Talk:SpaceX Starship development/Archive 1

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

Orphaned references in BFR (rocket)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of BFR (rocket)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ars20160918":

  • From ITS launch vehicle: although in an AMA on Reddit on Oct 23, 2016, Musk stated, "I think we need a new name. ITS just isn't working. I'm using BFR and BFS for the rocket and spaceship, which is fine internally, but...", without stating what the new name might be. Berger, Eric (2016-09-18). "Elon Musk scales up his ambitions, considering going "well beyond" Mars". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2016-09-19.
  • From Interplanetary Transport System: Berger, Eric (September 18, 2016). "Elon Musk scales up his ambitions, considering going "well beyond" Mars". Ars Technica. Retrieved September 19, 2016.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

  •  Fixed N2e (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Reference to BFG?

Unconfirmed from what I can tell but BFR looks a lot like a reference to BFG (Big Fucking Gun) from Doom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbieling (talk • contribs) 12:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It is, it's referenced in one of the other Mars Colonial Transporter articles. (DOOM takes place on Mars as well..., before you jump into the hell dimension.); some of the prior presentations/discussions of the rocket called it the Falcon XX also. -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 07:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Old Rocket/New Article?

While I appreciate the notion of this rocket showing up in Wikipedia, the name BFR (Big Falcon Rocket) has been kicking around for quite some time and even the rocket itself is pretty much the same thing that was unveiled in the 2016 IAC meeting by Elon Musk last year. It is the ITS with just a minor name change and an updated design. From that perspective, why does the lead sentence suggest it is something that was unveiled... basically today? --Robert Horning (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The name of the rocket has indeed been kicking around for a while, as shown by many sources. The engines too are the same Raptors they've been developing since at least 2012.
However, the rocket is an entirely new high-level design (9m diameter rather than 12m; delta-wings on the booster now vs. none before; much shorter; 31 engines on the booster rather than 42, six engines on the second stage/spaceship/space tanker rather than nine; three versions of the second stage rather than only two in the ITS launch vehicle; ect. It is a very new design, albeit it is going to use some of the same materials (carbon fiber composite) of the old vehicle. N2e (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Those look like tweaks to the design of the same rocket, more of a refinement as is typical for any sort of design process as you move from concept to the final stage of development. You can find similar kinds of design changes on other rocket systems like even the Space Shuttle that changed considerably from the first draft of the design to what finally flew for STS-1 and arguably even over what happened on the Saturn V. I'm suggesting it is still the same vehicle and it is really stretching any sort of definition that this is something new and different.
From the perspective of Wikipedia, it seems like an article fork of the same topic, which is why I'm bringing this up. This is just a name change to the Interplanetary Transport System and talking about the latest design iteration for that rocket. Generally speaking, I'm against article merges and speak up against them, but in this case it really seems like the same thing. It even says in the ITS article that this is a design iteration of the ITS. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I think the overall mission architecture (especially the relatively new concept SpaceX is championing with both the ITS launch vehicle and with the BFR of using the spacecraft vehicles as both as second-stages (nearly empty at orbit) and also as long-duration reusable spacecraft, on-orbit propellant transfer, Mars methalox manufacture from the Martian atmosphere and water ice, etc.) has great similarities.
So you bring up a good point, and that might make an argument for why the Interplanetary Transport System—which is all about the overall mission architecture, and the meta-system that is much more than just a launch vehicle or the two or (now) three spacecraft that might ride that LV to orbit—should keep the mission architecture and system description story it has today, and just morph with diff vehicles and changes over the years. (as long as the history section doesn't lose the old info)...
But the contrast between the two particular launch vehicles is huge. The two diff rockets are simply very different things. Diff designs. Both with huge numbers of sources that make both of the designs, as is, meet WP:GNG many times over.
  • 12-meter diameter, 122 meters long
  • 300 tonnes payload to LEO, 450 tonnes payload to Mars, after refueling on orbit
  • 6,975 tonnes mass (15,377,000 lb) when leaving the pad at liftoff
  • no delta wing
  • 9-meter diameter, 106 meters long
  • 150 tonnes payload to LEO, 150 tonnes payload to Mars (1/2 as much to LEO; <1/3 as much to Mars)
  • 4,400 tonnes mass (6,680,000 lb) when leaving the pad at liftoff
  • delta wing inherent in the spaceship/second-stage design
See what you think. But maybe the problem is mainly in the prose in the second paragraph, where the BFR is contrasted with the Interplanetary Transport System, when it should probably be contrasted with the ITS launch vehicle. Whadayathink? N2e (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Do a comparison between Falcon 9 v 1.0 and the new upcoming "Block V" configuration. It seems like almost a similar kind of comparison.... yet they are the same rocket name and contained in the same article. I simply look at that as design iterations. For that matter, the same thing happened with the Falcon 5... other than the fact that SpaceX actually sold a Falcon 5 before the design was updated to become the Falcon 9. Given the length of the current Falcon 5 article and the lack of sources, it could even be merged into the Falcon 9 article with hardly a fuss and not lose anything either.
More to the point though, SpaceX isn't even really calling this a new rocket but rather an update rocket design and a partial renaming. I don't even see the designs being really all that different other than getting into the pesky details of a rocket which is still not finalized and set in its design or any significant "bent metal" happening (although Elon Musk did say that is going to change by next year). I'm still not seeing why this needs to be a separate article. --Robert Horning (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

Every good rocket article has one; BFR doesn't. I'm going to fix that using data from the Specifications table under Description. Cheers. Solardays

Earliest "official" use of the BFR name

I'm still trying to think of a way to add this bit of information to the article, but I thought it is interesting that Elon Musk officially used the term "BFR" in conjuction with this rocket design concept as early as 2003 as can be seen in this link below:

https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/CBS/SearchResults?SearchType=NUMBER&SearchCriteria=C2503946

The lawyer associated with this document as the "company secretary" happens to also be the general counsel for SpaceX at the time (I could add sources for that if necessary).

While this company itself shut down sometime after 2007 for whatever purpose that Elon Musk decided to abandon the idea of this company, it does show what seems to be very clearly the term "BFR" used in conjuction with the aerospace industry and that it was closely associated with SpaceX as a company. The "location of business" listed in this document also happens to be the SpaceX HQ location at the time.

It is a nice bit of trivia that I think is significant enough that it ought to be put into this article. --Robert Horning (talk) 07:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Musk did an AMA on BFR yesterday

The CEO of SpaceX did an AMA (Ask Me Anything) limited to the topic of BFR yesterday. While what he said is clearly a primary source, it is likely able to be used to back up certain facts in the BFR article since they are the utterances of a corporate CEO who is speaking about and making public statements about, a development program that said company is funding at present.

Here is one non-news source summary of some of Musk's statements:

Would imagine some bits of these statements will be covered in secondary source news media in the coming days. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

As long as we don't interpret Musk's statements, we can use the primary sources as announcements of SpaceX's plans. Added three more news articles, avoided the futurism.com article because their average quality is miserable. --mfb (talk) 06:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Secondary sources
Started to find some space media covering Musk's remarks. Enjoy. N2e (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • spacenews.com; citation: <ref name=sn20171015>{{cite news |last=Foust|first=Jeff \url=http://spacenews.com/musk-offers-more-technical-details-on-bfr-system/ |title=Musk offers more technical details on BFR system |work=[[SpaceNews]] |date=2017-10-15 |accessdate=2017-10-15 }}
  • theverge.com
  • techcrunch.com
  • geekwire.com (pre-AMA but still with information)

