Talk:SpaceX Starship development

Short tons and long tons

How about just using metric tons?

I'd support that. No need to convert "tonnes" (metric tonnes) into short tons and long tons for this readership. The more difficult question is whether the average Wikipedia reader really groks "tonnes", and therefore a convert template into kg or lbs might be helpful. I'm for whatever furthers understanding. N2e (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

SpaceX used metric tons in the announcement. --mfb (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

NASA is officially all metric. I don't think there is an aerospace industry on the planet that isn't officially metric-based at this point. Therefore, regardless of what the typical Wikipedia reader understands, the article should stick to metric. If the reader doesn't get it, they can always click on the tonnes link. War (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not for industry experts! I would hope a reader comfortable with "kg" would be comfortable with "tonnes". As a former aerospace employee, even I do not "grok" metric tonnes quickly. Also, the "t" abbreviation adds to my discomfort. I do not like the complication of long and short tons. The existing conversions to "lb" work for me. I might try out "e3lb".User-duck (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The metric system is not "industry experts" system. It's the system the entire world uses, including many industries in the US. War (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

War, I was talking about "Wikipedia articles", not the "metric system". I disagree with your statement: "Therefore, regardless of what the typical Wikipedia reader understands, the article should stick to metric." I took this to mean no non-SI units, but I now realize I may have misunderstood. I agree that metric should be the "primary units." — User-duck (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments on what BFR stands for

A discussion of what BFR stands for belongs on this talk page, not imbedded as comments in the source text of the article. That's both hidden from most editors and virtually unreadable with the default wikipedia interface.

Specifically, the following hidden text:

Musk: "we are searching for the right name, but the code name, at least, is BFR"

have not seen a source for this rocket design, in Sep 2017, where Musk called it the Big Falcon Rocket'

neither source, TheVerge nor Neowin, attribute this name to something Musk said, but each article author did use the term

Which I have just removed from the article's source.

Fcrary (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The Musk statement on the name can be found at 2:38 here: "we are searching for the right name, but the code name, at least, is BFR." Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

•Comment It has been stated from multiple sources that the "F" in BFR stands for Fucking, as a reference to the "BFG", or Big Fucking Gun, in the doom series, set on mars. When questioned on this, he has not given a definitive answer, but has indicated that this is the likely scenario, eg. BBC Radio 4 Today Programme, interview with Professor Alan Duffy from Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne.

I think we should remove "Big Fucking Rocket" from the opening sentence and add a section about the origin of the name. It does come from BFG after all, but since the other names (MCT and ITS) didn't stick, they want to use the family friendly version of "BFR" publicly. DiThi (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Reference 7 Grush, Loren (2017-09-29). "Elon Musk plans to put all of SpaceX’s resources into its Mars rocket". The Verge. Retrieved 2017-09-29. which is used to suppport "Big Falcon Rocket" claim actually states it is a "Big Fucking Rocket". It should be removed. I do not want to remove it not to loose reference to the article altogether as it can be later used to support other claims. --Jan.Smolik (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Side note. "BFR" has been around WAY longer than the DOOM video game. DOOM borrowed it from previous usage. The military used it to refer to a tool for doing odd jobs, like pounding in tent pegs. "Need a mallet?" "Nah, I'll just use this BFR." In this case it meant Big Fucking Rock. see: http://acronymsandslang.com/definition/5322708/BFR-meaning.html and BFR War (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The code name is BFR. Media speculations on its meaning is not supported by the official SpaceX publictions, even if they say "it is the formal name". Please lets leave it at BFR until Musk gives it a name, likely later this year when he starts the sub-orbital flights. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

BatteryIncluded, there comes a tipping point when speculation gains enough traction that it becomes notable. And with BFR, that tipping point is behind us. Cases in point:

TechCrunch, from yesterday:

"...SpaceX will now begin focusing in earnest on “BFR,” the code name for its next big space launch vehicle. BFR (aka “big f*cking rocket,” in case you lack imagination) will be designed to be a vehicle..."

Colbert, from yesterday (using the above TechCrunch article):

"...BFR, which stands for Big F[ucking] Rocket..." (bleep-censored)

Now reports of these type have the possibility of being dead on. And there is also the case where they are false rumors that have run amok. But the first point is that even rumors can achieve and cross the threshold of notability when they have been sufficiently reported on.

