Talk:SpaceX Starship development

Move?

I was searching for Starship (Rocket) looking for this, and couldn't find it because it is using its outdated name. They even use Starship on their official website now. LordLimaBean (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello. This was discussed in the section #6 above. Although the 2 main components have new names, the overall system is still being referred to as BFR. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the full system is referred to as Starship, some people still use BFR when referencing older designs, but that is not the official name of the design, its design is officially Starship, and will stay that way. LordLimaBean (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Searching for Starship leads to Starship (disambiguation) which links to BFR. Starship (rocket) links to this article as well, despite the questionable title (it is just the upper stage, not the full rocket). --mfb (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, neat, but it still is using a development name instead of the official name haha, and due to that probably doesn't apply to this sites naming conventions. LordLimaBean (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

It's quite clear from multiple sources that Starship is definitely not the name of the entire two-stage-to-orbit launch vehicle. Starship is only the second stage / spaceship, and does not refer to the first stage, nor the entire LV. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

References

New Tweet: "The Super Heavy booster is only needed on Earth, so think of this as just “Starship” & sometimes it needs a boost, hence Super Heavy". Looks like the combination of Starship plus Super Heavy doesn't get a name, but Starship is basically the system. --mfb (talk) 07:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like Elon Musk confirmed to refer to the full system as Starship, as it is the full system, with SuperHeavy being an addition when it is hauling things in high gravity environments; I suggest we consider moving this to a Starship (rocket) page and have a section on superheavy or something along those lines. LordLimaBean (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Somewhat similar: Space Shuttle can mean the whole system at liftoff (the official use) and the orbiters on their own. --mfb (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the full system is called Starship or whether the name Super Heavy is also used, I'm not aware of any recent references to the full system as BFR - that name seems to be entirely deprecated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.243.28.55 (talk) 04:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I haven't heard any sources call it BFR for months. That was only an unofficial "code name" in the first place; pretty much every reference to it that I've seen for the last six months calls it Starship. This article name "BFR" is badly outdated. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time for another discussion on what to rename it to? Certainly renaming to Starship would be improper. Starship (SpaceX)? Starship Heavy (SpaceX)? One problem I see is that the SpaceX website doesn't seem to mention it any more, under any name. So it's harder to tell what it's "official" name is any more. Tarl N. (discuss) 14:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Starship/Super Heavy? Starship and Super Heavy (redirect to here)? The upper stage can stay where it is - if it becomes more relevant in the future we can re-consider Starship. --mfb (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I will reword the lede slightly to put the current name of the vehicle in the first sentence. Not starting a move here, just an update to emphasize the current nomenclature over the old code name. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Starhopper

Is this image usable by Wikipedia? [1] It's from Elon's tweet [2] for the assembled hopper shiny stainless rocket. News sources that are repubbing the image are crediting it as SpaceX. IIRC, SpaceX releases its photos in a such a way it is usable by Wikipedia. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Images released on SpaceX's own media galleries and Flickr account are CC0 public domain, but images Musk posts (or even SpaceX posts) on Twitter or other websites are still all rights reserved. It probably would meet fair use if it was used for identification of Starhopper. Since there's a number of photographers who have captured the rocket from public viewing sites near Boca Chica, however, I'm not sure its use would meet the no-free-equivalent criterion. Might be wrong, though: I can't find any other picture of Starhopper that has a CC license. Appable (talk | contribs) 21:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the article would be improved with a photo of the first test article Starship, which some have been calling the Starhopper or BFH. I think that a single photo might be used under WP:FAIRUSE criteria, which is the only way we still have a photo in the article of the (old and now outdated historical) 2017 version of the BFR design: (2017 BFR), which we eventually got to stick in Wikipedia after many editors had attempted to add to this article non-free-use images that were then, within days, quickly deleted.

But the two things I'm not sure of about Fair Use imgage use policy is

a) can we use a Fair Use criteria to justify an image in an article that is not named what the image is about? I.e., if the article were about Starship, then I'm sure we'd be good to go.

b) can a Fair Use criteria be used for more than a single image in any particular article? I don't know. But I'd be inclined to think that the historical image of the BFR that represents the entire two-stage rocket stack that was in the news so much in 2017 and most of 2018 is worthy of remaining in the article also.