Proposed merge with ITS launch vehicle

No consensus to merge. See also discussion on related articles at Talk:SpaceX Mars transportation infrastructure#Proposal: Rename the article. Work was done on related articles to clarify scope. — JFG talk 09:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Both ITS Launch Vehicle and BFR (as described in their respective articles) have been referred to as BFR. The newer design is a derivative/successor of the former. Essentially, they are both stages in the design process of the same thing Skrelk (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment the proposed rocket has been called "BFR" for a long time. It's also been called 'Falcon XX', MCT launcher, ITS launch vehicle, and currently BFR/Big Falcon Rocket in ITS2.0/MCT?5? -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 07:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as it is not a different proposal, it is an update of the design parameters. The old numbers can be mentioned in a "development history" section. I suggest Big Falcon Rocket as lemma for a combined article. --mfb (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I would agree but only if the name stays BFR (rocket). It seems to me like BFR is the brand name SpaceX is going for here as the old name wouldn't make as much sense anymore. Edit: I'd support the name Big Falcon Rocket Ouzhoulang (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I started trying to argue this above in a manner to extend this discussion out rather than simply forcing this issue in this manner as a formal vote, but I really don't think this article should have been created the the first place. That there has been some major changes in the design is true, but the ITS information ought to be a part of the history of the vehicle. The only thing I could think might be more useful is that perhaps this article could be the "main article" and the ITS article be renamed as "History of the BFR" if there might be a concern that combining the two articles would simply get too large. I really don't want to remove everything in the ITS launcher article and as historical reference the information currently in that article is definitely worth preserving. --Robert Horning (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
User:Chessrat -- you might want to start a discussion on an appropriate name of that article, but if so, you should probably do it on that article Talk page, and not this one, 'cause that's a bit diff topic than this merge proposal. I think you are probably right, it's more about the SpaceX Mars architecture than about any particular rocket that might play a role in implementing that architecture. But suspect the other page would be a better place to discuss that. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Chessrat — I went ahead and started a proposal on renaming the Interplanetary Transport System article; discussion over at Talk:Interplanetary Transport System. Cheers. N2e (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. :) Chessrat (talk, contributions) 11:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I feel like a good solution would be to rename the old page to Interplanetary Transport System (2016) or something like that, then make the current page redirect to BFR as that is the most recent official name for the rocket. Quadrplax (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose--some of the comments above are confusing the SpaceX Mars system architecture (covered in the article Interplanetary Transport System, the most recent name SpaceX called it by, although it has had other names before) with the two specific vehicle designs that SpaceX has put forward for the rocket bits of that system: ITS launch vehicle in 2016, and now a much smaller vehicle, the BFR launch vehicle in late 2017.
The two vehicles are quite different; both are notable, both designs are quite interesting in their own right, and both have a large number of quality secondary-sources in mainline media covering them. They both rather clearly meet WP:GNG. The ITS launch vehicle design and development project, which SpaceX put considerable engineering effort into before setting it aside, is interesting on its own, even though now, there are no plans to fully build it 'cause SpaceX said they couldn't figure out how to pay for it. Thus, SpaceX came up with a new design, with 1/3rd the payload capacity, and plans to make that new design their rocket to replace Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, plus serve as their Mars vehicles. The CEO has said they can pay for the smaller design. Both wiki articles thus cover different, but related topics. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
This isn't a VfD, and certainly there are plenty of sources to back up an article on even just the current version of the BFR. The issue at hand is trying to find some sources that shows clearly that the ITS launcher and the BFR are two completely different rockets that have nothing in common and might even be built as two production lines of rockets. I don't think you can find that anywhere. There was some rumors within the SpaceX fan community talking about a separate "mini ITS" or "ITSy" vehicle, but this clearly isn't that mini vehicle other than how SpaceX has scaled back the design of the previously announced launcher and changed the name. That is the reason and rationale to justify a merger. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
If we're breaking articles apart, then the pre-ITS Mars Colonial Transporter (MCT) should be broken out. -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
That one was never publically unveiled as a specific rocket design. It was, rather, just a name for SpaceX concept of what they were going to do as a go-to-Mars vehicle. The first LV design publically unveiled by SpaceX was 2016: the ITS launch vehicle. — N2e (talk) 03:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
MCT would encompass the historical development of the project, prior to its unveiling as the ITS system last year. Thus we can separate out the historical contexts from the specific version from last year. -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 04:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The 12-meter ITS booster will join the scrap heap of history among dozens of abandoned rocket designs, whereas the 9-meter BFR will very likely go into production and fly in a few years, maybe for decades. As N2e pointed out, there are more than enough quality sources to justify a full article on the ITS booster, whereas the BFR article will grow. I also agree with IP70 that our article on the Interplanetary Transport System should be expanded to include the BFR-based iteration of the Mars colonization plan, formerly known as MCT. In summary:
    • Keep Interplanetary Transport System and expand with BFR iteration of the concept
    • Keep ITS launch vehicle as a historical snapshot of the 12-meter design
    • Expand BFR (rocket) to include some relevant elements from the ITS article, especially things that were retained from the previous design and will go into production
    • Maybe revive an Interplanetary Spaceship article later as details emerge from the new design (and hopefully a better name than "BFS" -- although we could probably create a BFS (spacecraft) article already)
Comments? — JFG talk 14:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I meant to break out a Mars Colonial Transporter article to cover the development of various planets (properly referenced) that existed as our MCT article prior to the ITS introduction last year. Thus we can have a clean ITS article for ITS-2016, and a clean 2017-architecture article for the 2017 revision. All the messy history would exist in it's own article without needing to muddy the waters too much in the 2016 and 2017 articles. -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 07:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Looks like we have the same idea, just with different titles. Your MCT article is Interplanetary Transport System, your ITS-2016 article is ITS launch vehicle and your ITSy-2017 article is BFR (rocket). We seem to disagree on where to include the recent adjustments to the launch cadence and destinations: I would add them to Interplanetary Transport System whereas you would add them to BFR (rocket). I think it makes more sense to have a single article covering the iterations of SpaceX deep-space transport concepts, which went from MCT to ITS-2016 to BFR-based missions. Perhaps we should call this umbrella article "SpaceX deep-space transport architecture"? This would just involve renaming and refocusing the existing "Interplanetary Transport System" which already includes Elon's early vision for SpaceX and historical information about the MCT concept. Articles about the vehicle designs would remain separate. — JFG talk 08:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
JFG and 70.51.46.15, I guess some of us are thinking on the same lines. I started a proposal on renaming the Interplanetary Transport System article just yesterday, over at Talk:Interplanetary Transport System. Initially, just on whether it ought to be renamed at all; figuring a second discussion might be needed to figure out the best name. But, heck, through your idea into the mix as well if you'd like. Cheers. N2e (talk) 10:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Indeed the situation is very confusing between the two articles right now. BFR and MCT were the original rumored codenames until the 2016 IAC called it ITS and gave a concrete design. The 2017 IAC then removed the ITS name and updated the design, however it still refers to the same fundamental concept which needs its own singular article. The ITS article should be restructured to include a section summarizing the 2016 ITS design, but that whole article should pertain to all currently known information about the concept as a whole, SpaceX's Mars colonization rocket/spaceship/architecture. That article should then be renamed to something that is not ITS, because that is now an outdated name. Either "BFS" or something like "SpaceX Mars rocket". But it should stem from that article, not this one, because that contains a rich edit history as the design has changed. This article may have the correct name, but it is an orphan from the ITS article's content and history. Keavon (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Opposed - Wikipedia has many examples of articles on design concepts that later become a product under a different name. In many cases the articles are separate and the former simply links to the latter. There are also many examples where an article contains the history of development which includes the concept design with the associated name(s). From what I've seen the difference is the quality and notability of the unrealized design. Given that the SLS has at least 6 years of work and it quite a long article it appears that it has more than enough content to stand on it's own. Therefore I oppose merging. War (talk) 05:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Again I ask.... where are the reliable sources that show that this current iteration and design is anything different from the ITS lander discussed at the IAC 2016 presentation by Elon Musk as anything other than a design iteration? For that matter, even Elon Musk admitted the term "BFR" is simply a code name for some other name that eventually it will be called by.... so create yet another article when that name change happens? What is happening here is that the thing being presented here is shown as snapshots of the current state of the design, but it doesn't show the step by step gradual changes over time. There is also no evidence at all that SpaceX is internally treating this as a different rocket. This isn't even a product fork. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Based on how he presented it, it is clearly an updated design for the same project. --mfb (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment—adding this summary, just so persons involved in the discussion have a high-level picture of the use cases and principal specs of the two rockets. The two particular launch vehicles are, it seems to me, rather different.
  • 12-meter diameter, 122 meters long
  • 300 tonnes payload to LEO, 450 tonnes payload to Mars, after refueling on orbit
  • 6,975 tonnes mass (15,377,000 lb) when leaving the pad at liftoff
  • no delta wing
  • Announced use cases: Mars missions and colonization efforts; interplanetary missions generally
  • 9-meter diameter, 106 meters long
  • 150 tonnes payload to LEO, 150 tonnes payload to Mars (1/2 as much to LEO; <1/3 as much to Mars)
  • 4,400 tonnes mass (6,680,000 lb) when leaving the pad at liftoff
  • delta wing inherent in the spaceship/second-stage design
  • Announced use cases: replace both the existing Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch vehicles in all SpaceX launches after early 2020s; replace Dragon spacecraft for on-orbit spacecraft for all SpaceX spacecraft missions; Lunar missions; Mars missions and colonization efforts; point-to-point Earth transport between major cities, in 30-60 minutes.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Privately funded

BFR is SpaceX's privately funded

The primary source of that claim is SpaceX itself. It's highly dubious since a significant portion of their revenue comes from NASA (US public). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weslima (talk • contribs) 19:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The NASA (and Air Force) funding SpaceX receives is for other work. Once they earn it, how a private company spends the profits from a government contract is their own business. Once the check is deposited, the money stops being government money. Fcrary (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
That's right. One thing is development funding and another is paying customers (revenue). BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2018 (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)
Yes. Most often, as in this case, run fuel rich to allow curtain cooling of the throat. Hmm, we seem to have only a slim mention in Rocket engine. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Cost per flight estimate? Better source needed?

The currently listed cost per flight is an estimate that seems to be done on someone's blog. And it's not clear where they actually got the $7m number from considering they estimated: "Spacex should be able to profitably get into the cost per flight of $20-40 million." It also makes a lot of assumptions, assuming a ridiculous level of reuse (>100 flights). I don't think we should be using it as a source.Botlord (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

"Cheaper than Falcon 1" is the official estimate by SpaceX, presented by Musk. The Blog just adds the known cost of Falcon 1 to that. I don't see a problem here. An independent cost analysis or launch contracts would be even better but that is not available at this stage. --mfb (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Is BFR expendable?

I don't feel strongly either way about the reverts going on in the Infobox stating that some kind of BFR version is expendable, but it is strange to read that in the Infobox, since Musk's #1 financial and technological priority is to develop the BFR as a fully reusable system. It seems to me he was just comparing this hypothetical performance if he was to use all the propellant and dispose the rocket after use; I don't think he said this is an available option, and his remark/slide is being taken literally and, possibly, out of context. If such "expendable option" is actually in the table for clients, then it should not be a problem supporting it with a reliable reference stating so in no uncertain terms. Until then, you should remove it (or at least tag it as dubious) and discuss it further. My 2 cents. BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

By the way, in which page or figure in the reference 4 is stated 250 tons when expendable? I assumed it was a slide/image/Figure in that document, and can't find it in that cited source. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I have removed the "expendable" payload from the infobox, because the source document provides no figure for it, and also quotes Musk as saying that expending the BFR would be "crazy":

It is really crazy that we build these sophisticated rockets and then crash them every time we fly. This is mad. I cannot emphasize how profound this is and how important reusability is.Often I will be told, “but you could get more payload if you made it expendable.” I say “yes, you could also get more payload from an aircraft if you got rid of the landing gear and the flaps and just parachute out when you got to your destination. But that would be crazy and you would sell zero aircraft.” So reusability is absolutely fundamental.

That should settle the issue. — JFG talk 18:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm personally quite fine with the removal, but mostly based on a (forming) multi-editor consensus here on the Talk page with rationales provided for why that number, which did come from some SpaceX numbers released, should not be in the article.
I think BatteryIncluded's rationale in the first comment in this Talk section makes a very strong point. Def should not be merely in the infobox without sourced prose in the article fully explicating it. N2e (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

New sources following Musk and Shotwell's recent public statements

Starting to see media sources covering the recent public statements by both Musk and Shotwell. Some new details and approximate timeframe info was provided.

There's probably more; but these ought to suffice to improve the article when I find the time to read these and explicate some new info. Or others of course feel free. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)z

 Done—prose and citation added to the article. N2e (talk) 12:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Formal paper (source) from the Sep 2017 IAC presentation

Looks like Elon Musk has formally published a paper on the BFR in the journal New Space, just out this month. Probably would be a better long-term source for many of the article claims than would be the video of the Musk speech.

Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Someone should definitely add that reference. But I think there may be some extra content in the video. Things like phrasing, delivery and body language say things that a written paper doesn't capture. Fcrary (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Added. See ref 49. Sanpitch (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Shark fin

Any references as to the reason for the single shark fin (winglet) on the spacecraft? It is unusual, and I think if there is info out there we should present it here. I could not find any. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It's a Delta wing, not a winglet, It looks weird on the side. Check out some of the other pictures. UnknownM1 (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
BatteryIncluded, Musk talks about the Delta Wing (no winglet), and the rationale for it, in his IAC2017 talk. But you make an interesting point, that particular photo does make it appear asymmetric. If you can find a better photo, feel free. The images on this article are hard, cause SpaceX did not release them as CCxSA on their Flickr account, like they did for the ITS launch vehicle in fall 2016. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Evidently the fin is meant for aerodynamic control within the (or an) atmosphere. (I see it now in the article as "delta wing".) My point is that if the rocket lands vertically, why is it only one (asymmetry) and is placed at the bottom/rear of the craft? There is something to be said about symmetry for axis control. Maybe it is meant for the early stage of reentry only? I think it is very unusual and it begs an explanation. Anyway, I now have the terminology to look into it. Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
It is symmetric. SpaceX just rarely shows views from a side where you would see both wing parts together. Page 15 of this PDF is an exception. --mfb (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that image shows the wing is bilateral. It had to be. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
"Musk pushed back on the characterization that they were delta wings, and said that they’re not designed to generate lift, but to ensure that the ship “doesn't enter engines first from orbit, and to “provide pitch and yaw control during reentry.” - The Verge [1]. Time-permitting, I may work on a line or two regarding this wing, which seems its purpose is to generate drag to achieve control. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah that's about it. It is an aerodynamic stabilizer so that they can reduce the reentry-profile, therefore reducing the needed fuel to land and the weight of parachutes or landing legs.UnknownM1 (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

No, those are not the reasons Musk gave, and could not go in the article as those are not sourced statements.

