (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tcr25: I will follow the suggestions in the last two paragraphs. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 14:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

StarshipSLS, sound good. I also just realized you have three cancelled items in the "derived from" section of the infobox; information about that might also be worth expanding on in the Development paragraph (which currently only mentions the first one). Carter (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tcr25:  Done StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 14:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Further comments and explaining edits

Hi StarshipSLS, I went ahead and reworked the Development section. I believe it helps readers to have a more connected and narrative structure for information rather than short bursts of information, and it better fits Wikipedia's encyclopedic style. You also want to be careful about not assuming too much regarding the reader's baseline knowledge. Jargon and abbreviations should be understandable to someone who isn't a closely following SpaceX or rocketry in general. The same with things like the oeprational structure and facilities of SpaceX. You don't have to spell everything out, but make use of wikilinks to things that will help people understand what's being discussed. Carter (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tcr25: I like your edit very much. Thanks so much for your help! StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 19:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

No problems StarshipSLS, I'm not officially mentoring you, but I do want to help guide you in improving your contributions to the project. I'm glad you're willing to see this as a learning process, and I want to see you stick around. Carter (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Production Pathfinder

Looking at the table, I understand StarshipSLS's concern that "Prototype/Production Pathfinder" might imply that BN3 is not also a prototype, however, I still think having "Production Pathfinder" alone is not encyclopedic. It's a company-specific phrase that can be puzzled out, but isn't really intuitive. I'd suggest either dropping it entirely from the table either leaving the space blank (less than ideal) or replacing it with something like "never flown". That's more parallel to the information that would otherwise be there and would be clearer. In any case, the jargon "production pathfinder" should not be left standing alone in the table. Carter (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tcr25: I agree. You can change it. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 13:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I do not have time right now. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 13:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Carter (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Merge proposal

WP:OVERLAP. There exists neither substantial precedent nor necessity for this article existing independently of SpaceX Starship, and pretty much the entirety of its content is covered in the SpaceX Starship and Starship development history articles. We do not have articles on SLS core stage, Falcon 9 first stage, et cetera. osunpokeh (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Osunpokeh:But what about Common Core Booster? My suggestion is that we merge the content about Super Heavy from SpaceX Starship into this article. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 23:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a different vehicle. In this regard, Super Heavy differs from CCB because it's designed for a single vehicle exclusively: the Atlas V CCB is used across multiple vehicles (Atlas V, GX). I honestly would support an article more for the Falcon 9 first stage than Super Heavy, and we don't have an article for that. osunpokeh (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Broadly, the difference between Falcon 9 and this article, is the separation of "main concept". When I think of the Falcon 9, I think of the reusable first stage. That's "the interesting part", and an article about the entire Falcon 9 system should (and does) focus on that. But for Starship, the "interesting part" is the reusable second stage. For that reason, I don't think it's directly comparable. Even though in both cases we're talking about the first stage of a 2-stage system, I see this difference.

I interpret this to mean: If the main article is mostly focused on the interesting part, a second article about the other part might make sense. Leijurv (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Do we have an article about the non-interesting Falcon 9 second stage? osunpokeh (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Osunpokeh:No. But Super Heavy is very important. I suggest maybe making SpaceX Starship more about the second stage and this about the first stage. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 13:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Important as in what? The Falcon 9 second stage is "very important" in the Falcon 9 launch vehicle. osunpokeh (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

No but it would make more sense (in my mind) to split off the second stage into its own article, than the first stage (for F9). Maybe I'm completely barking up the wrong tree here. Just my two cents. :) Leijurv (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Spaceflight articles aren't my strongsuit but I'd like to add that there's also precedent for this with Space Shuttle external tank and Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I was hoping someone would bring those up. Again, the Space Shuttle components were proposed to be used on a variety of vehicles (e.g. Shuttle-C, Ares 1, hell even SLS. The same does not hold true for Starship yet, so no need osunpokeh (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. I mean, yeah, both of those articles have a section at the bottom for "future use" and "future and proposed uses", but that's not... the reason why the articles exist...? It might be obvious to you that in order to get its own article, a rocket stage needs to have been proposed for use in multiple rockets, but it isn't to me. Another example: Saturn V, and its stages: S-IC, S-II, S-IVB. Leijurv (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Again, there were many Saturn V derivative launchers (among these are Saturn INT-20 and Saturn INT-21). We do not have proposals to used Super Heavy in other LVs yet. osunpokeh (talk) 03:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Again: It might be obvious to you that in order to get its own article, a rocket stage needs to have been proposed for use in multiple rockets, but it isn't to me. I do not follow your reasoning. Leijurv (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Merging helps the article be a lot more coherent. The SpaceX Starship arguably contain more information about the booster specs itself than this article. If the sections either being too large or better as an independant entity, we can split later. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

As a counterpoint, looking at SpaceX Starship and SpaceX Starship development history both articles are approaching the length where WP:SIZESPLIT begins to be worth considering. It's arguable whether all the information on those pages (or this page for that matter) is encyclopedic and should remain, but given where Starship is its lifespan and the clear interest a number of editors have in contributing on topics related to it, divvying the content among several (logically divided) pages is worth keeping in mind. Carter (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tcr25 @LeijurvThis discussion had been inactive for a while. Should it be closed? StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 00:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

StarshipSLS, to my eye, it appears this is close either without consensus or with a consensus against a merge. Per WP:MERGECLOSE, it may be best to post a request for review at WP:CR so an uninvolved editor can make it official. Carter (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Late to the party here, but it seems to me like there's very little encyclopedic info in this article that isn't already in SpaceX Starship. Polymath03 (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Most of the article is in SpaceX Starship development history anyways. Rather, I think we should merge this article right away to SpaceX Starship development history, since all of the content there talk about the development history. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, the size limit has been addressed. For the potential increase in size, we can split later. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Corrections

Gross mass of the Super heavy is around 3,500 t (wrongly mentioned as 3000 t) for which propellant might take roughly around 90% of the mass, but gross weight of super heavy which is the fully loaded weight cannot be lower than the propellant weight Chandraprakash (talk) 09:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)