Talk:SpaceX Starship#Proposal to Split

Recently, @Redacted II asked for the separation of block 1 and block 2 data in the template. I have made some (quite dramatic) changes and improvements to the template:

• Data is now separated into block 1 and block 2
• Starbase now has 2 pads, and added recovery counts, as the old version was made around flight 3
• Removed expended counts as that is redundant (expended = total - recovered)
• All the old parameters have been replaced with new parameters, which means we will have to go through every single article that uses this and change the parameter calls.

The added benefit of all of this hassle is that the charts used in List_of_Starship_Launches#Launch statistics could probably use this template now.

The proposed template can be found here. Please provide feedback, thanks! Stoplookin9 Hey there! Send me a message! 01:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

:Another thing: if there are any Wikipedia template conventions I'm violating (like last time, when I forgot to use {{FULLPAGENAME}}, let me know immediately so I don't get [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:SpaceX_Starship_Statistics&direction=prev&oldid=1214615547 this]. Stoplookin9 Hey there! Send me a message! 01:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

::I think you forgot to list the parameters Redacted II (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

::Expended counts actually would be (expended = total-recovered-lost).

::I would suggest having a way to keep track of the number of boosters in a certain block from the ships. As is, FT-7 would break the template since it uses a block 1 booster and a block 2 ship. It also would be possible for a booster to be lost while the ship is recovered or the other way around.

::So far we would have the following data for orbital launches (IFT1, IFT2, FT3, and FT6):

::StarshipShip1Launch: 4 <-- presuming IFT1 and IFT2 were intended to be transatmospheric -->

::StarshipShip1Lost: 3

::StarshipShip1Expended: 1

::StarshipShip1Recovered: 0

::StarshipBooster1Launch: 4

::StarshipBooster1Lost: 4

::StarshipBooster1Expended: 0

::StarshipBooster1Recovered: 0 AmigaClone (talk) 03:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Suborbital flights should be included as well.

:::(Also, it was discussed earlier, and I believe general consensus is to list the highest version# as the vehicle version. So IFT-7, IFT-8, and at least IFT-9 will be Block 2)

:::StarshipShip1Launch: 6

:::StarshipShip1Lost: 3

:::StarshipShip1Expended: 3

:::StarshipShip1Recovered: 0

:::StarshipBooster1Launch: 6

:::StarshipBooster1Lost: 3

:::StarshipBooster1Expended: 2

:::StarshipBooster1Recovered: 1 Redacted II (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

::::There is a second reason to keep track of the boosters and ships separately. Especially at the experimental stage there will be different results for the booster and ship. For example, in FT-6 the booster was lost while the ship was expended. AmigaClone (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::Yup Redacted II (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

:I appear to have suffered a severe case of iforgottocopytheactualnewtemplatefromnotepadtowikipediaitis.

:Anyways

:I'm going to add the above in. Stoplookin9 Hey there! Send me a message! 14:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

::I tried to add the template to Super heavy-lift launch vehicle, but it just added this: Template:Stoplookin9/SpaceX Starship Statistics. Redacted II (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

:::You should be adding {{Template:SpaceX_Starship_Statistics}} instead. The template in my user space is just a sandbox, once I get all the problems ironed out, I will move that over to the main template Stoplookin9 Hey there! Send me a message! 16:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

::::Got it. Redacted II (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::Guys, do not use template params to define other params in the same template, it breaks everything

:::::Basically template|a = template|b + template|c will break. Use template|a = template/subpage|b + template/subpage|c

:::::Anyways, I rolled out the new changes, and then realized that because everyone acts conservative with the template I didn't actually have to change the template calls in the actual articles Stoplookin9 Hey there! Send me a message! 01:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Please add a source to launch costs that references where the number came from or how it was at least speculated. The current article referenced cites no source or calculation as to how they came to the 100 million dollar number. I have yet to find a definitive answer for what a starship launch costs. Jvyko (talk) 07:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:Please sign your posts. Please.

:The launch costs have a source, so I'm not even sure what your asking for. Redacted II (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::They do have a source but the source states:

::{{tq|Cost to launch (internal): Payload estimates Starship will cost ~$100M to build and expend in a forward-looking/post-R&D model. Full reusability will significantly lower future launch costs.}} (Italics mine)

::With {{tq|Payload}} being the name of the website and 'Payload' does not provide any explanation of how they arrived at their 100 million dollars estimate. I think a source that provides the math/data backing up its estimate is what Jvyko wants. However, I don't think such a source exists/is available yet. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I know they've gone into some detail, but I can't find it.