It is explicitly delta wing, with a split flap, which is clearly described by Musk both in his Sep 2017 IAC talk, and in the journal article just published at the beginning of March, and added as a source to the article in the past week or so.

Compared to the design I showed last time, you will see that there is a small delta wing at the back of the rocket. The reason for that is to expand the mission envelope of the BFR spaceship. Depending on whether you are landing or you are entering a planet or a moon that has no atmosphere, a thin atmosphere, or a dense atmosphere, and depending on whether you are reentering with no payload in the front, a small payload, or a heavy payload, you have to balance the rocket out as it is coming in. The delta wing at the back, which also includes a split flap for pitch and roll control, allows us to control the pitch angle despite having a wide range of payloads in the nose and a wide range of atmospheric densities. We tried to avoid having the delta wing but it was necessary in order to generalize the capability of the spaceship such that it could land anywhere in the solar system. — Elon Musk [emphasis added]

Moreover, there is an excellent image that shows the symmetry of the delta wing on slide 15 of the pdf SpaceX released after the Sep2017 Musk talk; link provided in the External links section of the article. You, BatteryIncluded and UnknownM1, might just want to take a look at that slide. N2e (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I think there are 2 key points in this: 1) It is a surface meant to generate controllable drag to stabilize the spacecraft pitch upon entry. 2) It is not meant to generate aerodynamic lift, therefore Musk's comment that it is not really a wing and he "pushed back" at such characterization. Now he is using that name again. It may be delta-shaped, or baptised Delta Wing, but we should state in no uncertain terms its function, and that function does not include aerodynamic lift (as a wing is expected to) but pitch control through deflection and drag. BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, as long as we have a source for that, sounds good. But we cannot just take as implicit that aerodynamic lift is or is not a part of the SpaceX BFR paper design for the "delta wing" and "split flaps." There may be a source, but I've not found anything more than the Musk comments in the BFR talk from Sep 2017, or in his more recently published journal article. Does anyone have other sources that might make the article better? N2e (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Expedition vs. Colonization

Something that has to be made clear is that SpaceX does not have the funding to create a Mars colony. Musk has repeated in many occasions that he wants to enable it by providing transportation, but that an actual colony would only happen with significant support from several international companies and governments. This article calls the first mission in the mid-2020s the transporting of the first "colonists", but it is not even a temporary base. The objectives on Mars' plans have to be toned down significantly, in this article as well as in the SpaceX article. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC) (formerly BatteryIncluded)

People living there for at least two years clearly makes it a temporary base. --mfb (talk) 23:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
First crewed trip to Mars is to stay there 2 years? You have a ref for that? Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Literally every time Musk talks about Mars plans, with tons of references in the article? Send cargo ships, send humans, let them produce fuel for a potential return trip during the next transfer period while there. This is not limited to SpaceX's plans. Due to the orbits, every plan includes at least roughly two years on or near Mars. --mfb (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, launch windows are every two years. The point is you have not produced a reference stating the astronauts will stay there 2 years (or live there happily ever after). Which brings us back to the original point to change "colony" to "mission" or base, especially for the first couple of decades of activities. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
From the article SpaceX Mars transportation infrastructure: "However, Musk advocates a larger set of long-term Mars settlement objectives, going far beyond what SpaceX projects to build; a successful colonization would ultimately involve many more economic actors—whether individuals, companies, or governments—to facilitate the growth of the human presence on Mars over many decades." (Refs: 4.Berger, Eric (2016-09-28). "Musk's Mars moment: Audacity, madness, brilliance—or maybe all three". Ars Technica. 5.Foust, Jeff. "Can Elon Musk get to Mars?". SpaceNews. 6.Richardson, Derek (September 27, 2016). "Elon Musk Shows Off Interplanetary Transport System". Spaceflight Insider.)
Please see the difference between an expedition and advocacy. Again: Musk is willing to provide the transportation (ISRU propellant included), but he does not have the funds and will not provide the service for free. Someone has to pay for a colony. His advocacy' for a colony is already documented as "beyond what SpaceX projects to build" so it should NOT be presented in this BFR article as a colony/colonists especially in the first few missions. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Elon Musk has repeatedly stated that the first astronauts will produce the fuel for a return flight there - with the earliest launch two years later. What exactly do you expect the astronauts to do otherwise? Launch after a year and die in space because they'll never get close to Earth again? But Musk doesn't necessarily expect the first astronauts to fly back. Read e.g. Making Life Multi-Planetary. --mfb (talk) 01:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out what changes to this article you are talking about? If you want to debate the merits or lack thereof with regards to the SpaceX colonization plans, take that to another forum and not this talk page. This article doesn't really go into any sort of depth at all with regards to what may or may not be happening, and is only quoting Elon Musk in terms of what he said at last years IAC presentation and a few things on the topic he has said since. There are a few critics of the idea, and perhaps a single sentence rebuttal could be put into this article in terms of better balance and NPOV rather than simply having the article being an Elon Musk fan page. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Simply read the title. An expedition is not a colony, especially if the astronuts do not stay. The proposed changes are VERY clear: change colony for expedition/mission. If you feel like throwing gratuitous shit at other editors please take that to another forum and not this talk page. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Be specific: Change what where. A colonization is clearly the goal of SpaceX. The article doesn't claim that SpaceX plans to colonize Mars all on its own. --mfb (talk) 01:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I changed what needed to be changed and included the references. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with the "needed to be changed". --mfb (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Touch and go is not a "colony". Was Buzz Aldrin a colonist? Neither will be the first SpaceX astronauts on Mars. But hey, I can't argue with you since you claimed that a regular car becomes a spacecraft as long as you mount a camera on it[2]; that is the level of intellectual honesty you bring to some Wikipedia discussions and articles. I just have to take the garbage out every now and then. Done. Rowan Forest (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2018 (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" [1]

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

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference musk20170929 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

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)
It is in the lead which is excessively long for the Higgs boson. It is not in the first paragraph, and especially not in the first sentence where we get frequent edits here. We have a section "Nomenclature" for BFR, it would fit there nicely. --mfb (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
The list above includes some of the biggest main-stream publications (both right-leaning and left-leaning) in the world, such as The Economist, The Guardian, Bild, GQ dating back to 2014 (in relation to SpaceX and Elon Musk - probably older references if one digs). So why is it not mentioned once in the article? It doesn't really matter what SpaceX or Elon Musk say officially at this point. What's the real issue here? Nfitz (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be no question that BFR is the official announced code name for this new launch vehicle, in numerous sourced statements by Musk and as reported by many sources. This is reflected in the title of the article.

However, there have been two sub-subjects around this that have been debated pretty much since this article was new:

  1. do the expansions of that name, as reported in some media and some sources also get a mention in the article?
  2. where in the article does this discussion go, if it goes at all.

To my knowledge, despite many editors adding the variously-attributed acronym expansions, and various editors removing them, there has never any Talk page consensus that the expansions cannot be in the article. So in my view, the expansions can be in the artticle.

But where? This is more clear. There was a Talk page consensus, now in the Talk page archive, that the discussion and all that should not be in the lede. So it is not. There is an article section called Nomenclature or something like that.

Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Good points - while Big fucking rocket and WP:R#ASTONISH suggest it should be in the lead, looking carefully, I can see that the redirect actually goes to BFR (rocket)#Nomenclature so if there's no objection, I'll add something brief in there, with 3 or 4 of the best and perhaps oldest references above. I'll leave others to argue about what should go in the often contentious lead - or "lede" as Wipipedians seem to often misspell it :). Nfitz (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Mayor of LA just tweeted "Officially announcing that SpaceX will start production development of the Big Falcon Rocket in the PortofLA" ref War (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Shotwell's recent speech specifically called it a "Big Falcon Rocket" ref War (talk) 04:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

  • As discussed above I've added the obvious to the Nomenclature section, with 4 of the 23 sources listed above; if anyone is concerned I can the other 19. Nfitz (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

New source, with new information

This seems a quite useful press article on BFR etc., including some new information from SpaceX Principal Mars Development Engineer Paul Wooster talk, including the search/research on Mars landing locations for early 2020s interplanetary flights. I'm a bit overloaded so it may be a while 'til I can get back and edit in new content based on this. SpaceX is searching for BFR landing sites for early 2020s Mars missions, published 31 July 2018. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Musk statements on BFR cross-wind design specs

CEO Musk has made several statements now outlining the design specs for BFR crosswind design specs, at take-off, high-altitude, and landing. Definitely sporty performance outlined here. Using Musk's own tweets would be adequate sourcing to improve the article with this since he is SpaceX CEO. < https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45924.msg1836091#msg1836091 Links to several twitter posts]. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

We can and do quote Elon's tweets. He is simply a primary source, i.e. reliable for what he says about himself and his businesses. Must be attributed every time, not stated in wikivoice. — JFG talk 04:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I have not added any of the cross-wind specs to the article, and don't plan to just now. But if sourced, I would not have any objection to someone else writing that up and citing it in the article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

A new use case for BFR: super rapid global deployment of military logistics

US DoD, (a US Air Force general) talking, apparently seriously, about using BFR for global logistics deployment. Super fast. Cheaper than using a C-5A airplane. Air Mobility Command Chief Looks Toward Supplying Forces From Space, US Dept. of Defense, 2 Aug 2018. I think I'll just leave this here. N2e (talk) 01:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it is premature to include here, but if the BFR works as advertised, I foresee the US Space Force using this. Not just for casual charters, but they'll buy their own "military version". Rowan Forest (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Chilling, though realistic… — JFG talk 17:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, on both. Premature to put in the article now until more plans/RFPs/news sources come out; the general's talk is a bit little to make into a new use case for BFR in the BFR article. And, yeah, chilling. An unfortunate multi-millennia characteristic of Sapiens to take anything they have, including each new bit of human technology, and find uses for it in a use of force use case against other sapiens (whether, arguably, for defensive or offensive purposes). Really not looking forward to how such uses, or potential uses, by governments will change the whole equation of human bottom-up advance toward new human frontiers beyond Earth. N2e (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Recent talk by Paul Wooster, SpaceX principal Mars development engineer

SpaceX's principal Mars development engineer Paul Wooster gave a talk last week at the Mars Society meetings. There's not much new on BFR, perhaps with the exception of some ways the slides articulate statements that might help improve the WP article. There is a bit more said, although briefly, about on-Mars activities and actions, that might be useful. — N2e (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Here's the talk and photos of the slides presented:

Here's more on SpaceX and Mars research, thinking, discussing, planning; most mentioning Paul Wooster:

And here is a much better view of the Mars resources and potential landing locations map that Wooster showed on his slide 9. H/T to an intertubz colleague for finding this.  :*it is from figure 45 on page 937 (as indicated on the page) from a paper "A New Analysis of Mars 'Special Regions': Findings of the Second MEPAG Special Regions Science Analysis Group (SR-SAG2)" by Rummel et al. The map is on page 51 of the linked PDF file.