The task facing us editors now is to incorporate this notable info into the article in a way that makes it clear that the actual fact is NOT:

"BFR stands for Big Fucking Rocket." (lacking in substantiation, as of today)

But rather,

"It has been reported that BFR stands for Big Fucking Rocket." (perfectly accurate)

It is this second statement, that when properly referenced, meets all the criteria of Wikipedia standards. And if WE FAIL to include this info, at this point that is beyond notability, then we are falling short of Wikipedia standards.--Tdadamemd sioz (talk) 09:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The point is that it has to be published by SpaceX to be official. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

And the counterpoint is that it does not have to be official in order to be notable.--Tdadamemd sioz (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

What the press calls it can be mentioned somewhere in the article, but it shouldn't be done in the lead, and it should be done as "what the press calls it", not as "name of the rocket". As similar case, see the Higgs boson. That the press sometimes calls it "God particle" is mentioned, but not at a prominent place (ignoring the disambiguation note). --mfb (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The Higgs Boson being called "The God Particle" is an excellent comparison. I see this discussion to have reached a definitive conclusion.--Tdadamemd sioz (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I just looked at the Higgs Boson article, and over there it is stated in the lede:

"In mainstream media the Higgs boson has often been called the "God particle", from a 1993 book on the topic; the nickname is strongly disliked by many physicists, including Higgs, who regard it as sensationalistic."

So while there appears to be consensus that "Big Fucking Rocket" belongs somewhere in the article, this physics comparison would lend weight to the proper place being in the lede. mfb, I have no idea why you were presenting it as not mentioning this in the lede. Perhaps you read it, and just missed it. IDK.--Tdadamemd sioz (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

BFR as a point-to-point terrestrial transportation possibility

It just occurred to me that:

a) Elon Musk showed in his talk at IAC2017 last week a snappy little video segment showing BFR being launched from various floating launch platforms outside of a number of large global cities, and popping to other distant cities in 30 minutes to an hour, anywhere in the world. Examples here, here, here, or here were the first four google hits.

b) quite a lot of media (bona fide secondary sources) have picked up on this aspect of the new rocket design,

yet

c) at this time, this wikipedia article does not reflect that use case, even as a potential use, at all.

Now if you are active in the Spaceflight Wikiproject, as I have been for some years, then one might be just a tad suspicious that this is an important thing, or even a "real" use case that SpaceX really cares about. I'm personally agnostic about adding that use case for the BFR launch vehicle to the article; and it is not on my nearterm priority list for adding (with citations, of course) to this article with the bits of volunteer time I put in.

However, my personal opinion on that, based on my relative insider status in following spaceflight and space advancements for many years, should have no bearing on whether it should be or should not be in the article. That should be determined by Wikipolicy, most notably, WP:GNG, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:UNDUE.

In fact, I made a similar argument (in the helpful, academic sense of the term) with fellow editors a few sections above on this Talk page that this new rocket, with new uses including replacing the entire existing operational fleet of SpaceX rockets, is not, and should not be represented as, merely a "Mars rocket", even though Musk has been clear for over a decade that he is heavily motivated by achieving a functional and low-cost space transport capability for moving quite massive amounts of cargo and many people to and from Mars; that we should not see BFR as "merely an extension of some previous Musk Mars rocket design that, although it was announced in 2016, SpaceX now cannot afford to build, and isn't currently planned to be built and developed further. In other words, we space industry insiders who play "inside baseball" might perceive it as merely a 3/4-size with 1/3-the payload capacity turn of a design, but our perception is not, and should not be, what controls Wikipedia articles.

