Misplaced Pages

Talk:Super heavy-lift launch vehicle: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:31, 22 March 2024 editScjessey (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers29,021 edits →IFT-3: - reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:05, 20 December 2024 edit undoRedacted II (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,041 edits →Human Rated: ReplyTag: Reply 
(123 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
{{WikiProject Rocketry |importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Rocketry |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Spaceflight |importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Spaceflight |importance=Low}}
}}{{Archives|bot=ClueBot III|age=30}}
}}
<!-- Template:Setup cluebot archiving -->


== SLS Block 1 says it had a 50 ton payload in 2022 ==
== It seems strange to include the Space Shuttle ==


But the Orion article says the Orion plus service module is nowhere near 50 tons. Is this inaccurate? I think this article should be more like the "heavy lift" article in that it includes exactly the heaviest load is, rather than a Yes/No. ] (]) 22:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
If we include the ] Shuttle orbiter surely we should exclude the mass of the 3 SSME from the claimed payload (as they are only used on the way up). ] says payload max 27,000 kg so why is it here ? Perhaps one could add the weight of the crew (if it was delivering them eg to the ISS). - ] (]) 13:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


* Space Shuttle is a reusable cargo payload. ] (]) 18:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC) :ICPS+Orion is ~50 tons. ] (]) 15:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::50 metric tons? I see no evidence of this anywhere. Combined weight of 30 metric tons seems more accurate. Could you elaborate where you see this number? ] (]) 18:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
:::]: 10400+15461=25861 kg.
:::ICPS: 32748 kg
:::25861+32748=58609 kg
:::Almost 60 tons. ] (]) 19:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


== Comparison Table ==
::If you include the Mass of the Orbiter you also have do it for the BFR/BFS. But I would prefair to exclude the orbiter mass. The orbiter are only the delivering vehicle for the payload.] (]) 10:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


:::At least we have some qualifying notes on the numbers now. Below I suggest we have two columns to make it clearer. Although I guess some would want to add at least the crew mass to the Shuttle Payload bay contents. - ] (]) 10:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Just a note that it would be nice if it was sortable. ] (]) 12:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


:An editor broke the table yesterday. I'm working on fixing it (EDIT: ITS FIXED). ] (]) 17:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
:Strange is spelled "]". How do you get away with saying {{talk quote inline|Whether the orbiter mass should be accounted as "payload", or the payload should be accounted as only the cargo and crew carried in the orbiter, may depend on the operational definition used, and hence is debatable.}}, when the source cited (NASA presskit) says absolutely nothing about the definition being debatable? An upper stage (Chandra) is used to carry a relatively small payload to a higher orbit. The Shuttle is not recognized as a super-heavy, and is included on the ] page. ] (]) 20:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


== Human Rated ==
== Winged Brick edit - mostly Energia & Polyus ==


Does Human Rated mean that its rated for launching crew (], ] Block 1), or just transporting them (])? ] (]) 02:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
The (and one before) removes material for Energia that is sourced, and ''entirely'' removes the Space Shuttle material. The rationale given is that "READ the source that was cited. It says the sat failed to reach orbit. TAKE IT TO TALK instead of inserting false info." and "Yeah, no. According to the sources cited, Polyus failed to achieve orbit. Cite sources that state otherwise on the talk page. It didn't get to orbit. It's a failure, ZERO orbits. Zuma orbited". These edits and summaries make no sense. The article never states that Polyus achieved orbit, simply that Energia launched it. It is not Energia's fault that Polyus deorbited itself because of bad coding. The rocket did it's job. Beyond that, no rationale is given at all for removing material related to the Space Shuttle. ''Futher'', all related citations have been removed. So, what gives? <span style="white-space:nowrap; text-shadow:gray 5px 3px 1px;">— ] <small>(] ] ])</small></span> 00:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
: Polyus failed to reach orbit. That means, the launch was unsuccessful in that it did not orbit a payload. Done. That's a failure. I did not intend to remove the Space Shuttle and have put it back. There were a lot of other edits mixed in with this. --] (]) 07:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
:: {{u|Winged Brick}}: I'm sorry, but you have an incorrect understanding of this. The ''mission'' was a failure, the launch was not. As I previously said, Energia did everything it was asked of. It ''did'' insert Polyus into the correct initial orbit and released it, but Polyus itself failed to operate properly. Not the fault of Energia. This page ''does not distinguish'' between a successful or failed satellite mission, merely that the rocket operated as advertised throughout the course of its duties, and the previous wording reflected that: "Energia launched two payloads before the program was cancelled." <span style="white-space:nowrap; text-shadow:gray 5px 3px 1px;">— ] <small>(] ] ])</small></span> 14:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
::: First, some of this is conjecture. I read the contemporary articles in aviation week and the Energia (core and boosters) were incapable of launching a payload into a stable orbit. The Buran had its own propulsion that amounted to a third "kick" stage. They did the same thing with the Polyus and ATTACHED a kick stage. It would be nice to pretend that this wasn't a part of the launch stack, but it WAS a part of the launch stack. Putting a kick stage on a Soyuz that fails (all too often recently) does not mean that magically it is not part of the launch stack. If we're splitting hairs here (and we're not) somebody mentioned the Falcon - Zuma mission as an example of why we should pretend that the Polyus mission was magically successful. The difference there was that Zuma was delivered into its intended orbit with no kick stage malfunction. The payload, in that instance, did not require delta-v to get into orbit; it was there. We're not talking station keeping, here. All Zuma had to do was detach from the payload adapter and it was there. Polyus was not alone on its 180-degree turn and firing. It had the kick stage. Energia was certainly CAPABLE of launching a payload that heavy, but not to orbit. Ah, and this is where we get into the suborbital "success" thingy. If the mission is intended as suborbital and reaches roughly the right trajectory, it's a success. If it's intended for orbit and the third stage fires pointing the wrong way, it is a failure.


