Talk:Super heavy-lift launch vehicle

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

IFT-3[edit]

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

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.

Redacted II (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. CtrlDPredator (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Redacted II (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With Energia is a much more complicated case, would need to consider if "Maiden successful orbital flight" means that the flight successfully resulted in it's payload in orbit (which you could argue the 1987 flight didn't do but 1988 flight did), or if the launch was successful regardless of payload outcome (which becomes ambiguous since the payload needed to boost itself to orbit), or if the payload is considered part of the launch vehicle itself, with Energia–Polyus and Energia–Buran being different configurations. There are lots of different conflicting interpretations and I am not surprised that it has ended up the way it is, but none of those situations apply to IFT-3.
We all know that IFT-3 was sub-orbital, labelling it as an orbital flight is misleading. CtrlDPredator (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"With Energia is a much more complicated case, would need to consider if "Maiden successful orbital flight" means that the flight successfully resulted in it's payload in orbit (which you could argue the 1987 flight didn't do but 1988 flight did)"
But the 1987 flight is listed as the first, so if that is listed, then there is no reason to not list IFT-3. Redacted II (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a very good reason not to list IFT-3 as an orbital flight, which is that it was sub-orbital. The Energia flights don't give IFT-3 a pass. CtrlDPredator (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prior precedent: this was discussed with Energia here.
So why is there an issue with keeping IFT-3 when a very similar launch was kept? Redacted II (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IFT-3 is not similar to Energia-Polyus, not sure how many different way that needs to be explained. CtrlDPredator (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have never explained why its different in a way that impacts IFT-3. Redacted II (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have talked about it above and I have pointed out how problematic the Energia-Polyus mission were. I have offered to try and resolve the issues around the Energia launches, but I can't do that if we are going to spend days on end going around in circles trying to prove that sub-orbital ≠ orbital. CtrlDPredator (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I have talked about it above and I have pointed out how problematic the Energia-Polyus mission were"
Yes, there are several issues with the Energia-Polyus mission, but those issues (IMO) also exist for IFT-3.
"I have offered to try and resolve the issues around the Energia launches"
My issue with this is that there wasn't an issue with it before. "Fixing" the Energia mission just because of IFT-3 doesn't seem like the right thing to do.
"can't do that if we are going to spend days on end going around in circles trying to prove that sub-orbital ≠ orbital"
I can't speak for Scjessey, but I'm not trying to prove IFT-3 was orbital (because it wasn't). However, putting it in the same category as New Shepard is very misleading, due to the almost order of magnitude difference in velocity. Redacted II (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Energia missions need clarification regardless of IFT-3.
The issues that need clarification with the Energia missions have nothing to do with IFT-3's sub-orbital mission.
That you are unhappy that IFT-3 was a sub-orbital mission and want it to be considered an orbital mission instead for this column is unjustified and dishonest.
Like I have said before, velocity itself doesn't define an orbit, apogee and perigee do. I know that you know this. CtrlDPredator (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"That you are unhappy that IFT-3 was a sub-orbital mission and want it to be considered an orbital mission instead for this column is unjustified and dishonest."
First, try to assume good faith. This is an issue for everyone right after a Starship launch, as the debates get heated.
"Like I have said before, velocity itself doesn't define an orbit, apogee and perigee do. I know that you know this"
Yes. I know IFT-3 was suborbital. I am not disputing that fact, but my objection is to classifying it in the same category as a New Shepard launch, due to the almost order of magnitude difference in velocity.
While doing that would be technically correct, I believe it is very misleading to readers. Redacted II (talk) 13:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about good faith, you are trying to say something you know is false to push a non-neutral point of view.
This has nothing to do with New Shepard and telling the truth her is not misleading readers.
Continuing this conversation isn't going to be productive or constructive. CtrlDPredator (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This has nothing to do with New Shepard and telling the truth her is not misleading readers"
This is a case where a label is technically correct, but misleading. I mentioned New Shepard because its the first suborbital vehicle that came to mind, and is likely what a casual reader will think of.
"Continuing this conversation isn't going to be productive or constructive"