So, wrote all this to just flag the issue. And invite other editors to think on the matter, and weigh in with thoughts (or edits) if they wish. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

We do need a section on the ballistic transportation vision, which could grow into its own article if/when exact plans are announced. Plenty of sources have commented on this part of the talk already, and we can expect similar announcements from Blue Origin anyway. As an "inside baseballer", I always thought that "space tourism" with New Shepard going purely vertical was a bit silly, and the vehicle could easily be launched on a medium-range ballistic trajectory competing with domestic flights on private jets, with bonus "I've been to space" bragging rights. The vehicle is already here, and its launch + landing infrastructure support is minimal. OK, OK, WP:NOTFORUM… JFG ^talk 08:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thinking this over, what I think would be better for now is listing specific examples of what this vehicle is being designed for as simple bullet points that can include links to other Wikipedia articles. On the other hand, the general article point-to-point suborbital spaceflight could use a whole lot of loving as clearly it has become quite notable of a concept on its own with many reliable sources... and now some attention being thrown upon it by SpaceX as well which is giving it some prominence. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done added this content/use case to the article, per sources, about a month or so ago. N2e (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Article Title

"BFR (rocket)" is redundant and a bit silly-looking. Is anyone else game for simply changing it to "Big Falcon Rocket"? Solardays (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not because that's not it's name. War (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I also disagree with the change. I have never seen a reference which actually had SpaceX calling it "Big Falcon Rocket". All the references seem to be news reports where the reporters made that up on their own. Fcrary (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I thought Elon himself had called it 'Big Falcon' but, upon revisiting the 2017 IAC presentation, find he did not. Perhaps it was another interview. If found, I will cite it here - thanks. Solardays (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Do not change the title yet. As far as I am concerned, the names: "Big Falcon Rocket", "Big F**ing Rocket", "Big (fill-in-the-blank) Rocket", "Big F--king Rocket" and "Big Fucking Rocket" have no basis in fact and are all synthesized by writers. I have yet to find a "reliable" secondary source. Ideally, I would like to see a trademark application, but these probably do not exist (yet). (I know SpaceX uses them, Falcon is trademarked.) I think we may need to rely on the primary source, Elon Musk, for this one!User-duck (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, they aren't synthesized by writers, but rather are things that Elon Musk has mentioned as the origin of the name. He specifically said that the name BFR is derived whimsically from the BFG 9000 found in the video game Doom and can be sourced. In the same statement, he also said that "in polite company" he would call it more "Big Falcon Rocket". None of that is synthesis. All this said, he also said at the IAC conference talk itself (you can look this up) that the BFR is simply an internal code name within SpaceX as a company and that he abandoned the ITS moniker in favor of some future brand name that would be applied to the vehicle in the future. There is no reason to rename the article when in fact SpaceX as a company will likely rename the rocket in the future. Then again, speculation about what that might be is WP:Crystal. The only legal document I've seen so far related to this name comes from the corporate charter document I mentioned above with the BFR Corp that was founded in 2003 and may have lapsed as a corporate entity in the State of California. --Robert Horning (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Why so many references with quotes?

I am not sure of the official policy on quotes in references. But there seems to be too many lengthy quotes in the reference citations. If they are content for the article they should be moved into the article and footnoted. Also, the use of italics for the quotes. I kind of like the appearance in the citation BUT the templates simply quote normal text. I would remove the italics.User-duck (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Be careful of "synthesis"

As Wikipedia editors we cannot do "synthesis of published material" no matter how obvious the conclusion. This, however is not true for other writers, especially website, news and magazine writers. I have already discovered "crew" changed to "passengers" and two interpretations of /tʌn/ ^ⓘ, "tonne" and "(short) ton". Be careful of what you write and the sources used. There are plenty of good sources for this article. I may remove bad ones. (The ones that state that the Musk's plan is to send passengers to Mars in 2024 may be the first to go.)User-duck (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Launch cost

Indirectly Musk revealed the launch cost to be below the launch cost of the Falcon-1 which according to its Wikipedia article is about 8M Dollars adjusted to inflation. The price-tag of a passenger-flight to mars approves this as well, since you need 6 launches for one mars flight which makes for a cost of 48M dollars for the entire mission divided by 100 people gives you about 480,000 $ per person which is close to the proposed 150,000-300,000$ price tags published by SpaceX in last year G0000k (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Corrected $68M to $48M. P.S. I do not consider $480,000 that close to $300,000. User-duck (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Since Musk stated that a BFR launch would be below the cost of a falcon-1 launch 480,000$ is the maximum price it might as well be far lower. I should have made this clearer, sorry. G0000k (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