:It's just launching, with the definition specifying "rocket that can lift to low Earth orbit..." The SHLLV designation is irrelevant after orbit is achieved. ] (]) 21:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::: We've been fighting Russian apologists the entire time Misplaced Pages has been here. There's a certain desire to make everything from Russia the first, best, and greatest. Nationalism is okay, but call it what it was. It was a failed mission, failed third stage, and therefore cannot be counted among successful payloads launched into orbit. But, don't fret, we're counting the Falcon Heavy as the rocket was successful and it has a payload capacity comfortably in the Super-heavy range. We're counting Energia because it did, in fact, launch with the Buran payload. We count Shuttle because the payload was the Orbiter. Feel free to put an asterisk on the Poylus (like it's currently written but flower it up whatever way you'd like. What I object to is omission of the fact that it did NOT orbit the Polyus and saying it did without HEAVY qualification is disingenuous. --] (]) 17:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
::Thanks for answering (though this gets a bit confusing because the ATV was , and the line between spacecraft and rocket for starship is a bit... blurry, to say the least). ] (]) 21:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::: Your behavior is bordering with nationalism.
:::Yeah, the Starship rocket/spacecraft distinction is a bit messy, though I don't think it would ultimately affect anything (Super Heavy would have to be crew-rated, not just Starship). Anyway, Ariane 5 wasn't human rated because of the ATV. It ''was'' for Hermes, but then again, that would have launched with crew aboard. ] (]) 22:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::: Speaking of Polyus launch. It was '''successfully placed into desired parking orbit'''. All ] spacecraft does the same. They being placed into parking GTO, then they use own engines to reach own ]. There is no difference at all. Launch system did all its job and placed it into parking orbit. ] (]) 12:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
::::The whole topic of human rating is a complete mess.
::::: You first of all misunderstood what the rocket was. It wasn't an orbital correction maneuver, it was an insertion by a third stage required to place the spacecraft in orbit. The Energia did not have the ability to launch the Polyus, so they ATTACHED a third stage to Polyus. Two out of three isn't a success. Nationalism? Really, going straight to Hitler? The launch was not successful, therefore pretending that it was by picking nits and technicalities helps nobody. "How about all those third-stage Soyuz failures? Going to call those successful launches too? --] (]) 02:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
::::You're probably right in saying that its just for launching. ] (]) 22:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::You are the one that brought up some cockamamie accusation of, apparently, me being a Russian apologist trying to do...something? Let me be blunt: how fucking dare you. If you think my editing was anything other than a neutral statement of facts, you are the one with issues, not I. <span style="white-space:nowrap; text-shadow:gray 5px 3px 1px;">— ] <small>(] ] ])</small></span> 03:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
::::::You mixed up Buran and Space Shuttle with IUS. Polyps didn’t have stages. It was about to use own engines. ] (]) 11:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
::::::Further and to the point, the FGB orbital insertion system was not part of Energia, and its failure cannot be held against the launch system. Again, Energia did its duty. <span style="white-space:nowrap; text-shadow:gray 5px 3px 1px;">— ] <small>(] ] ])</small></span> 04:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
:::::::I can only agree with {{u|Huntster}} about the Polyus case. Regarding nationalism, that's absurd: we call the ] launch a success for ], although the satellite reportedly failed to separate and fell back into ocean. Goose, meet Gander. — ] <sup>]</sup> 04:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


== Orbital? ==
==Why is NG-2 in but not N1?==
] (]) 17:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


I have concerns about by {{user|Redacted II}}. The claim made here is that because the flight may have a ] it would constitute an ]; however, it is my understanding that the flight will have a ] below that which would make an orbit of the planet possible, and thus it would not meet the definition of an orbital flight. I have not reverted this edit because sources I have found are contradictory; however, I think it should be discussed further and verified, if possible. -- ] (]) 16:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
:Not in? It's listed under "Cancelled designs". It never had a successful launch. <span style="white-space:nowrap; text-shadow:gray 5px 3px 1px;">— ] <small>(] ] ])</small></span> 04:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