N2e (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

SpaceX's requirements for a landing zone (LZ) are very different from previous missions, which all were focused on exploration. My guess is that they are looking for massive water ice deposits at a favorable latitude. Their infrastructure relies on the fabrication of propellant in situ, which will require of several tons on water within very short distance (and atmospheric CO2). The amount of water required far exceeds what is needed for simple life support. And it has to be sustainable. By the way, this article could benefit from a section on the planned Mars propellant plant, its chemical process and power source - if enough information is available. So far we know they'll use local water and atmospheric CO2. I doubt the power source will use solar energy, as it is unreliable during sandstorms. Can he legally buy and launch a radioisotope generator? Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if private ownership of plutonium is actually illegal or simply regulated so heavily it might as well be illegal. In any case, plutonium isn't available in the quantities required for this sort of application. We've barely enough to supply a few hundred watts to a few spacecraft. I also don't want to think of the environmental impact statement and certification process for launching that much of any sort of radioactive. An actual reactor, if one existed, might be a different matter. But so would be solar power and a good, long term energy storage system. In any case, we can't say anything about that in the article since, as far as I know, it's all just speculation on our part. Fcrary (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
@Rowan Forest and Fcrary: For nuclear power generation in space, please have a look at Kilopower. Power is not a big issue with the current development of this technology. Snipre (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
That's a sodium cooled, fast reactor in the 1-10 kW range. Studies and designs for things like that have been around since the 1980s. It looks like this one is at TRL-4, working towards TRL-5. That's "component and/or breadboard validation in a laboratory environment" or in a "realistic environment", respectively. Admittedly, that's closer to flight-ready hardware than any > 1 kW reactor has ever been. But that's still in development. Suggesting SpaceX could or plans to use one is speculative and not something to put in the BFR article. Fcrary (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Whatever generator NASA is developing, it is not for Musk's private campaign to Mars. The slides mentioned above state that the aim is to harvest and process more than 1 ton of water per day. This rate and volume requires of a lot of power to operate the heavy machine(s) doing the mining, the processing and splitting of water, and the atmospheric CO2 extraction to make the propellant (methane & O2). No doubt some systems will use solar power, but I think that that volume of water, and that processing rate requires power generated by some serious source - short of a solar power farm. That is why I asked if anyone has seen a reference stating the source of power that he is proposing for the surface processing. Interestingly, he is also assessing the use of Martian regolith to build structures; I reckon by 3D-printing watery mud. Cheers, Rowan Forest
I don't know where exactly but he mentioned solar power as power source. It is not that reliable on a day by day basis but storms last only short fractions of the 26 month flight cycles. The fuel has to be collected over two years, 1-3 months of storm are not a big issue with some spare capacity. --mfb (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I think you are right in that the power source will be limited to solar power only, as depicted in this rendering which features a solar power farm: [3]. Unfortunately they do not state so specifically in the slides photographer nor in the writing, so I can't use it in Wikipedia. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I found it: "Musk feels that six ships should mean enough landed mass to build the depot, which will involve a massive array of solar panels". [4]. Rowan Forest (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I added a section on the Mars base and refueling plant, as its first two habitats will be their crewed BFRs. Please feel free to edit it mercilessly.  :-) Rowan Forest (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Good move Rowan Forest to put some of this info into a few paragraphs on the Mars Base. Here is a new/better Youtube link to the Wooster talk: [5], much higher quality video recording. I replaced the link in the original post above as well. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The article currently says "Each landed mass will be at least 100 tons of usable payload, in addition of the BFR spaceship mass." One of the above references (the tweeted question and answer) says, "Q: what's the payload to Mars? A: we will be able to land 100t (but including the ship)." I know it's independent research, but 100 tonnes including the ship is about right for an all-propulsive landing. I haven't checked the video, but is it 100 tonnes including or excluding the ship? That's a big difference. Fcrary (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

He was asked that question in the video [6] at mark 23:55 min. He was very precise in his answer: 100 tons of usable payload, plus the mass of the spaceship and its systems. Rowan Forest (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, must be payload + spaceship mass, otherwise with a dry mass of 85 tons for the ship, there wouldn't be much payload to speak of. — JFG talk 22:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

The main money-making application of the BFR/BFS system would be commercial passenger travel on Earth. It is important because that profit is expected to finance off Earth projects, and it is hardly mentioned in this article. Should we create a brief subsection under "Scope of BFR missions" that describes the concept a bit more? Also, can we change the title "Scope of BFR missions" to "Scope of BFR applications", or something similar? Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

You mixed in two things here; that's tough in Wikipedia proposalville.
I'm for the second one: these are definitely not just "missions". And the term "missions" is leftover from when the military and governments began developing spaceflight technology, for war and military uses, and then kept the term for single-flight "civil" spaceflight once the space race cold war Soviet/US competition got under way. So I'm all for deprecating "missions" talk, and it will be much necessary to do so as more and more space transport happens, and space is just a place (where people and our autonomous bots) do stuff, not some unique "industry" on government macroeconomic tables. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Earth to Earth transport is a planned application but we don't know if it will work out - it would need orders of magnitude improvement in safety, among other issues. That is certainly not an early application, the money for the development has to come from somewhere else. --mfb (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I think you are right. It is a very long shot of a system in early R&D. Whatever info he has released is aspirational. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, weirdly, it's a bit hard to say that Musk even said much, or said anything too explicit, on even the aspirational aspect of Earth-to-Earth when he showed that video. He did, of course bring it up. But he said very little; just a brief intro before he showed the animation video SpaceX animators had put together, illustrating some of the analysis his engineers did to show a rocket-equation and reentry-dynamics level of high-level engineering analysis. Closed the IAC presentation with : "why not go to other places on Earth as well."
His words about it were very limited. Musk: "But there's something else. If you build a ship that's capable of going to Mars, what if you take that same ship, and go from one place to another on Earth. So we looked at that... and the results are quite interesting. Let's take a look at that." Cue 2-minute video. [Clapping.] The great thing about going to space, is there's no friction. Once you are out of the atmosphere... smooth as silk. ... So if you are building this thing to go to the Moon and Mars, why not go to other places on Earth as well."
So agree with mfb; it's not an early application; at least based on Musk's public statements at IAC in Sep 2018. Maybe SpaceX will announce more in the future (or even this week with the Moon passenger name announcement, who knows?). But until that comes, we have little to add to the article.
I think this section would be better titled as "Applications of the BFR". I agree that "missions" sounds too militaristic, and I also think that "scope" sounds a bit to much like nebulous business-speak. Anxietycello (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Why were my edits reverted?

User:N2e, can you please explain why you reverted the last 4 of my 5 edits to this article? They were clear improvements, intended to help preserve historical information, while making room for the next weeks' upcoming update. You don't WP:OWN SpaceX articles, they belong to everyone. Anxietycello (talk) 08:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I think my edit comment made it clear the rationale for that. You made a lot of WP:BOLD edits, all in good faith, no question about that. But they were major. The regular process here is WP:BRD: go ahead and be bold, but if reverted, discuss on the Talk page first rather than just slamming the changes back in without discussion.
Now that you've slammed them back in without discussion, and many other edits are over and around yours, it will be a longer and harder process to get reasonable review on the many substantive changes. N2e (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I forsee a lot more editors and changes following the press release, and also because there are plenty of changes to the flight and landing systems. At the moment, I suggest to move 98% of the historical info out of the gigantic introduction, and leave a short descriprion of the BFR/BFS. If it gets as busy as I think it will, remember there is no deadline. There will be time to condense the info and wikify it. It will fall into place. The History of the development has been complex, so yes, it will also have to be reviewed so that no important info was deleted. In addition we'll have to add a short summary of the old BFR system - which by tomorrow Monday will also be history. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

New design!

The new BFR design is scheduled to be announced on September 18 at 1:00 UTC (6 pm PDT). Here is the link to the livestream. A render of the redesign has already been leaked, though none of the pictures are in Creative Commons so there's no way to use them unless one qualifies for WP:NFCC. Please do not add your own research and speculations nor baseless speculation by others. Only design elements confirmed officially should be added. Have fun editing! XYZt (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It has been confirmed by Musk that the wings are the new design, that they contain the landing legs, and that two of them can move to different angles. While we could add that now we can simply wait ~12 hours more and then add more with a much better source. --mfb (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

List of "reliable secondary sources" on 17 September 2018 webcast

The SpaceX announcement and BFR update webcast is over nearly an hour ago. Let's start a list of good "reliable secondary sources" covering the news. In my view, the reliable sources ought to be used, staying away from Twitter posts and click bait media unless a verifiable source for a claim cannot be found amongst the serious sources. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Other editors, please add good sources here:

Reliable secondary sources
Primary source information

Upper stage naming confusion (BFR/BFS)

Currently, the upper stage of the BFR goes by a variety of names which is somewhat confusing. In one place of the article, there are terms "BFS cargo", "BFS tanker", and "BFS crew" that correspond to different versions of the upper stage, but later, the terms "BFR satellite delivery spacecraft" ("BFR sat-delivery vehicle"), "BFR tanker", and "BFR spaceship" are being used. Of course, these names could be officially changed any time, but I think, for the purpose of clarity, this should be fixed somehow, even if such a fix would be a temporary one. Igor Krein (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Musk?

In the introduction it says "Musk's vision" without even introducing him let alone mention his given name or linking to his entry. Must be changed. EnTerbury (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Changed that. --mfb (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Project Cost

The project cost (pcost) is currently in error, or at best misleading. It reads "US$5–10 billion, estimated".