Either way, I think we do want an image of Starhopper test article to improve this article, so will add that request tag. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@N2e: From my admittedly limited acquaintance with the fair use clause as interpreted by the English Wikipedia, there should be no problem with your two questions, i.e. a) we can use a picture of an object that is described in an article, even if this article covers a wider subject matter; b) inclusion criteria apply to each image, nothing says we should use only one fair use picture per article, especially if said article discusses several closely-related things that would benefit from an illustration. However, I believe that we can't use any of the Starhopper images that are floating around the interwebs without an explicit release of rights by their author under a compatible license, because those pictures are replaceable under WP:NFCC criterion #1. Nothing stops a Wikipedian or their friend from driving down to Boca Chica, snapping a few shots of the prototype, and releasing them under public domain or CC-BY-SA. And precisely because anybody could do that today, we are not supposed to use somebody else's work that is not licensed appropriately. Copyright is hard, Wikiright is harder. — JFG ^talk 15:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. There should be a lot of photo sources now where the photographers could choose to release one or a few pics with a CC by SA license that works for Wikimedia. N2e (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Rename, yet again.

As can be seen in the previous section, the question of rename has come up yet again. At this point, it's probably also worth considering whether the article should be separated into the booster (Super Heavy) vs orbiter (Starship), and whether this article should be left as is for historic purposes while new articles cover the separate pieces.

I personally think we should leave it at the current name for a while longer (marketing names change quite often), but if we're going to move, we need to agree on what to move it to. I'd suggest the options are:

• Two articles: SpaceX Super Heavy and SpaceX Starship (or perhaps have the SpaceX in parens afterwards?)
• Single article SpaceX Starship, ignoring the fact that the name applies to only the orbiter.
• Single article SpaceX Starship orbiter and Super Heavy booster

The first choice is work, it means splitting the article. The second choice I think is a problem because it uses the name for a component for an article about the entire system. The third choice is probably semantically correct for the article as it stands (assuming we're willing to go with a rename by now), but is pretty cumbersome for an article name. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

When the system gets closer to a flight I think option 1 is the best, for now we can go with option 2 and move the booster to its own article later. --mfb (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I still think we should wait a bit, and when we're ready to move, we should use option 1. As I wrote above in #Detailed suggestion, In light of the current state of knowledge, I would advocate splitting this article immediately between SpaceX Starship and SpaceX Super Heavy, with Mars Colonial Transporter redirecting to Starship, and BFR (rocket), Big Falcon Rocket and friends either describing the 2017 iteration only, or redirecting to the new booster article. — JFG ^talk 02:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that a split between the booster and the starship is inevitable at some point. I'd suggest that once the system is operational, the ideal structure would be to have a Space X Super Heavy launch system article, with detailed articles for the SpaceX Super Heavy booster and the SpaceX Starship, with the current BFR (rocket) article evolving into a further detailed article on the history of the system. However, it seems likely that the design will evolve somewhat before the system launches, meaning that any split today is going to make it harder to achieve a meaningful structure later. It also seems likely that the names might change again, whereas the BFR moniker has clearly endured internally despite multiple "official" name changes. Accordingly, it seems best to wait until a proper split is viable before changing anything. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep this page for the system as a whole, retaining the BFR name for now, to chronical the entire project, along side separate, detailed articles for the Super Heavy and Starship from a more technical standpoint, bit like the Space Shuttle.Metropod (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. There should be enough material already to fork out a SpaceX Starship article, especially covering the various public iterations of the design, and the "Starship Hopper" prototype currently being built. Then this global article about the launch system can be made lighter. Whenever details emerge about the booster, we can consider forking it, although I don't anticipate that a separate article will be warranted. — JFG ^talk 12:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd agree with what seems to be the consensus above: don't rename this article now, leave it BFR (rocket), since that is the combined 1st-stage/2nd-stage launch vehicle's common name. When SpaceX gets all this new technology (new rocket engine; new methalox propellant combination; new engine cycle (FFSC); autogenous tank pressurization rather than helium; attitude control algorithms for a very large 9-meter vehicle; new transpiration cooling layered-stainless steel thermal protection system on the 2nd stage; reusable landings working reliably; etc.) tested in pieces on the Starship hopper test article vehicle, and on the Starship orbital prototype test vehicle, only then will we (in my opinion) even see SpaceX begin to refer frequently to the entire launch vehicle stack, and the common name for the stack may certainly shift at that time. N2e (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I think a new article called "SpaceX Starship" should be created and everything related to the modern inception of the vehicle (booster and ship) should go there: the stainless steel version from the time of its official naming. This article should remain, but be renamed to something like "SpaceX BFR program" and it should include everything from its early roots through ITS, BFR, and the Dear Moon carbon composite version. Thus the new article would serve as a description of the final development vehicle but this article could remain in place detailing the history of the program's evolution during the carbon fiber phase prior. Keavon (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Except for the fact that we have no idea if the current steel rocket is the final development vehicle. Dividing the article in the way you describe will make perfect sense after we know what the final version is. But SpaceX has changed their minds before, and may do so again. If they do, would you want to remerge the articles and create a new one for whatever the latest idea is? Fcrary (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Once we get an actual launch vehicle in real metal, subsequent changes will be minor. If major changes are required after a flight, generally a new name is applied to the revised design. So waiting until we have hardware that can be launched is probably the right timeframe to determine what to do long-term with this article. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