:After IFT-6 flies, we'll know whether or not it was suborbital or transatmospheric.
And NG 2-stage won't reach the 50t EVEN IF it successfully launches. N-1 at least went a few km up several times. ] (]) 09:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
:(It will almost certainly be suborbital before the Raptor Relight, given that it is targetting about the same spot as IFT-3, IFT-4. and IFT-5) ] (]) 16:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
::My understanding is whether or not there is a Raptor relight, it will still (deliberately) be on a splashdown trajectory. That means it isn't an orbital flight, regardless of whether or not it is transatmospheric. It would be different if the relight was specifically to deorbit Starship from a stable orbit. -- ] (]) 16:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
:::For a flight to be orbital, perigee has to be above 0 m. It can be .0000001 nanometerts and still be orbital.
:::So long as the trajectory doesn't intercept the surface (ignoring atmospheric drag), it is orbital.
:::] is an orbit. Its not suborbital. ] (]) 16:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Perhaps you are not understanding what I am saying. My understanding (based on admittedly conficting sourcing) is that ''with or without a Raptor relight'' the vehicle will splashdown in the ocean. So yes, that would make the perigee 0 meters, ''intercepting the surface''. Only with ''future'' vehicles, when Raptor relight has been proven, will they initiate a launch trajectory that does ''not'' automatically result in a splashdown. Ergo, this is ''not'' an orbital flight. -- ] (]) 13:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::::'''Update''' from (emphasis mine): {{tq2|Starship’s upper stage will fly the same '''''suborbital trajectory''''' as the previous flight test, with splashdown targeted in the Indian Ocean.}} I think that is fairly definitive, would you not agree? -- ] (]) 13:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::A transatmospheric trajectory WILL splashdown in the ocean. Because the perigee is within the atmosphere, and once starts to reenter, it'll slow down.
:::::We'll see in less than two days. ] (]) 13:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:This is 100% original research.
:
:Assuming the semimajoral axis was the same, then perigee is 7 km.
:Which is above 0.
:Thus, IFT-6 was transatmospheric ] (]) 23:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:Its confirmed:
:https://planet4589.org/space/jsr/latest.html
:Perigee 50 km ] (]) 01:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::From : {{tq2|The ship successfully reignited a single Raptor engine while in space, demonstrating the capabilities required to conduct a ship deorbit burn before starting fully orbital missions.}} It was '''''not''''' an orbital flight. It could not possibly maintain orbit at that perigee. Our ] states that orbital flight with a perigee below 80km is more or less impossible. -- ] (]) 15:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Again, transatmospheric is an orbital flight.
:::An orbit doesn't have to be stable to be an orbit. It merely need to have a perigee above 0.
:::The ] article states: " transatmospheric '''orbit''' (TAO) is an '''orbit''' around a celestial body in which the perigee of the '''orbit''' intersects with the ]" ] (]) 15:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::::There are no reliable sources calling this an orbital flight. None whatsoever. You have taken the perigee number and used ] to claim it is orbital. For the purposes of this article, "orbital" means it orbits the planet at least once, which this didn't do. Please support your assertions with reliable sources before changing the article again. -- ] (]) 15:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Where does the article say that it has to complete an orbit?
:::::And https://www.planet4589.org/space/jsr/latest.html lists the launch under "Recent Orbital (and near-Orbital) Launches" with a perigee of 8 km (later 50 km).
:::::That is transatmospheric.
:::::Also, see ]:
:::::"Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the ]. ], such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible. See also ].
:::::Mathematical literacy may be necessary to follow a "routine" calculation, particularly for articles on mathematics or in the hard sciences. In some cases, editors may show their work in a footnote.
:::::Comparisons of statistics present particular difficulties. Editors should not compare statistics from sources that use different methodologies."
:::::8>0 is a routine calculation ] (]) 15:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::It's not a "routine calculation" because 8km of perigee is not a stable orbit under any definition. You have no support for your edit, and yet you reverted in violation of ]. You keep banging on about "transatmospheric" but that is not a determining factor of whether or not a vehicle is in an orbit. Let me repeat, the vehicle would NOT have orbited the planet whether or not it relit its Raptor, ergo, it is '''''suborbital'''''. -- ] (]) 19:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Transatmospheric '''''is''''' orbital.
:::::::Its literally in the name: ].
:::::::The stability of the orbit is irrelevant to the fact that it was orbital. So long as perigee is above 0, it is orbital.
:::::::Your removal of it durign the discussion was violating BRD. I set it back. ] (]) 20:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::<s>I 100% agree that Redacted II once more used a non-reliable source (Jonathan McDowell gives no sources for his doubtful data, and why should that be WP:RS anyway) to assume some pseudofacts (transatmospheric ''orbit'') and then boasting those personal WP:OR in the article as if they were facts.
:::::::A typical misunderstanding of orbits and that not everything that gets transatmospheric enters an orbit...
:::::::The same problem is in the articles for ITF-1+2 where it is stated that they were intended for orbit (with no working source), always with the same dubious sources that mostly do not work anymore as McDowell does always change his page and not archive it.
:::::::And now Redacted II put "orbit" into IFT-6 as well.
:::::::Btw, I just caught him with Original Research . But as predicted, he reverted that again (during discussion, so far as to his "violating BRD" accusations), see talk page, and put in more nonsense. ] (]) 08:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)</s>
::::::::McDowell 100% archives his pages. They're all here: https://planet4589.org/space/jsr/back/ -- ] (]) 22:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:::50km~ perigee is definitely not a sustainable orbit, and it definitely will lead to splashdown, which is what happened and was planned. However, it is still considered ]. For the vehicle to actually have orbit, it only needs to have a positive perigee. Whether it is a stable orbit or not is irrelevant in this case. This has already been mentioned above. ] (]) 15:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
:I would agree that Starship flight 6 was not strictly suborbital. However, I agree that it did not yet meet the criteria for being listed as having a "successful orbital flight." I would argue for a "common" definition of orbit, the ability to maintain a relatively stable orbit around the planet. A Transatmospheric Earth orbit certainly does not meet that definition. -- ] (]) 22:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::The definitions of orbit that I have been able to find:
::"an '''orbit''' (also known as '''orbital revolution''') is the curved trajectory of an object" - ]
::"a path described by one body in its revolution about another (as by the earth about the sun or by an electron about an atomic nucleus)" - ]
::"the curved path of a celestial object or spacecraft around a star, planet, or moon, especially a periodic elliptical revolution." - .
::Note only the third definition lists stability as a factor, and it isn't listed as a requirement.
::So, a "common" definition (if such a thing can be said to exist) does not appear to require the trajectory to be stable.
::However, I only grabbed three definitions. There are likely others that list stability as a requirement. ] (]) 23:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Also, the first Energia flight, which is the one listed for the first successful orbital launch, was not orbital. Or even transatmospheric. It had a perigee of -15 km. Very close to that of IFT-3, but with a lower apogee as well.
:::So, a positive perigee (much less a stable orbit) is not a requirement to be listed as a successful orbital flight. ] (]) 23:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::::In that case, I'd argue for de-listing the first Energia flight, not for listing Starship. When most people think of something being "sent into orbit" they are thinking of a spacecraft going up, circling the Earth at least a few times, and then coming back down. ] (]) 00:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::I think at minimum Starship should be listed as partial, given its transatmospheric nature.
:::::(And energia would therefore be listed as NONE, since both flights were suborbital: the payload circulaized on the second, and accidentally "deorbited" on the first) ] (]) 00:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::So long as we change the template from failure to partial, I'm good with your note. ] (]) 02:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::::<s>Btw, ] was never listed as having been orbital. If one reads thoroughly, the article only claims that on the 2nd flight the payload (Buran) was delivered into orbit. Neither Energija nor the 1st flight payload ever reached orbit, nor is that assumed in the article. ] (]) 10:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)</s>
:::::"Maiden Successful Orbital Flight"
:::::1988 ] (]) 12:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)


== BFR is not expendable == == Starship payload to orbit ==


There is some descripancy between this article: 100 / 150 / 200 ton payload, and Starship article, where it is listed N/A / 100+ / 200+ tons. ] (]) 20:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Some people keep adding the hypothetical payload of an hypothetical expendable configuration of the BFR. This. {{Clap}} Does. {{Clap}} Not. {{Clap}} Exist. {{Clap}} The whole rationale for BFR is to have a fleet of vessels that can be flown hundreds of times each, otherwise they would never get built. I will remove it once again, and I hope this note helps form consensus that we should not propagate this myth here. — ] <sup>]</sup> 05:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


:Thats mostly due to inconsistent messaging from SpaceX.
:This isn't really accurate. With orbital refueling a StarShip could us all of it's fuel to launch a single ~300 mt object into orbit then be refueled by a second StarShip so that both can land safely. This is a capability that other existing or in development launch vehicles do not have and it's worth pointing out. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Block 1 is both 40-50 and ~100 tons.