In the 2018.09.17 livestream Musk, when questioned about BFR's development cost, repeatedly states $5B as his estimation. Upon musing further, he cites $2B and $10B as lower and upper bounds. Since the pcost is already qualified as 'estimated', I suggest we revert this to "US$5 billion, estimated" as this best represents Musk's statement. If a large and less precise range is preferred, the pcost entry should read "US$2–10 billion, estimated". Solardays (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Looking for further discussion of the two options presented above: 1) range of estimated cost, or 2) the estimated cost. In lieu of others stating preferences/opinions, I'm making the change. Solardays (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

2018 BFR update in a nutshell

Here is the core 7-minute video bits of Musk talking about the BFR updates at the Sep 2018 lunar mission announcement, published by Science News.

A pretty decent way to get the main intro SpaceX wanted to put in the presentation for the 2018 update (but of course, missing the details that might have come out/been clarified as Musk did a Q&A later in the announcement event.) SpaceX BFR to fly around the Moon, SciNews, 17 September 2018. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Length of first stage

I am sure the first stage is much longer than 63m: BFR is 118m tall, the upperstage has a length 55m including fins. The fins (landing-legs) go down from the body of the ship around 5m. If the body is 50m long the first stage has a length of 68m. At the other picture I got 49m for the ship and 69m for the booster. I found nothing from SpaceX about the length of the booster. The booster gridfins are between the landinglegs of the sfip, so the firststage is for sure taller than 63m.--Mars2062 (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can understand from the Musk's presentation, the upper stage is 55 meter long without fins. On the other hand, if we look at the picture of the whole BFR (118m), we could see that the numbers don't fit. I'd tell the first stage (w/o interstage) is approximately 65m long, the interstage is 4m long, and the upperstage is 49m w/o fins (53m with fins). But I am not sure we could rely on these pictures. I'd rather wait for some official info from SpaceX.Igor Krein (talk) 07:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
In the Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6vYaBZB1u0 from 45s to 1m02s You can read: "55m LENGTH Including Fins". I got from 48 to 51m for the ship without fins on different pictures - So I also wait for official numbers from SpaceX. --Mars2062 (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Carbon footprint

I have added:
The carbon footprint of a single BFR launch is estimated to be about 660,000 kg of carbon dioxide.
Ref: https://steemit.com/steemstem/@procrastilearner/let-s-calculate-the-carbon-footprint-of-the-spacex-bfr
Don't take it out, or I will report this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.55.165 (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

It is not important enough for its own section. Go ahead and "report this page", whatever that means. --mfb (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
That is your bias talking. It is important enough, it is THE MAIN topic in all aspects of today's world. If you don't know that then you are not qualified to be an editor. You are trying to cover up a massive polluter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.55.165 (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree, unless someone wants to list the carbon footprint of ever launch vehicle in every one of those articles. And, even so, one sentence in a stand-along section doesn't make any sense. Further, I really question the neutral point of view and impartiality of any editor that starts off my making threats about "reporting pages" and then replies to a comment by saying there is there it is "THE MAIN" topic of everything in the universe. (With block caps, which is a nice touch...) Plus accusations agains editors who disagree with him and not using the quadruple tilde to identify himself... Fcrary (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
The methane could be produced from CO2, making the flight completely carbon-neutral. Even if they don't decide to do that (and you don't know that): A few flights won't have a big impact on the climate. This won't replace economy flights, even if they reach the necessary safety it will stay a premium product. --mfb (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah by the way: The quoted number is also completely wrong, apparently the author didn't even bother to look up the right numbers. The source doesn't satisfy the quality criteria here. --mfb (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
IMO, an irrelevant factoid. Rowan Forest (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
You are living in the past. The carbon footprint of everything is an important point, and should have it's own section on every Wiki page about commercial products like this.
And, yes, the figure 660,00kg per launch could be wrong. It is most likely MUCH higher, as you will find out if this obsolete technology is ever launched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.55.165 (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 20 November 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved (page mover nac) Flooded with them hundreds 11:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

BFR (rocket) → Starship (rocket) – Elon Musk tweets: "Renaming BFR to Starship" – XYZt (talk  |  contribs) – 04:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: Per another tweet, "Starship is the spaceship/upper stage & Super Heavy is the rocket booster [i.e. the first stage]". Urgh. – XYZt (talk  |  contribs) – 04:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment Unsure if Elon is high right now. Imo we should wait for official confirmation via a change in the website and/or a tweet by @SpaceX. – XYZt (talk  |  contribs) – 04:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, let's wait at least a day, and longer if there is nothing besides this tweet. We'll probably get some update soon. --mfb (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, conditionally. Assuming Elon continues to tweet about this, it should be moved. Given the frequency of his tweets, I imagine we could make a very solid decision within a week. theZcuber (talk) 08:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose because "Starship" is only the ship/upper stage, and this article is about the whole system including the booster. In any case we need to wait until something much clearer and more official is published, at least by SpaceX and preferably also by secondary sources. Right now all we have are Elon's tweets (which are not reliable enough as sources) and a few news reports based purely on the tweets, e.g. [7]. Also (pure speculation), the "Super Heavy" name hints that the booster may well actually be intended to be known as "Falcon Super Heavy". Rosbif73 (talk) 10:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Conditionally support and split as per theZcuber and Rosbif73. We should get some official confirmation before moving Starship, and if Super Heavy is in reference to the booster, then perhaps the article should be split in a similar manner to Falcon 9 and Dragon. --Natural RX 15:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
    I don't think we should split the article, at least not in the near future. The topic is the overall system and they go together. Falcon 9 can have other payloads, the BFR booster cannot. It is more similar to the two F9 stages. We don't have separate articles for them. --mfb (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
    Mfb, Well, sort of. On earth the rockets are multi-stage obligatory, but not on other celestial bodies (mars/moon). I agree that splitting at this stage isn't warranted, but might be advisable later if there are multiple different upper stages for the rocket (i.e. cargo, crew, and tanker starships). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 19:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Opposed - After smoking a reefer, Musk also Tweeted that he was putting Tesla on the stock market, and it was not so, so he was fined millions. Just wait. Besides, the suggested name "Starship (rocket)" is incorrect. The Starship is the BFS (crewed stage), and the rocket (booster) is the BFR. Rowan Forest (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Opposed for now at least. Let's give SpaceX and Mr. Musk a chance to converge on something and settle on it. There's already more than enough confusion about names and naming conventions for SpaceX hardware. Just one tweet isn't enough for us to make a big change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcrary (talk • contribs) 22:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for two reasons. One, the name Starship is explicitly only describing the upper stage/spaceship. As is, and as this article has been for over 14 months now, BFR (rocket) article is about the entire BFR launch vehicle: the first stage and the second-stage/spaceship. Secondly, too soon. Let's wait for any article renaming, or split discussions, until this gets sorted and stabilized in reliable secondary sources. Give it a couple of weeks, and let's see what we've got. N2e (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Yes, it is best to wait, but disagree with the rationale above. For a straightforward matter such as this – the adoption and utilization of the new, proper name of a company's product – the secondary source requirement does not apply because there are no "novel interpretation" pitfalls to avoid in use of a name. See WP:PSTS. For example, should SpaceX post or release material directly citing the names Starship and Super Heavy, then that primary source should be sufficient to initiate the rename/move of this article. Our reasons for pausing now have more to do with the nature of Elon (and Twitter) than the need for a secondary source. Solardays (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now Wait until an official SpaceX change on their website. Currently the SpaceX website still says BFR.[8] That being said, we need more clarification; Is it going to be Falcon Super Heavy? And what about cargo and tanker versions of BFS? Will they still be called Starship? To the latter, if so, and other stuff is confirmed as we expect, we would probably best change the title to something like "Falcon Super Heavy and Starship" or a split of page as another option. I expect each of the individual ships will have its own name anyway... on the lines of Starship Millenium but that will be another naming issue to deal with down the road. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name change from Big Falcon Rocket to 'Starship'

Ok what now? Do we change the article name straight away? Elon has had a whimsical notion to change the name of his biggest rocket to date. The prodigious scifi reader who names his landing barges after fictional sentient starships has given his heavy lifter the title of Starship. I guess if he stripped out the rocket engines and replaced them with an Orion pusher plate stuck to the end of 10 or so floors of shock absorbers he might convert them into slow Starships at a pinch. So technically it could be correct.

https://www.universetoday.com/140626/name-change-alert-spacexs-bfr-is-now-just-called-starship/

I'm a little disapointed as I made it my username on facebook and bought www.BigFalconRockets.com but its his ship. Shall we redirect this address to a new page and copy/paste everything over with the name edited all the way through? That's going to be fun. :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by anonymous (talk)

Firstly, it is conventional to add new sections to the end of talk pages, and to sign your comments. Secondly, if you'd scrolled down to the end, you'd see that the proposed move has already been discussed, and so far consensus seems to be that we should wait for a more official announcement of the name change. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


Please forgive me if I'm not posting my comment in the right place. I noticed several new articles have appeared in support of Elon Musk changing the name of his largest rocket from BFR (I understood the joke, I'm a proud child of the Doom and Doom 2 generation, not too hard to infer knowing what the acronym BFG stood for...) to a classier name, Starship.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/26/elon-musk-says-there-is-a-70percent-probability-he-will-go-to-mars.html

There are dozens of articles reaffirming the name change. Are we just waiting on official thumbs up from Musk or a news article posted on SpaceX's website perhaps?63.248.80.202 (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

In this case, we wait for an official announcement by SpaceX or a change in their official web page. Don't worry, they won't leave for Mars without you. :-) Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
As far as the other articles mentioning a new name, I don't think they are really confirmations. The ones I've seen are simply reporting Mr. Musk's original tweet.Fcrary (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
The name is used in the article, its just a matter of WP:COMMONNAME catching up before we change the title. Most people still know this as the BFR, and SpaceX is referring to it as such on their web site as well. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
More importantly, Starship and Super Heavy are not simply renamed versions of BFS and BFR. Elon has mentioned that there have also been major design changes, but without giving any details for now. IMHO all mentions of the new names in the article (except in the Nomenclature section) are premature and should be reverted (indeed, I've reverted some, but it's a losing battle). What was known about the BFR design may well no longer apply for Super Heavy, and likewise much of what we knew about BFS has almost certainly changed for Starship. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Rosbif73, Where is your source for further changes to the design of BFR/BFS? (as far as I know the most recent changes were clarified in the #dearmoon livestream). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Elon tweeted more recently than that about "radical" design changes (tweets at top of [9]), and went on to give out tidbits such as [10], the implications of which are discussed at great length in the remainder of that nasaspaceflight.com forum thread, for example. Forums aren't citable as a reliable source, of course, which is why we need to wait for further announcements and/or reliable secondary sources. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

What is the sourced/supported/common name for the entire launch vehicle?

This article is (currently) about the entire launch vehicle, both the first stage (now named Super Heavy) and the second stage/ship (now named Starship). That's clear, and that is what sources say. And that has now all been reflected in the article prose.