Well then, agree to disagree? Redacted II (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ICBMs are suborbital and reach higher velocities than IFT-3.
It would be misleading to label IFT-3 as an orbital spaceflight. Redraiderengineer (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ICBM article mentioned velocities between 4 and 7.8 km/s, so while the upper bound is above IFT-3, the majority is below. Still, good point.
My issue with labeling IFT-3 as suborbital, as stated above, is because it categorizes it with vehicles like New Shepard, which is misleading Redacted II (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it misleading? This isn't categorizing Starship as a suborbital vehicle.
Velocity isn't a defining criterion, and as you've agreed, it fits the definition. "A sub-orbital spaceflight is a spaceflight in which the spacecraft reaches outer space, but its trajectory intersects the surface of the gravitating body from which it was launched." Redraiderengineer (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is misleading because IFT-3 was extremely close to orbital velocity. Placing it in the same category as New Shepard or sounding rockets is misleading, because of the vast difference
I'm not disputing that it was suborbital. It was. But I'd rather have a technically incorrect statement that doesn't mislead than a technically correct statement that does. Redacted II (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you (this is a thought experiment) threw a ball at the zenith with a velocity of 30,000 km/h, would you consider the ball orbital if its apogee was 101 km? Redraiderengineer (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
100% yes. And I'm willing to bet the average reader (excluding those who don't know how fast orbital velocity is) would agree.
(also: thanks for using metric instead of imperial) Redacted II (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a simplified example, but the horizontal velocity of the ball is zero (projectile motion equations). The ball comes straight back down and isn't orbital.
Velocity alone doesn't determine an orbital spaceflight (an object "is placed on a trajectory where it could remain in space for at least one orbit"). The velocity is related to orbital energy, which is more relevant to "reaching orbit."
This isn't an attempt to categorize Starship as a suborbital vehicle, and I think the Starship article is clear on the goals of the vehicle. When Starship has a successful orbital flight (probably later this year), this will be a clear yes. Redraiderengineer (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This is a simplified example, but the horizontal velocity of the ball is zero (projectile motion equations). The ball comes straight back down and isn't orbital."
If you shot a ball straight up at 30k kph, I don't think the ball should be considered orbital (but you did just give me something to simulate, so thanks). Since the vast majority of IFT-3's velocity was horizontal, and it's perigee was close to the surface, I think its closer to orbital than a suborbital.
"Velocity alone doesn't determine an orbital spaceflight (an object "is placed on a trajectory where it could remain in space for at least one orbit"). The velocity is related to orbital energy, which is more relevant to "reaching orbit.""
You don't have to explain how orbits work (at least to me).
"This isn't an attempt to categorize Starship as a suborbital vehicle, and I think the Starship article is clear on the goals of the vehicle"
I know. I'd be making very different arguments if this was.
"When Starship has a successful orbital flight (probably later this year), this will be a clear yes."
Agreed. IFT-5 or IFT-6 should make this discussion a just matter of what the 2024 number links to. Redacted II (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IFT-3 can't be closer to orbital than sub-orbital when it is by definition and your own admission sub-orbital.
If I fly in a commercial airliner at 1000km/h, which is sub-sonic, I don't then say I was on a super-sonic flight because 1000km/h is closer to the speed of sound 1235km/h than walking speed. In the same vein, you don't label that commercial flight as super-sonic when it is not just because you are concerned that people might be mislead into thinking it was similar to a zeppelin or hot air balloon trip. CtrlDPredator (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get your point, but when most people hear suborbital, they don't think "perigee below 0 m". They think of New Shepard (and maybe sounding rockets).
And that is what I want to avoid. Ideally, the suborbital category can be divided further to avoid any confusion on near-orbital. Redacted II (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you invent some new category, it still isn't orbital, still doesn't satisfy the column for orbital flight.
Most people are well aware that Starship is not a sounding rocket and are not going to be mislead by seeing that IFT-3 didn't reach orbit, they are going to be correctly informed. Doing otherwise would be misleading, completely unnecessary and staying into violating NPOV. CtrlDPredator (talk) 12:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Even if you invent some new category, it still isn't orbital, still doesn't satisfy the column for orbital flight."
Yes, I'm aware. You don't need to convince me of that.
"Most people are well aware that Starship is not a sounding rocket"
Agreed, but that isn't my concern. I'm concerned that people will come to the conclusion that IFT-3 wasn't even close to orbital spaceflight, or be confused as to why it isn't listed here.