:Block 2 is 100+ tons, which has in the past been synonamous with 150 tons.
::I have to agree at a different angle -- the BFR is an unproven rocket at this point. Sure, it's gone up and down once without crashing... but when it does what it's supposed to do and has been certified safe, add it then. ] (]) 08:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
:::if we did this we would need to remove all of the rockets that hare still in development. -] (]) 04:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC) :And finally Block 2 is ranging from 180 tons to 200+ ] (]) 22:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::Of course, but should we list the same in both? ] (]) 22:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
:It's now 2023. In addition to random Elon tweets, we now have formal documentation on the SpaceX website that SpaceX intends to provide a partially-expendable version with a payload mass to orbit of 250 tonne in addition to the fully-reusable version with a payload mass to orbit of 150 tonne. I will update the table. -] (]) 18:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
:::Yeah.
::When S24/B7 launch, would that be the first flight of Starship reusable or starship expendable? ] (]) 18:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
:::I'd aim for listing the numbers here rather than on Starship, as I believe they're more accurate. ] (]) 22:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

::::<s>"as I ''believe ''they're more accurate" - ??
== New Armstrong fully reusable? ==
::::As if that was a criterium.

::::WP:NOTOR#Conflict_between_sources: If equally reliable sources disagree, present all of the information ] (]) 10:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)</s>
It currently says "Partially or Fully". It's well known that Blue Origin is making its first stages reusable, but I haven't seen any indication or hint from anything like an official source that there are plans to make the 2nd stage reusable. Can anyone shed some light on that? Thanks. (]) 16:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::And when there is only room for one?

:::::From equally reliable sources? ] (]) 12:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
== Illustration ==
::::::<s>Since when is there a space limit on WP pages? But, I just quoted from WP:NOTOR. We are to present ''all of the information'', not just the "truth" you like best.

::::::''"How not to handle conflicting sources: Do not choose which one is "true" and discard the others as incorrect, except in the unusual instance that one source can be demonstrated to be factually erroneous"''
{{ping|Thorenn}} Many thanks for your illustration of the various super-heavy rockets side by side. Your recent update, however, looks a bit cramped. You should either make the picture wider, or display fewer rocket, in particular we don't need to display all SLS variants. I would keep only Block 1, Block 1B crew, and Block 2 cargo, showing the performance progress with 95, 105 and 130 tonnes. The 1B cargo version is not flying until 2027, and may be skipped for block 2 cargo by then. What do you think? — ] <sup>]</sup> 06:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
:Well, you did it with the new ], thanks! — ] <sup>]</sup> 09:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC) ::::::You are distorting the evidence when unilaterally chosing the facts you, quote, ''believe they're more accurate''. ] (]) 09:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)</s>

== A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion ==
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2019-01-13T13:52:09.347400 | Super heavy-lift launch vehicles.png -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 13:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

== The "Proposed designs" ==

In the existing "Proposed designs" top-level section, I don't see the ]. It is mentioned in the table elsewhere, but not in the article prose like the other proposed designs. Is this intentional? Cheers. ] (]) 13:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

== Energia not reusable ==

I will quibble about the statement "partially" for the reusability of Energia.
Buran was intended to be reusable, but there are no engines on the Buran orbiter; it is not part of the Energia launch system. ] (]) 20:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

: Yes Buran does not make Energia reusable, but there were Energia proposals for winged flyback boosters and for the core to also fly back to a runway. Maybe that would count as a different configuration. - ] (]) 09:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
::Also the initial version of the boosters was intended to be reusable. The fairings should have contained parachutes and landing gears, though not installed in the two actual flights. ] (]) 11:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

== Confusion of payload with mass to LEO ==

In the table, the payload column has high figures for Space Shuttle and Saturn V with notes explaining that that was not all useful payload. Starship has a planned payload with a note saying it does not include the dry mass lifted to orbit. If we had room my preference would be to have two columns : mass-to-LEO, & payload (not used to reach orbit) - so they could each be sorted. To get space for more columns the Nationality column could be deleted or folded into the Organisation column ? - ] (]) 09:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The Space Shuttle and the Buran should be removed from this page altogether, since they had a payload capacity of 27,5t and 30t, respectively. In Space, nobody cares about how much your rocket stage weighs. The customer wants to know how much they can put into orbit. ] (]) 10:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
The Saturn V should be downrated to its actual payload. Anything else is confusing and unjust. The first sentence of this wiki literally reads: A super heavy-lift launch vehicle (SHLLV) is a launch vehicle capable of lifting more than 50 tonnes (110,000 lb) of '''payload''' into low Earth orbit (LEO). ] (]) 11:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

* No, Space Shuttle and the Buran are reusable payloads. In the case of the Space Shuttle sometimes it came back with the same cargo load it took up.] (]) 03:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

: Well, it all comes down to the definition of ''payload''. I'd define it as 'useful' mass to orbit, so the Shuttle orbiter has to be included, very much like an Apollo CSM or a Soyus craft – we don't just count the mass of the crew and their life support. Does it matter for ''payload'' whether it's reuseable? It's useful, so it's counted. --] (]) 06:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

::It's amazing hou some people think they can flout a Misplaced Pages core content policy: ]. The dictionary definition of payload is "the load carried by a vehicle exclusive of what is necessary for its operation; especially : the load carried by an aircraft or spacecraft consisting of things (such as passengers or instruments) necessary to the purpose of the flight". (Merriam Webster). ''That does not include the Shuttle orbiter.'' ] (]) 15:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
:::"the load carried by a vehicle exclusive of what is necessary for its operation" of a Saturn V would have been three men and their equipment. "the load carried by an aircraft or spacecraft consisting of things (such as passengers or instruments) necessary to the purpose of the flight" of the Space Shuttle system would include most of the orbiter. Hmm... If the Shuttle system's "purpose of flight" is to put the orbiter in LEO, that makes the latter payload (what I refered to as "useful mass"). In reverse, you could argue that the Apollo CSM is the fourth stage of the Saturn V, making it "necessary for its operation". I'm just trying to see both sides and there's a gap in the definition. --] (]) 16:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

== Cost figures ==

Are the listed cost figures accurately pre-launch? For example, the high cost on SLS also includes support equipment, if there were more frequent launches, it would've been likely cheaper. And why is the category there anyway if no other rocket comparison table has it? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2021-08-09T01:09:37.917008 | Super heavy-lift launch vehicles.png -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 01:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

== Buran nitpick related to boosters in orbit re-entering uncontrolled ==

With China's CZ-5B being in the news, it's important to note that Energia's booster never entered orbit. The article currently says "It relied entirely on the disposable launcher Energia to reach orbit." That's almost true. Buran did a little burn to actually reach orbit, and Polyus was lost because that little burn failed.