SpaceX has real metal that is supposed to make low altitude hops soon. It has an engine already. It is not a full-scale prototype but it is actual hardware that is expected to fly. --mfb (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

And as we discovered today, SpaceX is actually building the first orbital ship. That metal has been around for a few weeks now. I think at this point, the primary design has reached its watershed (the largest factor being the switch from carbon composite to stainless steel). Subsequent evolution will be smaller (for example, it now has hexagonal heat shield tiles, but that doesn't quite matter in the grand scheme of what the ship is like within its article). Carbon composite was a 3+ year evolution from concept to build preparations. Stainless steel was the major watershed where the design is very different from before and this is also the point where it is being tangibly built from bent metal.Keavon (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I would agree that we have enough material to fork out a SpaceX Starship article, and make this one lighter. A test vehicle is under construction and supposed to fly this year, so we've moved past the "tossing out ideas and CAD designs" phase. — JFG ^talk 16:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It's beyond the CAD stage, but we still don't know if Starship will happen. Based on the results of the hopper tests, they might drop that design and come up with something different. (As different as Starship is from BFR.) Putting the development concepts and designs in one article and the production vehicle in another makes sense to me. I just don't think we're there yet. Fcrary (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that we aren't there yet, a sub-scale prototype is not yet a flight article (even if it flies on hops, it's not a design which can be used in production). There is a humorous saying to the effect that "at some point you have to shoot the engineers and let the factories make the product", which embodies the stage where a design is finalized. That's the stage we want to aim for. Until we get such a flight article, we want to keep the history together - once the flight article exists, we'll want an article about that ship itself, with a reference to this article as design history. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

SpaceX is known to not have "final designs" until years after the first flight. They stopped significant design changes in Falcon 9 just a few months ago. They get to a design that will make the first orbital flight - unless something dramatic happens with the hopper it will be the prototype they are constructing already. --mfb (talk) 04:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

That's why prototypes (in particular, scale prototypes) are built. So when dramatic things happen, they aren't too expensive. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Still no need to rename this article yet, the article on the complete two-stage-to-orbit rocket stack orbital launch vehicle.

However, with serious and near-daily integrated system testing of the first test article Starship (some call it "Starhopper", per sources), and first flight test of that "hopper" just around the corner, the detail in this article on the novel 2nd-stage and spaceship Starship was beginning to be too much for a full-on launch vehicle article. I have thus stubbed out an article on the Starship itself. See Starship (rocket). Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

lifting the Starship vehicle during ascent

Using lifing and scent in this way constituets a tautology.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

"The runner ran a good race." "The kicker kicked the ball 50 yards." "The reader who read this book reads very well." "The blower blows only cold air".

Are any of these a tautologies? No. They are using a word both in its noun and verb form, but there is no rule in English forbidding this. Saying "the booster lifts the Starship vehicle during ascent" is not a tautology. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

"The player kicks the ball while kicking" would be a tautology and that is the form of this sentence.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

No, the Starship can be lifted on other occasions and by other things. To put it on top of the SuperHeavy, they lift it with a crane during pre-flight preparations. Using "lift" and "ascent" in the same sentence is only a tautology if the two words inherently and inevitably mean the same thing. That's not the case, since "lift" does not inevitably imply the ascent phase. Fcrary (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Citations Needed

I feel this article needs to be much more properly referenced. The entire opening paragraph is basically devoid of citations. 198.163.239.190 (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new sections at the bottom (I moved this one). It is common for the lead to not have many inline citations if the statements are discussed in more detail in the main article (with citations there). --mfb (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Concur. Per WP:LEADCITE, the lede might have some cites, but hopefully is just a very well-written summary of the entire article, and all material is well-sourced in the body of the article. N2e (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Testing Section of BFR

Thus for we in the testing section we mention tests of the Starhopper. Since the tests are for the Starship, should we move that information into the Starship article without getting into much detail here. (not sure if any Wikipedia policies will apply here). 173.52.238.41 (talk) 05:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Resolved per discussion here [3]. 173.52.238.41 (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

BFR cargo numbers

We will probably get an update later this month or in early August, let's see if there is something new about the cargo volume. --mfb (talk) 10:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Now mid-September...maybe OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 13:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Change name to starship super heavy

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)

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)