But what do we call the entire launch vehicle now, when we are not speaking of just one stage or the other? Not sure, but all the sources we have for the entire launch vehicle seem to say either BFR or Big Falcon Rocket. SpaceX did not recently release a new name for the entire stack, and (since Musk's new names for the piece parts), we haven't yet seen how Gwynne Shotwell will refer to the LV when speaking with customers. Thoughts? N2e (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

We should get an update soon, Musk indicated some larger change. Let's wait for that. --mfb (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
That is what we are waiting for from SpaceX. Used to be that the complete "system" is called BFR. The first stage was the BFR booster and the second stage the BFS (spacership). It is unknown if he is renaming only the spaceship or the booster & spaceship. I expect the new nomenclature will be revealed along with the announcement on the re-design he hinted recently. Patience. There is no deadline. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
That works for me; and that is pretty much how the prose reads right now. If we are referring to ONLY the ship, it's Starship; if ONLY the first stage booster, it's Super Heavy. If it's the entire stack, then go with what we had before, and don't yet have consensus to change: BFR or Big Falcon Rocket. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Split?

As I suggested and others concurred in the above RM, the article could usefully be split. But in what way? It seems to me that we would actually need not two but three pages: one for the SpaceX Starship-Super Heavy system as a whole (which would include its history, i.e. MCT/ITS/BFR), plus detailed articles for each of the components . In other words, the RM would stand, and we would then go on to create new pages for the components of the system. Comments? In particular, it would seem useful to discuss potential variants of the article names for the components before we actually create them. Should we have SpaceX Starship and SpaceX Super Heavy rocket, or Starship (spacecraft) and Super Heavy (rocket), or some other variants thereof? (Note that some of the variants have already been created as redirects, and of course other variants could also become redirects). Rosbif73 (talk) 12:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

At some point: Sure. At the moment we don't have that much information, especially about the booster, to need separate articles. --mfb (talk) 13:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Rosbif73, Yeah I didn't think about it, but the history stuff is going to necessitate a third article anyway, so I guess a split isn't really a solution to the naming issue anyway. As mfb says, its not necessary for length reasons at the moment, but might be in the future. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 13:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The booster and spaceship work as a single system. Just because they are given different names it does not make them unrelated. I see great harm in splitting them into separate articles. Regarding the history, missions and potential uses, that is another story. I suggest we first finalize moving the title of this article (the whole BFR system) to "Starship-Super Heavy". Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Detailed suggestion

We had a long discussion about a year ago where article scope and naming issues were clarified and agreed. We ended up with:
The newly-named Starship is yet another iteration of the design, which focuses on human transport and optimized re-entry (which is complex to design to accommodate the very different atmospheres of Mars and Earth). Critically, we don't know yet how the upper-stage vehicles unrelated to human transport will look like. There has been to my knowledge no news on this front since the September 2017 concept update. SpaceX may end up producing totally different styles of upper stages on top of the Super Heavy booster, to meet the needs for in-space refueling and satellite delivery; when those appear, they will likely need their own articles as well. The new Starship is also likely to be the basis for the proposed ballistic transport on Earth to compete with long-haul airlines. Gwynne Shotwell repeatedly stated this was one of her top priorities. I wouldn't be surprised to see Starships flying from LA to Tokyo long before reaching Mars.
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 18:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • This is a system made of two components to be used together for crew, cargo, and Earth ballistic transport. Splitting them at any time makes absolutely no sense, especially under the motivation that future Starships might come in variants. In a few years, if/when those variants develop, then we could write spinoff articles on the particularities of the tankers, cargos, or the interplanetary Starship version as compared with the Earth-bound "airline" version. Wikipedia will always need to keep this article that encompases the complete BFR system, in its full context. Spinoffs will come later when developed and documented. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Certainly an overview article about the whole system makes sense, but I still maintain that we should have detailed articles about each component. Prior space transportation systems have routinely been split between the carrier rocket and the crew vehicle: Apollo CSM/LEM+Saturn, Soyuz spacecraft+Soyuz rocket (bit of a naming issue in Russia), Orion+SLS. The Starship+Super Heavy design is similar to the Shuttle system, in that the crew vehicle also contributes to orbital insertion, whereas other vehicles have been limited to in-orbit and re-entry maneuvers. It has been specified that Starship would take off and reach orbit fully on its own from Mars and the Moon. It only needs the SH booster to overcome Earth's stronger gravity well. Therefore I see Starship as a self-contained launch system. We can't even be sure that the "ballistic airline" version wouldn't be able to make shorter hops without a booster. This system is quite different from a normal carrier rocket whose first, second and third stages consist "merely" of tanks and engines, whereas the Starship is a full payload-carrying spacecraft also acting a second stage and a re-entry vehicle, and the SHB is much more than a first stage, given its flight dynamics, landing and re-use features. — JFG talk 16:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
As long as we keep a main article for the system as a whole, I don't see this potential split as fundamentally any different from, for example, the Saturn V system, for which we also have detailed articles on the S-IC first stage, S-II second stage and S-IVB third stage. The components were designed to be used together, but we have enough information about them to warrant separate articles. You might well disagree as to whether we have enough information to warrant a split yet for Super-Heavy and Starship, but there's no justification for saying that it makes no sense at any time. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Spinoff articles are OK. Splitting the only article that gives the full context is not and never will. Perhaps you can also split the -for example- Boeing 727 article into its components: 727 wing, 727 propulsion, 727 landing gear, and let the reader figure by himself what the whole system might actually look like, and only imagine it performance when assembled. What is so incomprehensible that this single system got a different name for its booster and its spacecraft? It is a single system, and I see great harm in killing the full perspective and context of this article only because the booster is named different from the spacecraft. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
JFG, Rosbif73, Rowan Forest Would it work to split it into BFR (2017-2018) (design up until the #dearmoon updates) and have a separate article for Starship-Super Heavy? Otherwise we could just section all of this info as a section indicating the design up until the #dearmoon update. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 16:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
As long as this parent article (Starship-Super Heavy) remains and is allowed to describe the full system, I see no harm in creating spinoffs on the history and its subsystems, if you think the text is already unbearably long. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
@Rowan Forest: Nobody is talking about "killing the full perspective and context", but the present article is utterly confusing to new readers, as it not only discusses this vehicle combo, but also prior paper variants, and speculation on future evolutions or extra components. I believe the overview article should be very short, essentially covering the MCT/ITS/BFR continuum of design as a concept. The actual vehicles contributing to this overall system should be treated in their own detailed articles. — JFG talk 16:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I have no problem detailing (splitting) the history elsewhere, but you can't split the description/context of its essential components: booster + Starship. Unlike the other launchers you mention, this booster is not designed to launch a variety of capsules and payloads for a variety of clients. This booster is unique to the Starship, and the Starship is unique to the booster. That is why both were first given the single codename BFR. A single system, a single article. Feel free to create daughter articles, though, and shorten this article within reason. For now, I want to make sure this proposed split (daughter articles) does not undermine the move of the title from BFR to Starship-Super Heavy. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
You say this booster is not designed to launch a variety of capsules and payloads, but how do you know that? Quite the contrary: Musk's decision to split the names and to communicate almost exclusively on the spacecraft may be an indication that SpaceX is preparing to offer their booster for other purposes, and/or that their own designs for cargo and tanker vehicles may end up markedly different from the Starship. They will anyway be marketed differently.
But Wikipedia is all about consensus, and perhaps we can agree on another evolutionary path for our coverage. Move this article to the simple SpaceX Starship title, focusing on the current spacecraft, with a section for the "Super Heavy booster". Then move out the history of various concepts to SpaceX super heavy rocket designs (which would evolve from the current ITS article), and finally fork out a separate article about the SpaceX Super Heavy when more data becomes available. — JFG talk 18:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
"Move this article to the simple SpaceX Starship title". -JFG. Again: the parent article (this one) by definition, must be about the whole system, the entire concept and complete context. Why rename it after the Starship only? Who is to say which half of the system is more important when they are complementary. The parent article of this [BFR] system must obviously cover both the booster and Starship, therefore the proposed name Starship-Super Heavy, as named by SpaceX. After that move, I have no problem creating daughter articles covering the detailed aspects of whatever subsystem. I will not discuss whether the booster "might" be used to launch capsules from other companies, and that wild speculation should not play any role on this naming process. Rowan Forest (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Understod. Let's see comments from other editors. — JFG talk 20:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
@Rowan Forest: I have to note that Boeing 727 analogy is not correct. The upper stage of BFR (or what was its name) is planned to be pretty independent in cases when it is (a) lifted from the Earth surface by the lower stage high enough and (b) launched from the Moon or Mars surface. I would say, when its missions are limited to the Earth's orbit / Moon / Mars flights it is fully independent from the lower stage and can't be compared to the Boeing wing. Igor Krein (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Igor Krein, Agreed, the Super Heavy rocket is only needed for lifting off from earth, If Starship is travelling between two other solar system bodies, it is entirely independent of the booster. This indicates that the Starship craft will have uses independent of the Super Heavy, so should probably (eventually) have a separate article. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 10:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE an immediate split* The Wikipedia Spaceflight convention is to have an article on every launch vehicle. This article is about the new next-generation two-stage-to-orbit launch vehicle. And I think it covers that LV pretty decently. SpaceX name changes certainly complicate the explication of it all to the typical, barely-interested global reader; but SpaceX changing names need not drive us to spliting into two articles (at this time), one for the booster, and one for the second stage/ship.
I have no doubt that, eventually, there will be sufficient reason for the Starship to have its own article; i.e., it will be notable and meet WP:GNC on its own. But it's not a "split". This article would still cover the overall launch vehicle, how some payload gets to orbit from the bottom of Earth's gravity well. Perhaps this will be appropriate when the Starship low-altitude tests start, currently slated for 2019, as it is quite likely that (notable) test flights would be explicated in the encyclopedia, and might start to be too much detail for the overall LV article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree that there should be one parent article – this article – covering the system as a whole, with some of the content being "split" off into detailed articles on the history, on each of the subsystems, and so on, as needed. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE for now. Let's allow time for the system to stabilize and mature before splitting the article. Agree that history/design iterations is confusing and should be de-prioritized and moved toward bottom of the article. Solardays (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Care with reuse of refname cites that use a non-news website

Someone in the recent edits changed a reference of <ref name="SpaceX.com">https://www.spacex.com/mars</ref> to <ref name="SpaceX.com"/>

There are a couple of problems with this. First is that the original citation is not a full citation, it was actually a [full citation needed], cause it had no access date, and therefore no one knows when that source was consulted to support the adjacent statement. The second problem is that, when someone changed it to refname "SpaceX.com", and that refname was used a half dozen or more times in the article; very likely different editors consulted that website at different times over the past couple of years, not all of them the 2016 date that that <ref name="SpaceX.com"/> citation said it was consulted. SpaceX has changed numbers on that primary source on several occasions.