This is topical because of today's SLS launch: SLS's booster almost took it to orbit, and the ICPS upper stage burned briefly after stage separation to actually reach orbit. ] (]) 09:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

== Energia success rate ==

Both launches of the Energia were successful if we talk about the rocket. The overall failure of the first launch (with the Polyus satellite) was caused by a software error in the payload, that performed the final insertion burn the wrong way. The rocket itself performed correctly. ] (]) 11:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

== starship ==

did not go orbital in 2022. somebody want to change this to 2023 or TBD? ] (]) 14:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

== Why is SLS listed as launching a >50t payload ==

As of this writing, SLS has launched once, carrying Orion and the ESM for a combined mass of ~26,000 kg If you're generous and include the LAS that gets you to ~34,000 kg, but you're still well short of 50,000. If the idea is to include propellant residuals, then the metric effectively just becomes first flight, as rockets are not launched partially fuelled. ] (]) 14:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
:That column is "mass to LEO". SLS does not launch its "payload" to a stable LEO, but rather to a very highly elliptical EO that intersects the Earth before the first orbit. Since this particular orbit requires as much energy as a stable LEO, we conventionally call it an LEO. The "payload" includes the fully-fueled ICPS, so the 95 tonnes is justified by this reasoning. It's legit because SLS COULD have launched that "payload" into a nearly circular stable LEO. Unfortunately, we have no equivalent reasoning for Starship or other launchers. -] (]) 19:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

::None of the Artemis-1, SLS, or Orion articles even mention these mass details. I had to enter a talk page to understand the reasoning. At minimum a blurb should be added to Artemis-1 with the masses involved, AND a footnote should be present in the table stating this rationale for a future curious reader. ] (]) 16:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
:::The problem is finding reliable sources that explain this. All sources seem to repeat the NASA party line that SLS can lift 95 tonne to LEO, without explanation. If you can find other sources that do not require you to do ] to compute the LEO payload, then please do so. -] (]) 17:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

== Starship payload mass and launch cost? ==

Starship does not fit neatly into this table. There are basically three classes of SS launch, with variants, and there are no definitive reliable sources for this classification, so adding it here would be OR. But leaving it alone is misleading enough to make it almost useless. In all cases Starship launches on a reusable Super Heavy. Classes are:
*fully reusable: This is the base case. A Starship delivers a payload to LEO, and returns to earth for reuse.
*partially expendable: Starhip delivers a payload to LEO and is then expended.
*functional Starship: Starship is used for a long-term mission other than merely delivering cargo and does not return to Earth.
I think we can treat the first two cases "normally" here, but not the third case. The cost problem is that our only contractual cost numbers are for the HLS Option B development contract that includes 5 reusables, two functionals, and some development costs.

The payload mass problem is similar. The first two cases are (sort of) normal, with 150 t for fully reusable and 250 t for partially expendable. The third case is the strange one. What is the payload mass for launching the functional Depot or HLS?

Thoughts? -] (]) 16:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
:I would argue this is sort of a redundant argument. Since Starship is not yet operational, it probably shouldn't be in the comparison table yet. It belongs (and already is) in the following section on proposed designs. -- ] (]) 12:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
::{{re|Scjessey}} for consistency, we should therefore remove all entries for rockets that have not flown. Is this what you propose? -] (]) 15:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
:::{{reply|Arch dude}} Yes. I would include test flights or unsuccessful flights as "flown" (though not ''parts'' of rockets, such as Starship without its booster). -- ] (]) 19:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
::::{{re|Scjessey}}I disagree, unless you propose to move the unflown LVs into a separate table. If you do, don't forget the SLS block 1B and SLS Block 2. The "flown" table will become quite short. maybe others will chime in here? I also think you should wait a month on the off chance Starship flies, just to save yourself some work. -] (]) 19:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{re|Arch dude}} I just think anything marked in the operational column as "development" should, at the very least, be commented out until such time as they become operational. This is not a hill I'm going to die on though, so I'll let others decide. -- ] (]) 12:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
::::::Keeping models which have kind a clear roadmap (including Starship having a NASA contract) is fine for me, as long as the difference between successfully used rockets versus earlier development stages is clear. What I'm more worried about is comparing real solid facts with, well, very optimistic Elon Musk "predictions" and "plans", e.g. regarding reusability and launch costs.] (]) 08:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::::{{re|Zae8}} This is not sourced to a crazy Elon tweet. SpaceX is the most successful space company in the world, having performed about a third of the world's orbital launches in 2022 and launching about two-thirds of the world's payload mass to orbit in 2022. The planned partially-expended 250 tonne version is listed on the SpaceX web site. I feel that this information is considerably more credible than the dates and payload masses being provided by NASA and the Chinese. In particular, it is doubtful that SLS Block 2 will ever fly. -] (]) 00:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
::::::::It is sourced to the equivalent of a crazy Elon tweet though. Why have the cost per launch in the table of Starship at $10m when Falcon Heavy is $90-150m per lauch? There is no factual basis for the $10m Starship launch cost. ] (]) 03:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::{{reply|Porcuchemist}} Even a "crazy Elon tweet" is still a source. Each time a Falcon Heavy launches, all three cores need extensive refurbishment and the upper stage is always expended. It also requires special attachments to hold it together and caps for the outer cores. Starship is radically different, with all parts being fully reusable and supposedly requiring no refurbishment of any kind (although I have my doubts). The cost of a launch (which is not the same as the ''price'' of a launch, I might add) is basically just the cost of its fuel, which is far less than $10m. -- ] (]) 12:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::So shouldn’t the “launch cost” columns be standardized as some appear to be cost while other prices? Especially in regards to government programs where it is not a commercial endeavor. ] (]) 15:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::At the end of the day, the ''only'' source we have for the cost/price of a Starship launch is Elon's tweet. It's not exactly the gold standard of sourcing but it's what we have. The numbers are all over the place for these costs/prices anyway, and I would actually favor removing the costs from the table completely. The recent of a Falcon Heavy was over $300m, considerably more than price quoted in the table. The SLS is ''laughably'' quoted as $2.2bn when the is well in excess of $4bn. -- ] (]) 18:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