:::Still, the source is very valid, if out of date (since they aren't expending Super Heavy anymore) Redacted II (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Yeah, wasn't necessarily saying there was anything we could or should do about it at present. Just trying to interpret the edit request, I semi-compulsively re-explain other people's comments when I think they've been misunderstood/misinterpreted. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Elon Musk has just stated that the payload capacity of V3 Starship is 100 tons to LEO.[https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1903481526794203189 ] How long will Wikipedia continue to have these outdated estimates of 100 tons with V1 and 200 tons with V3? Agile Jello (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|Agile Jello}} It will be updated when some interested Wikipedia editor chooses to do so. All editors have the same rights and responsibilities. You are a Wikipedia editor. Why have you not updated the article yet? -Arch dude (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::Because the last time I tried to update Starship's payload capacity, I got reverted. Agile Jello (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:::You were reverted (almost a year ago) because a more reliable source disagreed with the 40-50 ton #. Redacted II (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Starship's iterative design means the best sources are often not the most "reliable", but the most recent ones. I am sure there are a lot of very old and very reliable sources that give a payload estimate of 150 or even 200 tons for Starship, but these sources do not reflect the current state of the program. The most recent sources are the best sources simply because the most recent Starship design is vastly different from the design years ago. Agile Jello (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::WP:RS disagrees Redacted II (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::So you prefer to have false information on the article just because it came from a reliable source that is outdated. Do you think Elon Musk is lying when he says V3 will have a payload capacity of 100 tons? Even if he is lying, he would be overestimating the payload capacity, not underestimating it, which makes the current value in the article even more wrong. The impression I have is that articles about Starship are controlled by a bunch of SpaceX enthusiasts (which your user page self admits you are) that don't accept anything that might be seen as diminishing the importance of Starship. If Elon had given an increased V3 payload capacity I'm sure you all would be very eager to put it in this article. Agile Jello (talk) 07:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::It's also interesting that the current payload capacity for V3 of 200 tons listed in the article came from the same presentation where Elon Musk stated that V1 has a payload capacity of 40-50 tons. However editors refuse to include the 40 ton number, including only the 50 tons number while also accepting an upper range value of 100 tons, which anyone that follows Starship's development knows is completely false. Even the 40-50 tons number is probably somewhat optimistic considering that number refers to flight 3 (later flights were likely heavier) and SpaceX only started flying simulated payloads on Starship's V2. Meanwhile the 200 tons number for V3 from the same presentation is proudly displayed in the article. My suggestion is to only include in the infobox the latest V3 estimate of 100 tons, and nothing else. All other values are outdated and don't reflect the current state of the program. Agile Jello (talk) 07:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Vehement Oppose. Aside from the allegations, your arguments ignore WP:RS and contain original research. Redacted II (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Since you like to cite Wikipedia guidelines, I want to cite WP:AGE MATTERS. "Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light" Agile Jello (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:It should be noted that the Block 3 specifications have changed.

:(Lasts specificatons had it 15 meters shorter than it was last year). Redacted II (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Will - means it is inevitable. Intended means it is not invetable. As the HLS is not yet built or tested the assertion that it will do anything in 2027 is erroneous. As Starships record is 8 launches with 4 fails - 50% success only, we need to be cautious of tempting fate. Birmingham1965 (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:The current plan is for HLS to land the Artemis III crew on the lunar surface.

:The current wording suffices. Redacted II (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think there's anything wrong with wording it in a less definitive manner. Will is very definitive for something far in the future. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::How is 2027 far in the future? And in the likely event of additional delays, we can just update it. Redacted II (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Length of time into the future is irrelevant, I regret including "far". The relevant fact is that the event is in the future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Therefore, we don't speak about future events in definitive terms. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::A planned action for the future does not mean an action taken today, which means it is not a fact. The recording, in digital or analog form, and the publication of a plan may be a fact in itself, as a document of intent, recorded in some form, or spoken in a television interview, and that is all.

