Talk:SpaceX Starship

A decline in the quality of science and engineering at SpaceX?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

WP:FORUM, WP:OR, and also a bit of WP:NPOV. There are plenty of places to discuss the recent Block 2 issues. Wikipedia is not one of them. Redacted II (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

---

Plus...Plus, poor manufacturing or testing practices. I have no other explanation for the string of failures over the past few months. Unless it's sabotage, but that sounds too political to have a place here. But, in the spirit of asking, let me add to the question: Perhaps something could be reflected here in the section in this article, or in this supplementary article? ГеоргиУики (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:FORUM.

(Though I do agree that SpaceX is facing severe QC issues). Redacted II (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Redacted II, this is original research. If you have specific RS's supporting the idea that there's been a decline in the quality of engineering at SpaceX in the Starship program, go for it and add to your hearts content (I agree that something is going wrong somewhere here with this program, but we go by sources not feelings/our personal opinions). Chuckstablers (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Of course, hardly anyone, except an official government, can enter the territory of a private company and investigate from the inside whether and what is wrong. So, outsiders can only judge based on the facts of failures that are visible in the public space. So, what I have asked here is based on my own conclusions about what is happening. ГеоргиУики (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

That is WP:OR.

(Should I close this discussion?) Redacted II (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok, in article already was added some information about that I want. ГеоргиУики (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

the chirpy/PR tone needs to go. There is a growing disconnect between this page superlative claims and the reality of Starship. This rocket cannot go to LEO let alone the Moon or Mars or the stars. The fact that Starship is failing needs to be reflected in this page 2A02:A03F:622D:9800:5C3:FF61:398A:A9F1 (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Remember WP:NPOV.

Also, that Starship hasn't yet reached LEO (I do have to mention that they easily could, but haven't because of safety) is reflected in the article. Redacted II (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

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.

Debris in Mexico

I found an article describing the debris from the tests coming ashore in Tamaulipas. I am not super familiar with this article, I came across in looking for information on Hurricane Erick, so I do not really know what to do with it. ✶Quxyz✶ 23:10, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Mexico News Daily seems to be unreliable and very biased, but I could be wrong. Canadien1867 (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed Redacted II (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on your reasoning because I have used this source in other articles and I might want to review its usage if it is too unreliable. ✶Quxyz✶ 19:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

The claim that the debris is toxic.

Everything I've seen so far is that the debris isn't toxic. Redacted II (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Whether it is toxic or not (it seems like it is not), the objective fact is that some debris came down inside Mexico. That deserves a note at least Hal Nordmann (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

No disagreement there Redacted II (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

FOX Weather and Accuweather also have articles about it if MND does not suffice. ✶Quxyz✶ 21:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

The debris being toxic or there bring debris?

(I trust Fox about as far as I can throw a fully fueled Starship) Redacted II (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, FOX Weather (specifically) is relatively reliable. I haven't seen them make any bonkers claims. ✶Quxyz✶ 02:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

per WP:RSPS, it is unreliable when discussing science or politics Canadien1867 (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

That website is generally known to be quite Liberal and often makes false or greatly exaggerated claims.

Additionally, the article you linked above repeatedly mentions "Elon Musk's space debris" and makes it very clear that SpaceX is owned by him, which is a quite obvious indication that the article's main purpose is to spread a political opinion, make Elon look bad, and make the public angry at SpaceX. That is definitely a red flag and shouldn't be used as a source, unless you have reasons otherwise? Canadien1867 (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Being Liberal =/= WP:NPOV violation.

Otherwised mostly agreed Redacted II (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, I know this might be somewhat pedantic, but the general definition of "space debris" is "defunct or non-operational, human-made objects in orbit around Earth". Therefore, the fuel tanks along Mexico's beaches that were mentioned in the article, which are likely from Super Heavy B11 or B13, are not "space debris", but the article claims they are. This continues to prove the article is unreliable. Canadien1867 (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

The debris is from B14.