:The default version is reusable so we should focus on this I think. We can split it if other versions start launching more than 150 tonnes. --] (]) 08:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
::{{re|Mfb}} Then please also remove SLS Block 2, since there are no plans to actually use it. -] (]) 00:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
:::What do you mean? It's far away but it's to be used for Artemis 9 or so. --] (]) 03:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
::::{{re|Mfb}} NASA distinguishes "planned" from "proposed". "Planned" means that there is money in the budget. Block 2 is not "planned". Your perspective may differ, but I don't see a difference between a "proposed" NASA project and a statement on the SpaceX web site. My gut feeling is that Block 2 will never happen, but expendable Starship will happen if there is a customer that needs it.-] (]) 03:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::It's significantly different from the other blocks, it's something NASA wants to have in the future, it got significant media attention. I think we should keep it. Expendable Starship is a pretty minor variation (SpaceX skips some steps in assembly) and it's a less clear plan. We should get several Starship variations (crew, Starlink, satellite launcher, HLS, depot, tanker) but I think we don't have enough information to make many entries at the moment. --] (]) 06:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|Expendable Starship is a pretty minor variation}} - I would argue that a jump in up mass from 150 tons to 250 is ''not'' "minor" by any stretch of the imagination. While the assembly is simplified (except, perhaps, the configuration of the payload bay) the change in mission profile is quite a dramatic variation. -- ] (]) 14:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{re|Mfb}} SLS 1 --> 2 goes from 95 tonne to 130 tonne, a 37% gain. Starship reusable --> expendable goes from 150 tonne to 250 tonne, a 67% gain, so it's a bigger deal for its users. SLS 2 has not been fabricated. An expendable Starship (ship 26) has already been fabricated and will probably be one of the first three launches, although its mission does not require 250 tonne. -] (]) 17:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2023-02-07T14:07:56.907739 | Super heavy-lift launch vehicles.png -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 14:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

== Unexplained reverts ==

], please can you explain why you reverted my edits? Why do you consider them as "unconstructive"?
For example, you seem to insist Falcon Heavy being "super heavy", do you have a reference for that?
Also, what are your objections to the clarification that the SpaceX Starship requires fueling supporting missions, which others don't need? I would consider this useful information for the reader. ] (]) 12:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
:For FH it's a and multiplication of the fully expendable payload by 0.9. Where is your reference for it being heavy-lift? The table only lists the LEO payload where Starship doesn't get refueled. Where would you expect a refueling to happen, mid launch? A discussion of refueling would be necessary for payload to the Moon of course but currently we don't list that in the table. The table lists launch costs, using a contract that includes development work to calculate a price based on some estimated number of flights is both OR and the wrong metric anyway. --] (]) 14:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
::So do I understand you correctly that you are suggesting to remove the whole "launch costs" columns, because they are OR? Would be ok for me, because right now these columns are quite misleading. ] (]) 10:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
::Another issue: Do you consider "a statement by the CEO" as RS? Are there any other sources supporting this "statement"? ] (]) 10:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
:::No I'm not suggesting removing the whole cost column. Just the strange calculation you attempted there. Statements made by the CEO are statements by the company. If you want to remove all rocket manufacturers as sources from spaceflight articles, good luck finding consensus for that. --] (]) 11:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

== All 13 Saturn V launches were successful ==

The Saturn V LV launched payload to orbit successfully 13 times. On one launch, (Apollo 13) the payload had a problem(!) This caused a mission failure, not a Saturn V launch failure. -] (]) 17:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
:It is my understanding that ] was not considered a "success" because of problems with both the second and third stages of the Saturn V. It is listed as a "partial failure" at our ] article. As such, an argument can be made for reverting . Thoughts? -- ] (]) 21:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
::{{re|Scjessey}} OK, I was wrong. I'll fix it. -] (]) 01:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
:::It was supposed to launch things to the Moon but only reached an elliptical Earth orbit. --] (]) 03:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

== Starship Launch Date and Thrust ==

The current entry for Starship's takeoff thrust differs from the official SpaceX value (74000 kN vs 75900 kN). Also, the article lists the launch date as being yesterday? Maybe that should be corrected to 2023 (planned), to match the format of the other launchers? ] (]) 13:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

:I've instituted the planned edits to the Starship Entry. ] (]) 12:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

== Maiden flight N1 vs Starship ==

Is there a reason why the maiden orbital flight column says 2023 for Starhip, but "None" for N1? Both were designed to reach orbit, but both didn't reach orbit (yet), but only approximately 40 km. ] (]) 16:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

: I added a clarification. ] (]) 18:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
::The N1 got cancelled.
::Starship wasn't.
::The label of "NONE" is because an N1 will never fly. Even if some (arguably insane) organization decided to resurrect the N1, it would not be the same N1 design that flew in the 60's and 70's.
::I hope this was helpful. ] (]) 20:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

== Separating Starship V1 and V2 ==

As SLS Blocks 1, 1B, and 2 are separated in the comparison table, should Starship V1 and V2 be separated as well? ] (]) 18:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

== IFT-3 ==

Yes, IFT-3 was technically not orbital, @].

But if we exclude almost orbital flights, then that would violate a precedent on this article: the Energia launches.

The 1987 launch, which is listed under the first successful orbital launch, had a perigee of -15 km, and an apogee of 155 km.

The second flight had a slightly higher perigee: -11.2 km.