:::So it's really important, if we want to be objective, to write grammatically correct in the language we're publishing in and not to bring in unnecessary fanboy overconfidence. This "factologizing the future" is fiction. ГеоргиУики (talk) 05:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:"will" can be used if something is a fixed plan, see e.g. the 24 uses in 2032 Summer Olympics. I think the statement in the lead ("the Human Landing System variant will land astronauts on the Moon as part of the Artemis program, starting in 2027") can be improved, at least the date is highly uncertain. --mfb (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Discussion top|reason=WP:FORUM, WP:OR, and also a bit of WP:NPOV. There are plenty of places to discuss the recent Block 2 issues. Wikipedia is not one of them. Redacted II (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Plus...Plus, poor manufacturing or testing practices. I have no other explanation for the string of failures over the past few months. Unless it's sabotage, but that sounds too political to have a place here. But, in the spirit of asking, let me add to the question: Perhaps something could be reflected here in the section in this article, or in [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starbase#Impact this] supplementary article? ГеоргиУики (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:WP:OR and WP:FORUM.

:(Though I do agree that SpaceX is facing severe QC issues). Redacted II (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:Agree with Redacted II, this is original research. If you have specific RS's supporting the idea that there's been a decline in the quality of engineering at SpaceX in the Starship program, go for it and add to your hearts content (I agree that something is going wrong somewhere here with this program, but we go by sources not feelings/our personal opinions). Chuckstablers (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::Of course, hardly anyone, except an official government, can enter the territory of a private company and investigate from the inside whether and what is wrong. So, outsiders can only judge based on the facts of failures that are visible in the public space. So, what I have asked here is based on my own conclusions about what is happening. ГеоргиУики (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::That is WP:OR.

:::(Should I close this discussion?) Redacted II (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Ok, in article already was added some information about that I want. ГеоргиУики (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:the chirpy/PR tone needs to go. There is a growing disconnect between this page superlative claims and the reality of Starship. This rocket cannot go to LEO let alone the Moon or Mars or the stars. The fact that Starship is failing needs to be reflected in this page 2A02:A03F:622D:9800:5C3:FF61:398A:A9F1 (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::Remember WP:NPOV.

::Also, that Starship hasn't yet reached LEO (I do have to mention that they easily could, but haven't because of safety) is reflected in the article. Redacted II (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

{{Discussion bottom}}

I found [https://mexiconewsdaily.com/politics/space-debris-tamaulipas-thursdays-mananera-recapped/ an article] describing the debris from the tests coming ashore in Tamaulipas. I am not super familiar with this article, I came across in looking for information on Hurricane Erick, so I do not really know what to do with it. ✶Quxyz✶ 23:10, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:Mexico News Daily seems to be unreliable and very biased, but I could be wrong. Canadien1867 (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed Redacted II (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Could you elaborate on your reasoning because I have used this source in other articles and I might want to review its usage if it is too unreliable. ✶Quxyz✶ 19:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::The claim that the debris is toxic.

::::Everything I've seen so far is that the debris isn't toxic. Redacted II (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::That website is generally known to be quite Liberal and often makes false or greatly exaggerated claims.

::::Additionally, the article you linked above repeatedly mentions "Elon Musk's space debris" and makes it very clear that SpaceX is owned by him, which is a quite obvious indication that the article's main purpose is to spread a political opinion, make Elon look bad, and make the public angry at SpaceX. That is definitely a red flag and shouldn't be used as a source, unless you have reasons otherwise? Canadien1867 (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Being Liberal =/= WP:NPOV violation.

:::::Otherwised mostly agreed Redacted II (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Also, I know this might be somewhat pedantic, but the general definition of "space debris" is "defunct or non-operational, human-made objects in orbit around Earth". Therefore, the fuel tanks along Mexico's beaches that were mentioned in the article, which are likely from Super Heavy B11 or B13, are not "space debris", but the article claims they are. This continues to prove the article is unreliable. Canadien1867 (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::The debris is from B14.

::::::(Also, that is very, very pedantic. I'd call B13 and B14's corpses (even though they never passed the Karman line) space debris) Redacted II (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

{{Discussion top|reason=WP:FORUM. Redacted II (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Has no one noticed the similarities between this boss we and the Soviet N-1 and its problems? 32.221.197.108 (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:WP:FORUM Redacted II (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

{{Discussion bottom}}

The article discusses the launch history of the Starship/Superheavy vehicle in great detail in two separate sections one after another (SpaceX Starship#Integrated flight tests (2023–)) and SpaceX Starship#Launch history. I believe the second section should be removed, as its copied directly from another article. Datuser01 (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:The first section should be simplified.

:The second section should stay unchanged. Redacted II (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)