(Also, that is very, very pedantic. I'd call B13 and B14's corpses (even though they never passed the Karman line) space debris) Redacted II (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I have tagged it as possibly unreliable, use due diligence in my list of sources. I am going to go through some articles to see if I can find better sources for claims. If there is a better source, would it still be worth noting the debris on the coast of Tamaulipas? ✶Quxyz✶ 00:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Lost upper stages in first half of 2025

SpaceX lost four Starship upper stages in the first half of 2025. Three upper stages were lost in flight. The fourth one was lost during fueling in preparation for a static fire. AmigaClone (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

That's three failures (in-flight).

The Vulcan page doesn't call the loss of a Centaur V in ground testing a failure in the lede of the article, despite the centaur V failure being arguably more catastrophic (it seemed to result in a delay of roughly eight months, compared to S36's month and a half).

It's only mentioned in the history section.

S36 deserves the same level of recognition. Redacted II (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I would not use the delay caused by pre-launch losses between two companies as a measure of how catastrophic an incident was.

The loss of S36 caused significant damage to the ground support equipment used for static fire at Massey's. As far as I recall, the Centaur V failure didn't do significant damage or destroy the associated ground support equipment. AmigaClone (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Irrelevant.

Sure, the explosion was larger.

But the overall impact?

So much smaller.

S36 was a far less meaningful event to the Starship program than the Centaur V explosion was to Vulcan.

Treating it as worse is WP:NPOV. Redacted II (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

"Block"?

With the addition of "Block 4" (only in table, not text...), maybe someone notice that SX and Musk call them "Version", not "Block" for years now, even in the newest X tweet cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.69.165.29 (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

They've been called Starship X, Version X, Block X, and probably a few other's that I'm missing.

Block X is probably the best one to use as a standard across Wikipedia. Redacted II (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Does that matter? Elon most commonly nowadays refers to versions. Should we not follow the newer terminology? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I see now why it is better to stick with "Block". Ignore my previous comment JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Do you mind if I strikethrough the prior comment, to avoid future confusion? Redacted II (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

This whole page relies on an unreliable and deceptive individual as a primary source

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Redacted II (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

---

1. Yesterday Musk published updated performances and goals for Starship. V1 and V2 performances are a third of what he announced last year. That was not a mistake that was, and still is, deliberate deception. None of the numbers that SpaceX or SpaceX CEO communicates can be taken at face value. To meet SpaceX own objectives Starship payload capacity needs to increase 5 folds. Even the most indulgent and technically illiterate person understands that will not happen. In short none of this page numbers are accurate with the exception, ironically, of the rocket size and girth.

2. Musk's own lawyers pleaded in the court of law that Musk announcements cannot be trusted, that they are "corporate puffery". The editors of this page have acted for years like Musk is a trusted source. He is not. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and the words of a compulsive liar aren't cutting it.

Following point 1 and 2 this whole page is nothing else than grotesque fan fiction that pretends to engineering rigor. All the ludicrous technical details and projections need to be purged. This page is prejudicial to Wikipedia reputation. All who were involved should have exercised better judgement. The writing was on the wall since the 3rd launch, now it becomes impossible to ignore. Doing so is to choose to keep garbage content on Wikipedia. 2A02:A03F:622D:9800:7D4E:A91F:87FD:A9EE (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

(Also, your entire argument is based on a single tweet from Musk, which by your own admission is not reliable. So thus, according to your logic, your argument is "grotesque fiction") Redacted II (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

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.

Interstage - Block 3

Are there any references that indicate that the components located in the interstage in blocks 1 and 2 have been moved to the methane tank in block 3? AmigaClone (talk) 10:33, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I've seen claims that they've been moved to the chines.

The grid fins are moved into the methane tank, though Redacted II (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I knew the grid fins had been moved from the interstage to the methane tanks, but was not sure on the other components located in the interstage in SuperHeavy Block 1 and 2.

The 'interstage' on block 3 appears to be only the radically redesigned hot stage ring. AmigaClone (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)