Neither of these flights were orbital, so if IFT-3 is removed, so should Energia.

] (]) 12:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

:If the Energia launches are categorised incorrectly or the definition of what a "Maiden successful orbital flight" isn't clear enough, then lets start a process to correct those. More than happy to work collaboratively on proposals to help do that.
:IFT-3 was a sub-orbital launch, it is obvious that isn't in dispute, and even a successful sub-orbital launch is clearly not a "Maiden successful orbital flight". It is just incorrect of us to have IFT-3 listed as a orbital launch. ] (]) 16:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, but there wasn't any debate over Energia, so at least to me, it makes very little sense that, because Starship is listed, now there is an issue.
::IMO, the best thing to do is to do nothing: leave IFT-3 and the Energia launches listed. Classifying them as suborbital is, while technically correct, misleading. ] (]) 16:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
::{{reply|CtrlDPredator}} I disagree that it is clear cut that IFT-3 was a sub-orbital launch. It easily reached an orbital velocity, and it easily reached an orbital apoapsis. Its periapsis was deliberately set to make sure it had a ballistic trajectory that would end its flight in the Indian Ocean, so it is ''technically'' sub-orbital only if you are splitting hairs. I suggest we include IFT-3 as a successful maiden orbital flight, but clarify the meaning of the table heading to include flights such as this. It is quite common for so-called "orbital" rockets to have de-orbiting/aerobraking trajectories. -- ] (]) 16:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:05, 20 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Super heavy-lift launch vehicle article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconRocketry Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSpaceflight Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives
Archive 1

SLS Block 1 says it had a 50 ton payload in 2022

But the Orion article says the Orion plus service module is nowhere near 50 tons. Is this inaccurate? I think this article should be more like the "heavy lift" article in that it includes exactly the heaviest load is, rather than a Yes/No. 72.76.72.238 (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

ICPS+Orion is ~50 tons. Redacted II (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
50 metric tons? I see no evidence of this anywhere. Combined weight of 30 metric tons seems more accurate. Could you elaborate where you see this number? 72.76.72.238 (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Orion: 10400+15461=25861 kg.
ICPS: 32748 kg
25861+32748=58609 kg
Almost 60 tons. Redacted II (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Comparison Table

Just a note that it would be nice if it was sortable. Doyna Yar (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

An editor broke the table yesterday. I'm working on fixing it (EDIT: ITS FIXED). Redacted II (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Human Rated

Does Human Rated mean that its rated for launching crew (Saturn V, SLS Block 1), or just transporting them (Starship HLS)? Redacted II (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

It's just launching, with the definition specifying "rocket that can lift to low Earth orbit..." The SHLLV designation is irrelevant after orbit is achieved. Narnianknight (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for answering (though this gets a bit confusing because the ATV was human rated, and the line between spacecraft and rocket for starship is a bit... blurry, to say the least). Redacted II (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, the Starship rocket/spacecraft distinction is a bit messy, though I don't think it would ultimately affect anything (Super Heavy would have to be crew-rated, not just Starship). Anyway, Ariane 5 wasn't human rated because of the ATV. It was for Hermes, but then again, that would have launched with crew aboard. Narnianknight (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
The whole topic of human rating is a complete mess.
You're probably right in saying that its just for launching. Redacted II (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Orbital?

I have concerns about this edit by Redacted II (talk · contribs). The claim made here is that because the flight may have a transatmospheric orbit it would constitute an orbital spaceflight; however, it is my understanding that the flight will have a perigee below that which would make an orbit of the planet possible, and thus it would not meet the definition of an orbital flight. I have not reverted this edit because sources I have found are contradictory; however, I think it should be discussed further and verified, if possible. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

After IFT-6 flies, we'll know whether or not it was suborbital or transatmospheric.
(It will almost certainly be suborbital before the Raptor Relight, given that it is targetting about the same spot as IFT-3, IFT-4. and IFT-5) Redacted II (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
My understanding is whether or not there is a Raptor relight, it will still (deliberately) be on a splashdown trajectory. That means it isn't an orbital flight, regardless of whether or not it is transatmospheric. It would be different if the relight was specifically to deorbit Starship from a stable orbit. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
For a flight to be orbital, perigee has to be above 0 m. It can be .0000001 nanometerts and still be orbital.
So long as the trajectory doesn't intercept the surface (ignoring atmospheric drag), it is orbital.
Transatmospheric earth orbit is an orbit. Its not suborbital. Redacted II (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps you are not understanding what I am saying. My understanding (based on admittedly conficting sourcing) is that with or without a Raptor relight the vehicle will splashdown in the ocean. So yes, that would make the perigee 0 meters, intercepting the surface. Only with future vehicles, when Raptor relight has been proven, will they initiate a launch trajectory that does not automatically result in a splashdown. Ergo, this is not an orbital flight. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Update from SpaceX (emphasis mine):

Starship’s upper stage will fly the same suborbital trajectory as the previous flight test, with splashdown targeted in the Indian Ocean.

I think that is fairly definitive, would you not agree? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
A transatmospheric trajectory WILL splashdown in the ocean. Because the perigee is within the atmosphere, and once starts to reenter, it'll slow down.
We'll see in less than two days. Redacted II (talk) 13:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
This is 100% original research.
According to Jonathan McDowell, the apogee was lower, at 190 km.
Assuming the semimajoral axis was the same, then perigee is 7 km.
Which is above 0.
Thus, IFT-6 was transatmospheric Redacted II (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Its confirmed:
https://planet4589.org/space/jsr/latest.html
Perigee 50 km Redacted II (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
From SpaceX:

The ship successfully reignited a single Raptor engine while in space, demonstrating the capabilities required to conduct a ship deorbit burn before starting fully orbital missions.