So I changed the refname to clarify the date the source indicated it was accessed, so that it would be harder for someone to reuse it carelessly. But that could leave some of the "facts" in the article actually not supported if others had read off different facts in 2017 or 2018 consults of the SpaceX Mars-related webpage. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 3 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus for the move as proposed. In addition, these seems to be no consensus for any alternative title either, so the status quo remains for now at this time by default. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

BFR (rocket) → Starship-Super Heavy – SpaceX has now changed the name on its official website. Additional reasons being Elon tweeting about the change and the media now using the term. – XYZt (talk  |  contribs) 05:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Support This is not a matter of interpretation. The source in question is primary, authoritative, and final. On SpaceX.com I count four occurrences of the combined formulation, the full 'Starship-Super Heavy' name. Were an individual with a WP article to legally change their name we would not hesitate to rename/move that article. SpaceX have even re-titled two related YouTube videos. Let's move the article, with BFR (rocket) redirecting. Solardays (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - After looking at the SpaceX website, this indeed appears to be the new name, and the move would follow. Jusdafax (talk) 05:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support this now-official name change, though I do think the time might have come for a split between SpaceX Starship and SpaceX Super Heavy rocket (or whatever precise names we can agree on for the two components). Rosbif73 (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Yep. This is what we were waiting for. Clarification on how they intended to treat the naming convention when referring to both at the same time. Seems a straightforward change at this point. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • COMMENT: SpaceX actually seems to be using the locution "SpaceX's Starship and Super Heavy Rocket (formerly known as BFR)" and not "Starship-Super Heavy" This matters to us, 'cause I suspect we need to go with exactly what they say about the combo launch vehicle (the first stage booster plus the second stage/ship) OR we need to wait a just a bit longer to see what becomes WP:COMMONNAME for the thing after a couple of months or more of LOTS of news articles and new sites talking about it by some (yet to be determined) common name. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
    N2e, Source? here they seem to be using "Starship-Super Heavy". Ok sorry, I think I see what you mean. on that page in the prose they sometimes write it out longhand like "SpaceX's Starship and Super Heavy Rocket represent a fully reusable transportation system designed to service all Earth orbit needs as well as the Moon and Mars.", but here they are kind of referring to them separately. A few sentences later they say "SpaceX can redirect resources from Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy and Dragon to the Starship-Super Heavy system—which is fundamental in making the system affordable." "Starship-Super Heavy" is also used in all of the title headers, which makes me think that this more concise wording is quite appropriate as a title. If another commonname comes up, we can of course change it again later. I'll still support "Starship-Super Heavy" for now. Per Rosbif73, I'm also not adverse to a page split. I don't think a page split will solve anything at the present time. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
    Oh, I did not realize SpaceX themselves are using it both ways. Hmmm. Thanks for finding that and clarifying it to me, Insertcleverphrasehere, 'cause I missed that. N2e (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - SpaceX now hows the name "Starship-Super Heavy" ("formerly BFR") in their official home page. Rowan Forest (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not yet. Marketing names change far faster than common acceptance of the names. There also seems to be some ambiguity on the exact naming, Starship, Super Heavy Rocket, Starship-Super Heavy System, ... Give it a month and let it settle out. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Looking on their current website, I find mention of "Starship and Super Heavy Rocket", which suggests that at least part of SpaceX is still distinguishing between upper stages and lower stages with different names. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Tarl N., What is your feeling towards splitting the article in two? This might be a solution that everyone can agree on, and it is getting towards that time anyway. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC) Struck this question as I'm not really sure that a split is the best idea anyway and wouldn't solve anything. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 16:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The waiting is over. There is no ambiguity any longer since Musk's Tweet and the update of SpaceX's web site. "Starship" and "Super Heavy" are their official and verified names now, and SpaceX calls the complete system "Starship-Super Heavy". That is that. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Rowan Forest, Given that our choice seems to be between "Starship and Super Heavy Rocket" and "Starship-Super Heavy" (as both are used by SpaceX), I definitely lean toward the latter for being far more WP:CONCISE. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 16:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the hyphen in "Starship-Super Heavy" (as used by SpaceX) relates the 2 components as the new name of the complete system, and the subject of this article. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@Rowan Forest: What's the hurry in renaming the article? Even SpaceX's website still uses BFR (see the "Rocket Capability" list on the mars page). Tarl N. (discuss) 16:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Because it is the new official name. And I am not in a rush, the policy is to wait 2 weeks for editors to comment on the move proposal. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
That part is an animation and I think it's taking them a while to update it. All of the html text on the website refers to it as Starship or Super Heavy or a combination of the two. – XYZt (talk  |  contribs) – 16:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – There is still no rush, and article scope should be taken into account. I would rather advocate creating new articles for the super heavy booster and for the Starship, then focus this article on the MCT/ITS/BFR iterations that were disclosed while SpaceX was evolving the concept. See #Detailed suggestion below. — JFG talk 17:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose — this one is hard, and SpaceX makes their names hard by the fluidity and frequent change in their descriptors for this rocket, but I'm still seeing secondary sources mostly use BFR for the entire launch vehicle even though the first stage (Super Heavy), and the second stage/ship (Starship), clearly now have individual descriptors. So by WP:COMMONNAME, I think we stay with BFR for a while longer until this is clarified by more common and consistent use of some new descriptor. This is illustrated in the most recent source added to the article just today to document the rocket's construction material change to some sort of metal rather than carbon composite. (, from Teslarati: quote=wide-reaching changes to BFR’s general structural composite ... the BFR program has officially moved away from carbon fiber composites as the primary material of choice for the rocket’s structure and propellant tanks, instead pivoting to what Musk described as a “fairly heavy metal”.) This will all settle, eventually, but there is no need to add to our reader's confusion now. N2e (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Honestly, given how we've gone through four or five redesigns and about as many name changes as Brightline (Florida East Coast->All Aboard Florida->Brightline->Virgin Trains USA), it would make more sense until we have an absolutely finalized version and identity to simple title the page something like "SpaceX Future Launch System" or something along those lines. Because with our luck, Elon will change his mind again next year. (will say, the name BFR did grow on me) Metropod (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this malformed title. If "Starship" and "Super Heavy" are to be joined into a name, they would need an en dash, not a hyphen; that is, there's no "Starship-Super" entity here. Why don't we wait until SpaceX at least clarifies what's to be called what in the long run. Chasing after new official names is a bad idea. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment This is precisely why I was opposed to the creation of this article independent of the ITS launch vehicle. This is the same situation all over again, and a reason I still think the two articles need to be Merged and not just a page move here. Yet another name change with yet another major update (as promised by Elon Musk in a few weeks) is going to cause all of this to be tossed aside as old news. Since shortly after Christmas there will be an update and since the naming convention is really in flux right now, there is no point to bothering with a page move... yet. Just wait it out and frankly even let this discussion last for a month or so until there is some more resolution to the matter. Let it be a muddled mess for now. --Robert Horning (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mini-BFS to fly before BFS

It looks like the mid-2019 test flights of the BFS will not be the full scale version, but a smaller prototype: a converted upper Falcon 9 stage with actuated wings and heatshield (+other hardware). I am tempted to edit the "Test" section to reflect that the full scale BFS is not yet scheduled for flight-tests. Your thoughts? Rowan Forest (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

That's not the way I understood the recent news. On the one hand, SpaceX is moving forward with construction of a full-scale BFS test article, which will conduct short hops in Texas, the Grasshopper way. On the other hand, some Falcon 9 second stages will be modified to include a BFS-like heat shield and control surfaces, in order to measure stress levels during the necessary BFS re-entry profile; such tests will likely be conducted in post-mission campaigns after low-requirement payloads are safely delivered to orbit. This is the same path that SpaceX chose to test first-stage re-entry and landing: we have hardware already flying for commercial missions, let's maximize its usage to test improvements through a realistic flight envelope, instead of launching dedicated test missions. Scott Manley made a good video about the process: SpaceX Evolving Falcon 9 Stage Into 'MiniBFS' For Testing. — JFG talk 17:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Drastic changes to the BFR design to be announced soon. It shows they are still playing with general concepts at the drawing board. Rowan Forest (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Unless they found some problem with the dome section produced recently I would expect changes to the aerodynamics (exterior control surfaces) or engine arrangement only. Or maybe changes to the payload section. --mfb (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
As of 9 Dec 2018, the drastic changes have been clarified. The Starship will be made out of metal. See new section below. N2e (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
The mini-BFS test was cancelled ~12 days after it was announced. Delete that entry, modify it, or show a footnote in the history section? Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Rowan Forest, it appears you recently commented out the following material in the article, and added the first sentence of this hidden text, recentlly.

<!-- Musk killed the mini BFR test 12 days after announcement, making it an irrelevant and non-historic non-development. Delete? (https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-ceo-elon-musk-kills-mini-bfr-spaceship-two-weeks-after-announcement/): Musk indicated it would be "upgraded to be like a "[[Falcon 9 second-stage mini-BFR test vehicle|mini-BFR Ship]]" but that the stage would not be used for landing tests, as the company already has a good handle on propulsive landings. The first test flight of the test vehicle is planned to be no earlier than mid-2019.<ref name=sn20181107>{{cite news |last=Foust|first=Jeff |url=https://spacenews.com/spacex-to-modify-falcon-9-upper-stage-to-test-bfr-technologies/ |title=SpaceX to modify Falcon 9 upper stage to test BFR technologies |work=[[SpaceNews]] |date=7 November 2018 |accessdate=2018-11-08 |quote=“Falcon 9 second stage will be upgraded to be like a mini-BFR Ship,” Musk said. The BFR’s upper stage is sometimes referred to as a “spaceship” }}</ref><ref name="teslarati.com">[https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-miniature-bfr-spaceship-falcon-9-launch-elon-musk/ SpaceX to build small version of BFR's spaceship for use on Falcon 9, says Elon Musk]. Eric Ralph, Teslarati. 7 November 2018.</ref><ref name="engadget20181107"/> -->

Let's discuss.

I think there are two problems with removing this material from the article.

1) it is a part of the History of the development process for this large complex set of next-generation launch vehicle technologies that SpaceX have been working on for over six years now, and was recently reported to be using over 5% of the SpaceX workforce on it. In that vein, it is something, something that was (or is?) being worked on, and thus a fair part of the History section, as long as we have verifiable sources.
2) the reliable secondary sources on this topic are all exceedingly spotty, are using the same super-brief bits of Musk's tweets on the matter, and are not all drawing the same conclusion. Clearly Eric Ralph from Teslarati, in the source you provided, thinks this means "that the mini BFR spaceship project [is] dead". Others seem to think that while there will clearly be no mini-BFR spaceship, Musk's tweets in no way make clear that SpaceX may not yet be planning to fly at least once whatever modified Falcon 9 second stage they were building as merely a test article for the rather different re-entry profile of a belly-first controlled-reentry into the atmosphere with the four-basic test-sized control surfaces that would facilitate SpaceX obtaining a lot of good test data, and is the (now, recently) announced reentry profile of the much larger BFR Starship.

My point is not that I know the answer. I clearly don't, and think that at present, only SpaceX insiders would know the answer. I'm just arguing that I don't believe deletion of sourced history is yet the correct course of action to improve the article. And perhaps, it may never be since this is, in fact, a part of the history of this multi-year LV development program. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello. My edit was more a question to stimulate dialog, rather than a deletion. While I do not doubt there will be test articles flown, it is clear there will not be a mini-BFR. My opinion is to craft one or two sentences for the History section to the effect of that test was proposed but not developed nor flown. Certainly it does not merit emphasis as it currently stands, that is why I rendered it invisible to discuss it. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
How about a very brief mention in the History section, and some more detail at SpaceX reusable launch system development program. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
That's fine by me; it's history, but need not any undue emphasis. Your reduction is the right emphasis. I did a minor copyedit to make it better comport with the source. I suspect it will all become even clearer in the coming months. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Starship will be "metal"

Musk tweeted early 9 Dec (UTC), late night US time on 8 Dec, that the construction material of the ship, Starship, would be "metal",[1] "Fairly heavy metal, but extremely strong."[2].

I've added a very short sentence on this to the History section of the article, with sources. I would expect to see this in several secondary sources within a day or two, and we can improve the entire article on this point as this is clarified. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the article. I wonder if this change includes the Super Heavy booster. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
🤘 No word on the booster as far as I've seen. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!)16:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed with Insertcleverphrasehere, the tweets would seem to only speak to the Starship, and then we would just not know for the Super Heavy. However, the media sources that cover those same tweets we can read may tend to say it is the whole BFR launch vehicle, which is sorta/kinda how I read Eric Ralph who wrote the Teslarati article I cited this morning. So let's all watch for other sources, and see if all of the secondary sources make the same claim, whatever it is. As news media, it is of course possible that some get info more directly: interview, or answer to questions, or other means. So I think we kind of just have to read the sources and see what they are basing their claims on. N2e (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Confirmation that the upper stage "Starship" is still based on carbon composites: "...massive composite parts that are expected to eventually make up the structure of a spaceship prototype." Is this limited to the prototype? Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
N2e, perhaps this tweet was simply confirmation that Ozzy Ozborne had been invited on the #dearmoon launch? He specifically pointed out that it would be heavy metal. 🤘 🤘 — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 19:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I would not put it beyond Musk to pull such prank. Rowan Forest (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
"The new design is metal" - quite sure passengers are not a design. --mfb (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The "metal" will clearly be (surprisingly) "stainless steel" per this tweet, and a (large) pile of related tweets from Elon Musk yesterday: Musk: "stainless steel"

Having said that, I doubt that making edits to the BFR wikipedia article will be much improve the article for our global readership based merely on Musk's often cryptic tweets with only partial or incomplete information. So, perhaps best to wait 'til we have a few secondary sources from the informed media who cover spaceflight before we start to try to improve the article too much with this just now. What do others think? N2e (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1071572534921900033
  2. ^ https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1071578086418788352

... specifically, stainless steel

The "metal" will clearly be (surprisingly) "stainless steel" per this tweet, and a (large) pile of related tweets from Elon Musk yesterday: Musk: "stainless steel"

Having said that, I doubt that making edits to the BFR wikipedia article will be much improve the article for our global readership based merely on Musk's often cryptic tweets with only partial or incomplete information. So, perhaps best to wait 'til we have a few secondary sources from the informed media who cover spaceflight before we start to try to improve the article too much with this just now. What do others think? N2e (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Teslarati reports that is a new special steel that has been cryo-treated. Worth the mention. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. I'll look at adding that.
Let me just briefly note first that Musk tweeted a lot more 24 hours after the first tweet storm, late in the day 23 Dec US Texas time (early morning 24 Dec UTC); now, next day in the US, secondary source media are reporting the news. I've made several updates to the article already per the new source. Merry Christmas to all! N2e (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 Done N2e (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Heat shield

There is no information on the heat shield to be used. I am requesting that if you find info about it, please bring it to our attention. All previous capsules are single-use, and the Space Shuttle required intense servicing of its thermal tiles after each flight, so it would be useful to explain the nature of this novel heat shield that allows multiple reentries without servicing. While stainless steel will be used for the hopper tests, it is unlikely it will be the only protection of the Starship during a true reentry. But if is, we need to document it. Thanks, Rowan Forest (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

One of Mr. Musk's tweets mentioned active cooling (i.e. circulating a liquid through the hot side of the hull.) That was in one of the tweets about using steel. But I don't tweet and only saw that second-hand. If someone else can find that, it would be worth adding. Fcrary (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
So the apparent concept sounds like a stainless steel alloy covered with an "ultra-light heat shield" that is actively cooled by circulating fluid (liquid methane radiators?) Now, what is really not clear to me is if both the Starship-Hopper (test item)and the crewed Starship will be made of stainless steel? If so, chances are this cooling system (steel-heatshield-cooling fluid) will also be used in the larger crewed vehicle. Tweets seem to be the only RS so far (and that is considering he just Teweeted that the new Roadster supercar can levitate). Rowan Forest (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Minor point - tweets are poor WP:RS no matter who they come from. They qualify as WP:PRIMARY. It's worth re-reading that section of NOR, as it seems much of this article relies on tweets. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Reliable or not, there are only 4 Twitter citations in the article currently (out of 87), and they all are concentrated in one paragraph. It is hardly "much of this article relies on tweets". Igor Krein (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Report/Tweet: "Musk has said the final Starship rocket will look like "liquid silver". This confirms that the stainless-steel structure under testing will also be the material for the final crewed Starship. It renews the need to document the mysterious "ultralight" heatshield & cooling system(s) to be used, which will be subjected to ablation during multiple reentries. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

SpaceX is pursuing an advanced Starship heatshield with NASA, reported to be TUFROC (Toughened Uni-piece Fibrous Reinforced Oxidation-Resistant Composite), [1] a type of ceramic matrix composites that combine a carbon cap, silica base, and a cured glass coating to prevent oxidation. It is not clear if it would be used on the forward and rear fins, or on the complete undersideof the spacecraft. TUFROC was developed by NASA Ames and successfully used on Boeing's secretive X-37B spaceplane, that experiences minimal to no ablation.[1] But, then Musk wrote: "[...] the windward side will be activity cooled with residual (cryo) liquid methane, so will appear liquid silver even on hot side".[2] Implying that no black TUFROC will be used, just stainless steel actively cooled with liquid methane. Hard to believe steel will not ablate even if cooled on the reverse side. In summary, the heat management -according to Musk- uses no heatshield covering the steel skin. I think I don't have unambiguous material to add to the article at this time, so I will wait for the Hopper tests to happen and wait for future revelations on the Starship heat management. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds plausible to me. That's the way they cooled the SR-71 Blackbird back in the 60s… (From our article: Cooling was carried out by cycling fuel behind the titanium surfaces in the chines. On landing, the canopy temperature was over 300 °C (572 °F).) — JFG talk 15:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
That was titanium. I don't think ablation of stainless steel can be prevented by simply cooling its reverse side, while a hell of plasma is ablating and eroding its exposed face. But what do I know? I'll keep my eyes open. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
The latest is that the Starship's skin is double-layered stainless-steel with water or cryo-methane (Musk has not decided) flowing in between as a coolant, and the underside has "pores" that literally allows the metallic skin to sweat its way down to the LZ. Waiting for other publications to echo that. Rowan Forest (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

SpaceX CEO Musk made a series of recent tweets dealing with the high-level design characteristics of the heat shield.

All of this is quite likely to be picked up in a secondary source space media article soon, if it has not been already. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b SpaceX's BFR program pursuing advanced Starship heat shield with NASA help. By Eric Ralph, Teslarati. December 12, 2018.
  2. ^ SpaceX’s Elon Musk: odds of Starship reaching orbit by 2020 are “rising rapidly” Teslarati. 27 December 2018.

BFR to SSH

Perhaps at some point we should rename BFR throughout the article to SSH, Starship and Super Heavy? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you should note the discussions above, and have waited for consensus? Tarl N. (discuss) 19:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps, but thought it better to stop using the wrong name. Name chosen was directly from SpaceX page as noted by the reference. The name chosen by SpaceX did not match any of the previous formal proposals, so I would have been dubious also on previous requested moves.   Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
See all the above discussions. Your action was unilateral against resolutions of previous discussions. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Resolution was "no consus" with plenty of supporters, with some of the dissenters suggesting to wait a month back in January and others to wait for SpaceX to confirm the name. Both of which have happened. What do you think of the benefit of not using the wrong name?   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
You don't get to say "some people voted my way, so I make the choice." When a move discussion is closed "no consensus", you don't get to just ignore the result. At a minimum, it needs discussion before happening. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I moved it back. It would have gone smoother if you'd done it yourself. If you want to change the article name, please start a formal discussion on whether it should be moved and what the name should be, so this can be hammered out before hammering the Wikipedia namespace.
As stated previously it was in line with previous discussions for waiting for solidification of the name and waiting for official confirmation. Did not ignore, but paid great attention to previous discussions. You've unilaterally decided to switch back to incorrect name, rather than to see if anyone supports your position. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Read WP:BRD. When you are reverted, do not re-instate, but instead discuss it. I restored status quo ante'. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
And I got the name wrong when I moved it back - Rocket vs rocket. I'll wait for the WP namespace to settle out and caches clear before moving it yet again. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I think wp:commonsense says not to use the wrong name. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Yup. That was a typo on my part. But page moves cause significant disruption, so I'll wait for an hour or so before fixing this yet again. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
For whatit's worth, I can't move the name back to what it was (the redirect is in the way, and dealing with that is now under page mover privilege), so I filed a WP:RMT request Tarl N. (discuss) 20:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Page finally restored to correctly spelled name, thanks to User:StraussInTheHouse. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Tarl N., no problem, it was a clear technical request. If there's disagreement to do with BFR v.s. SSH, a requested move discussion is the next step. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Can someone clean up all the redirects? They got very creative names like Draft:Draft:Move/BFR (rocket) 2 (a triple redirect). --mfb (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I see they are being tagged for deletion. Presumably that will get cleaned up relatively soon. Tarl N. (discuss) 18:21, 20 February 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)

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)

Starhopper

Is this image usable by Wikipedia? [11] It's from Elon's tweet [12] 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)

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 [13]. 173.52.238.41 (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

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[1] 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

  1. ^ spacexcmsadmin (2016-09-20). "Mars". SpaceX. Retrieved 2019-01-01.

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)

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SpaceX_Starship_development/Archive_1&oldid=1073801333"