That is not even an official estimate for the launch cost, and even such an estimate now (if it would exist) would be very preliminary. I don't think we should add anything at this point, it would be too much original research. --mfb (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a tonne of information in this article that is based on Elon's presentation in September, both slides and his remarks. How is this different than the rest? I suppose since he didn't state an exact number it could be considered original research to enter any number. However, I would be fine with saying something like "below $480K" or whatever the falcon-1 cost to launch, given this is direct consequence of his words.War (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I just took a look at the Falcon-1 page and doesn't say what the launch cost was. If it's unknown then there's no way to put any number down. If it is known then that page should be updated first. I doubt through this information is known given that it only delivered one payload into orbit.War (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Right. Keep speculation and wishful thinking out. — JFG ^talk 01:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

6 to 9 million for Falcon 1 as advertised numbers, as there was just one commercial flight these numbers don't have to say much. $480k is less than the fuel cost of BFR. Both numbers are for information here only as they don't have a proper source. --mfb (talk) 03:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

mfb, how did you obtain/figure the fuel cost? I realize it is probably OR, I just want to learn your method.User-duck (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

$168/t estimated by Musk in 2016, $480,000 would only buy 2850 t. The second stage alone has 1100 t, and most of the 3000 t of the first stage are fuel as well (>2500, but we don't know its dry mass). --mfb (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

G0000k. Musk does not state "far lower".User-duck (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Image for the article

It does not appear that SpaceX has released to their Flickr account, with the CC-SA license that Wikipedia likes, any of their CAD drawing renderings of the BFR. This is unlike what they did in fall 2016 for the older and larger design, the ITS launch vehicle.

The image of BFR that currently is in this article, appears to have not been properly licensed; it is currently under challenge, so would expect it to be removed soon.

Thus: why don't we just grab one single (appropriately-sized) shot from the BFR videos Musk showed in fall 2017, and add that to the article under the WP:FAIRUSE criteria. I'm not personally a wiki video expert, but I believe that policy allows a single image, not too large, to be used in Wikipedia under the Fair use legal doctrine. N2e (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The former image has been deleted, as I suspected it would be. If this article is to have a correctly-licensed image, I'm guessing it's going to be under the Fairuse criteria, for now at least, until such time as SpaceX licenses more images via CC licenses. User:Huntster, might you care to help create a fairuse image of the BFR from the videos that SpaceX has released? Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Since I've been unsuccessful in recruiting someone who is knowledgeable about Wikipedia FairUse images to help add an image, I struggled through the process myself. I believe that the image I added does meet the valid WP:FAIRUSE criteria, and should withstand review. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

N2e: hey sorry, I didn't see any notifications, and just came across the talk page update in my watchlist (I'm so behind). You did just fine with the fair use criteria. Just remember that images have to be low resolution. A good rule of thumb is maximum of 400px across either dimension. I've updated the file for this. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Huntster, for reviewing what I did, and for taking care of the miss on the image resolution bit. N2e (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey Huntster, that image is great, as noted above. Thanks. However, I just noticed that, possibly because it is in the infobox, it does not show that this article has any photo at all when the article is looked at from a mobile device, where the Wikipedia mobile presentation preferences seem to hold sway.

Do you know how to fix this? So that an image will show at the top of the article when viewed from a mobile device? N2e (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

N2e, absolutely no idea why its looking like that for you. Just pulled up the article myself on mobile and it shows the image in the infobox just fine (heading off for the night, will catch any replies tomorrow). — Huntster (t @ c) 08:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Works for me as well, I see the image in the mobile version. --mfb (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thanks for your input on it mfb and Huntster. It's not showing for me on two different platforms: my Galaxy S&7, and also my Amazon Fire tablet. Both of those run Android, but I wouldn't think that should be the issue. Hmmm. Curiouser and curiouser. N2e (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. I tested on a Droid Maxx 2 (Android) and an Amazon Fire tablet. Why would mine work and your doesn't? Very odd indeed. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Time for a consensus-building discussion

I've stayed out of the controversy over the prose in the article speculating on what "BFR" might mean, until now. It is clear that some media sources have used the terms Big Falcon Rocket, or Big Fucking Rocket, with reference to the SpaceX announcement of the BFR in September 2017. Some of those media references are tied to previous informal uses of that term, by media or even by Musk, with reference to earlier designs for a large launch vehicle to follow the Falcon-series of launch vehicles, including the 2016 ITS launch vehicle which had been informally referred to as BFR/Big F... Rocket in the past.