It was not an orbital flight. It could not possibly maintain orbit at that perigee. Our own article states that orbital flight with a perigee below 80km is more or less impossible. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Again, transatmospheric is an orbital flight.
An orbit doesn't have to be stable to be an orbit. It merely need to have a perigee above 0.
The Transatmospheric orbit article states: " transatmospheric orbit (TAO) is an orbit around a celestial body in which the perigee of the orbit intersects with the defined atmosphere" Redacted II (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
There are no reliable sources calling this an orbital flight. None whatsoever. You have taken the perigee number and used original research to claim it is orbital. For the purposes of this article, "orbital" means it orbits the planet at least once, which this didn't do. Please support your assertions with reliable sources before changing the article again. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Where does the article say that it has to complete an orbit?
And https://www.planet4589.org/space/jsr/latest.html lists the launch under "Recent Orbital (and near-Orbital) Launches" with a perigee of 8 km (later 50 km).
That is transatmospheric.
Also, see What is not original research:
"Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible. See also Category:Conversion templates.
Mathematical literacy may be necessary to follow a "routine" calculation, particularly for articles on mathematics or in the hard sciences. In some cases, editors may show their work in a footnote.
Comparisons of statistics present particular difficulties. Editors should not compare statistics from sources that use different methodologies."
8>0 is a routine calculation Redacted II (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
It's not a "routine calculation" because 8km of perigee is not a stable orbit under any definition. You have no support for your edit, and yet you reverted in violation of WP:BRD. You keep banging on about "transatmospheric" but that is not a determining factor of whether or not a vehicle is in an orbit. Let me repeat, the vehicle would NOT have orbited the planet whether or not it relit its Raptor, ergo, it is suborbital. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Transatmospheric is orbital.
Its literally in the name: Transatmospheric orbit.
The stability of the orbit is irrelevant to the fact that it was orbital. So long as perigee is above 0, it is orbital.
Your removal of it durign the discussion was violating BRD. I set it back. Redacted II (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
I 100% agree that Redacted II once more used a non-reliable source (Jonathan McDowell gives no sources for his doubtful data, and why should that be WP:RS anyway) to assume some pseudofacts (transatmospheric orbit) and then boasting those personal WP:OR in the article as if they were facts.
A typical misunderstanding of orbits and that not everything that gets transatmospheric enters an orbit...
The same problem is in the articles for ITF-1+2 where it is stated that they were intended for orbit (with no working source), always with the same dubious sources that mostly do not work anymore as McDowell does always change his page and not archive it.
And now Redacted II put "orbit" into IFT-6 as well.
Btw, I just caught him with Original Research here. But as predicted, he reverted that again (during discussion, so far as to his "violating BRD" accusations), see talk page, and put in more nonsense. 47.64.128.79 (talk) 08:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
McDowell 100% archives his pages. They're all here: https://planet4589.org/space/jsr/back/ -- RickyCourtney (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
50km~ perigee is definitely not a sustainable orbit, and it definitely will lead to splashdown, which is what happened and was planned. However, it is still considered transatmospheric orbit. For the vehicle to actually have orbit, it only needs to have a positive perigee. Whether it is a stable orbit or not is irrelevant in this case. This has already been mentioned above. User3749 (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
I would agree that Starship flight 6 was not strictly suborbital. However, I agree that it did not yet meet the criteria for being listed as having a "successful orbital flight." I would argue for a "common" definition of orbit, the ability to maintain a relatively stable orbit around the planet. A Transatmospheric Earth orbit certainly does not meet that definition. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
The definitions of orbit that I have been able to find:
"an orbit (also known as orbital revolution) is the curved trajectory of an object" - Misplaced Pages
"a path described by one body in its revolution about another (as by the earth about the sun or by an electron about an atomic nucleus)" - Merriam-Webster
"the curved path of a celestial object or spacecraft around a star, planet, or moon, especially a periodic elliptical revolution." - Google Search.
Note only the third definition lists stability as a factor, and it isn't listed as a requirement.
So, a "common" definition (if such a thing can be said to exist) does not appear to require the trajectory to be stable.
However, I only grabbed three definitions. There are likely others that list stability as a requirement. Redacted II (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Also, the first Energia flight, which is the one listed for the first successful orbital launch, was not orbital. Or even transatmospheric. It had a perigee of -15 km. Very close to that of IFT-3, but with a lower apogee as well.
So, a positive perigee (much less a stable orbit) is not a requirement to be listed as a successful orbital flight. Redacted II (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
In that case, I'd argue for de-listing the first Energia flight, not for listing Starship. When most people think of something being "sent into orbit" they are thinking of a spacecraft going up, circling the Earth at least a few times, and then coming back down. RickyCourtney (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
I think at minimum Starship should be listed as partial, given its transatmospheric nature.
(And energia would therefore be listed as NONE, since both flights were suborbital: the payload circulaized on the second, and accidentally "deorbited" on the first) Redacted II (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
So long as we change the template from failure to partial, I'm good with your note. Redacted II (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Btw, energija was never listed as having been orbital. If one reads thoroughly, the article only claims that on the 2nd flight the payload (Buran) was delivered into orbit. Neither Energija nor the 1st flight payload ever reached orbit, nor is that assumed in the article. 47.69.162.76 (talk) 10:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
"Maiden Successful Orbital Flight"
1988 Redacted II (talk) 12:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Starship payload to orbit

There is some descripancy between this article: 100 / 150 / 200 ton payload, and Starship article, where it is listed N/A / 100+ / 200+ tons. Smeagol 17 (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Thats mostly due to inconsistent messaging from SpaceX.
Block 1 is both 40-50 and ~100 tons.
Block 2 is 100+ tons, which has in the past been synonamous with 150 tons.
And finally Block 2 is ranging from 180 tons to 200+ Redacted II (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Of course, but should we list the same in both? Smeagol 17 (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Yeah.
I'd aim for listing the numbers here rather than on Starship, as I believe they're more accurate. Redacted II (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
"as I believe they're more accurate" - ??
As if that was a criterium.
WP:NOTOR#Conflict_between_sources: If equally reliable sources disagree, present all of the information 47.69.162.76 (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
And when there is only room for one?
From equally reliable sources? Redacted II (talk) 12:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Since when is there a space limit on WP pages? But, I just quoted from WP:NOTOR. We are to present all of the information, not just the "truth" you like best.
"How not to handle conflicting sources: Do not choose which one is "true" and discard the others as incorrect, except in the unusual instance that one source can be demonstrated to be factually erroneous"
You are distorting the evidence when unilaterally chosing the facts you, quote, believe they're more accurate. 47.69.162.76 (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Categories: