www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:SpaceX Starship (spacecraft)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


New redirect for list of starships[edit]

I created the List of Starships redirect page to point the handy table showing the list of starship prototypes. Eventually I think this section can be moved out into a new page, when it gets large enough, at the redirect page. Ergzay (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice!
I'll go make a List of Super Heavies redirect page.
Although, TBH, List of Starships should be it's own article as soon as possible Redacted II (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't think it makes sense to split out the page yet until the vehicle hits operational flights as its all still development program. Ergzay (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have been 35 Super Heavies and Starships (excluding incomplete vehicles, as well as vehicles that were never completed).
When the List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters was created, it included boosters 1019-1037.
35>19 Redacted II (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure but those weren't developmental prototypes. We never got to see almost all of the early developmental prototypes of Falcon 9. Ergzay (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the developmental prototypes of Falcon 9 were probably test tanks, which were not included in the 35 vehicles number for Starship.
(Also, Falcon 9 V1.0 and V1.1 were practically developmental prototypes for V1.2) Redacted II (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about moving the table to the List article and, for now, embed them back via {{:List of Starships}}? HLFan (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking a complete move, but it works either way Redacted II (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree. As more prototypes are made, we should ensure that this article doesn't become too lengthy too quickly. More details such as design changes could be added to that list instead of this article. Spookywooky2 (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S26 cryo[edit]

Does anyone have a source for S26 conducting a cryo yesterday? (EDIT: SOURCE FOUND) Redacted II (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

improvements[edit]

  1. 1 Please make sure all dates get years. Especially in the older parts of the history, but also newer facts, it's totally unclear when what happened, like "As of June 8, S29 is the largest artificial object to reenter Earths atmosphere" - this will most likely stay here for years and nobodywill then know that it refers to 2024.
  1. 2 The List of Starship prototypes should give the version. If I understand right, Ships 36+ will be V2.
  1. 3 All the different articles about Starship, Starship (Spacecraft), SpaceX_Super_Heavy and many more are extremely irritating, as they duplicate a lot, link to and back extensively, are in different states of actuality and maintenance, and help more to confuse the general readers than to help understand the topic. Need better structuring and removing of old, now unimportant info (or move that to extra areas).

47.67.199.63 (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1: This was decided against earlier.
2: That is included in the article.
3: Notable rocket stages get their own article. Just look at the Shuttle: it's OMS system has its own article! Redacted II (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Where? By whom? Despite that, the criticism is still valid. How will you avoid the confusion that already happens? Or, organise the sections by year.
2. But NOT in the list. Are readers supposed to look through the whole lenghty article, while the list includes much less important info?
3. I wrote about duplications and outdated info, not about removing articles. You don't read.
You just put down all recommendations without really reading them, and not arguing with facts either. Obviously, you think you own this article and don't want to cooperate in any way. Not WP style. 47.64.131.12 (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1: They were removed on Super Heavy. I forgot what editor. Context does make it clear.
2: Its not as important as the info in the list
3: Go look at similar articles. Its not an issue.
I put down all recommendations because they will not improve the article. They will make it worse. Redacted II (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your sole opinion. I thought WP was common work. What gives you the right to decide to "put down recommendations"? 47.69.68.190 (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors can reject edit requests.
Thats how Wikipedia works. Redacted II (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who promoted you to be "THE editor" of this arcticle? 47.69.68.190 (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editor: anyone with an account Redacted II (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you promote a 2-class wikipedia, that is hogwash. Nowhere is stated that only account holders are allowed to judge what is written in an article. Don't always try to fool people, but try to work in community for once. 47.69.68.190 (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read this: Edit requests
An editor can reject an edit request, provided that they have a reason for doing so. My reasoning is above.
And your comments here and in the topic below are well past personal attacks. Redacted II (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox change proposal[edit]

If Starship’s failures and losses can be shown, then the successes should be shown as well. The main Starship page shows it in this way already (Successes: 2 and Failures: 2). Here, it would be adding IFT-4 as a success while leaving IFTs 1 and 3 as ship losses and IFT-2 as ship failure (so exactly how they are now). Similar changes should also be done to the Super Heavy page regarding this.CaptHorizon (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose. Successes are not listed in Spacecraft Infoboxes, and its actually impossible to add.
I'm less opposed to adding it to Super Heavy, but I do not believe it is necessary. Redacted II (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Argument is valid, and information is valuable enough to put into infobox for first glance. 47.69.68.190 (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, its impossible to implement. There is no way to add it to the Spacecraft Infobox. Redacted II (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"there is no way" is the killer phrase of the unwilling and unimaginative... 47.69.68.190 (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except, its not possible. Go check for yourself. The "flight data" section of the template lacks an option for success Redacted II (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is nonsense. Templates can be changed, as seen on the SpaceX Starship (spacecraft) page. You always try to take others for fool just to cover that you lack real arguments. 47.69.68.190 (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your not understanding what I'm saying. Obviously, the infobox can be changed. But the template itself... no.
There is no precedent for listing success, either, so even if it was possible, there isn't any reason to add it. Redacted II (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SpaceX_Starship_(spacecraft)&oldid=1233557198"