It is equally clear that SpaceX has not recently, in the context of the BFR used either Big Falcon Rocket or Big Fucking Rocket to refer to this launch vehicle. Moreover, Musk is directly quoted, in the article prose, as saying:

"we are searching for the right name, but the code name, at least, is BFR." (sourced to citation <ref name="musk20170929"/>). I've been unable to find a recent source of SpaceX/Musk refering to this rocket, the "code named" BFR, as either one of those two terms.

So my problem here is not with the mention of the possible meanings or derivations of the names, since both Big Falcon Rocket or Big Fucking Rocket have been used in web media, and the latter term is particular useful for driving advertising clicks. I think they can be mentioned in the article text.

My problem is that I think it is WP:UNDUE to so prominently mention them in the lede, and in the first sentence of the lede, of this aticle. This prose takes up over 40% of the words in the first sentence in the lede. The potential meanings behind the letters BFR, when there is no definitive source and sources are not in agreement, is not worth taking up 40% of the lead sentence. It is undue weight on a minor matter.

Therefore, I PROPOSE that the explication of the possible meanings or derivations of the names behind "BFR"—Big Falcon Rocket or Big Fucking Rocket—be moved out of the lede, and into the body text of the article.

• SUPPORT—as nom, I support this proposal, for the rationale provided above. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Sure That makes sense, but it raises the question of where in the body of the article to put it. I'd say we should keep it in the first paragraph or two. Stylistically, I like defining acronyms as soon as possible. But others might think it belongs in the section on Mr. Musk's announcement of the launch vehicle. Fcrary (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support – Excellent suggestion. Solardays (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Musk said that there is no official defenition yet and that is why the title still uses the acronym until it is officially defined. Giggett (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

With a week passed and no dissent, it would appear to be a reasonable consensus on leaving the detail in the article body rather than the lede. I've moved it there. N2e (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Why 240 tons methane and 860 tons oxygen

CH4 burns to CO2 and 2 times H2O, so 4 oxygen atoms are necessary to burn one CH4 molecule. C has 12 weight, H has 4 weight, so CH4 has 16 weight. 4 oxygen atoms have 64 weight. So there should be 4 times more oxygen than CH4.

So why is there 860 tons and not 960 tons oxygen?

Pege.founder (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

It does look like a typo, but I think it's correct. The article on the Raptor engines lists a mixing ratio of 3.8 not 4.0. That still doesn't give 860 kg, but it's closer. It's fairly common for rockets to run rich or lean. The mean molecular mass of the combustion products effects specific impulse and performance. Some of the carbon is probably coming out as CO. Fcrary (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Correct. Rocket engines are rarely operated at their stoichiometric ratios of fuel and oxidizer. But either way, our job in WP is to just use the data we have from the sources. N2e (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion: remove the Specifications table

All data in the table is redundant to the (standardized) infobox. Let's remove it. Solardays (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

No, because the infobox is just an "at a glance" thing. The table in the article itself should be the primary location of the information. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The body of the article should contain a more detailed version of the information in the infobox. So some redundancy is inherent. Fcrary (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Move ITS article into BFR History

Since the ITS is the older proposal for the BFR, just move it into the history section of BFR so there is one page. Some articles that should link to BFR accidentally link to ITS. UnknownM1 (talk) 03:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Two thoughts from me.

1) your proposal is a bit unclear: not clear which article you are proposing to do this with: their are multiple articles on the both the system (which was called Interplanetary Transport System for a year or so, and also on the ITS launch vehicle, which is itself composed of several separate LV booster and 2nd stage/spacecraft designs; several of them quite notable on their own.

2) the general discussion on this merge idea was discussed deeply by many editors just a couple of months ago. There was no consensus to merge. See the archives of this Talk page for that.

Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism

This edit and subsequent attempts to protect it from reversion are in violation of WP:Consensus.

The edit in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BFR_(rocket)&oldid=824302073

The unanimous consensus to keep the contested information in the article body, but not the lede: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BFR_(rocket)#Time_for_a_consensus-building_discussion

76.95.132.5 (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)