I would love to be proven wrong, though. Redacted II (talk) 12:47, 26 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. Sources say "successfully reached orbit" (example). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"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"
Yes, but it's perigee was negative, so technically, it was sub-orbital.
"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."
Well said, and I think this is the best path forward. Redacted II (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IFT-3 was sub-orbital and intended to be sub-orbital, there is no splitting hairs about it. CtrlDPredator (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was suborbital, but that is putting it in the same category as New Shepard, which is absurd. It was going ~7-8x as fast as New Shepard does, and was far closer to Orbital than Suborbital. Redacted II (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying a sub-orbital flight is an orbital flight is absurd. Saying that it was closer to orbital than sub-orbital is also absurd. It doesn't matter how fast it was or wasn't going, it's periapsis was below the surface of the Earth, it was sub-orbital, even SpaceX themselves acknowledge that.
We shouldn't be dishonest here and consider the flight as an orbital flight just because you are worried about how that might reflect on the perception of Starship. This whole thing really shouldn't be that difficult. CtrlDPredator (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Saying that it was closer to orbital than sub-orbital is also absurd"
What is closer to 26500: 27000 or 3600?
It is misleading to put it in the same category as a New-Shepard or sounding rocket launch. Because it is much closer to orbital. Redacted II (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what speed it was travelling at, it's perigee was below the surface of the Earth which makes it sub-orbital, you know that. That you are not comfortable with the perception of that is irrelevant to the facts at hand and we should not lie about a fundamental fact because you want to shape the perception of the launch. CtrlDPredator (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CtrlDPredator please revert your edit.
The status quo is whatever was in place before the discussion. In this case, that makes including IFT-3 the status quo, and therefore, until a consensus to remove it has been reached, it should remain in the article. Redacted II (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for this discussions to try and avoid similar issues from when you reverted @Smeagol_17 and @Zae8's changes to the status of Starships orbital flights, yet it has proven to not to be a productive process.
@Redraiderengineer stated that it would be misleading to label IFT-3 as an orbital spaceflight, and I can't state how strongly I agree with this, and I feel this is enough to close this trivial matter given that there isn't a substantive justification for your change.
We should not have to spend any more of our time or effort, or anyone else's for that matter, on something where we all agree on the facts. CtrlDPredator (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There currently is no consensus. So far, 2 editors are in favor of keeping it, and 2 are in opposition.
Therefore, until this changes, we should maintain the status quo. Redacted II (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You agree that IFT-3 was suborbital. What is the policy/guideline that supports your rationale to incorrectly categorize IFT-3 as orbital? Redraiderengineer (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've stated this before: fear of misleading viewers.
I don't want a casual viewer to assume IFT-3 was a 100 km "hop", nor do I want endless discussions of "Why isn't IFT-3 listed?". Redacted II (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to a Wikipedia policy or guideline that supports that rationale. Redraiderengineer (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does the Energia precedent count? Redacted II (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As explained before, the Energia launches were very different, with different configurations and payload vehicles and clearly on orbital missions. IFT-3 was on a planned suborbital trajectory.
As I stated before, I am more than happy to work collaboratively on proposals to clarify the Energia launches in this column, but it doesn't give a free pass for any suborbital launches like IFT-3 to be counted as orbital. CtrlDPredator (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After this discussion, I'd love to clarify the Energia flights (and IFT-3, if it is included), but I do think prior precedent does give a "free pass" for almost-orbital spaceflights. Redacted II (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Energia likely needs further discussion, but that's not a substantive objection to IFT-3 when you admit it was suborbital. The objection comes off as stonewalling.
If we can't reach a consensus, the next step might be RfC. Redraiderengineer (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Energia likely needs further discussion, but that's not a substantive objection to IFT-3 when you admit it was suborbital."
Its prior precedent. Both Energia flights were suborbital, and the first one's payload never reached orbit.
"The objection comes off as stonewalling."
That is not my intent.
"If we can't reach a consensus, the next step might be RfC."
I think we'll reach a consensus soon (and most likely for removing it), without an RfC. Redacted II (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wrap up IFT-3, and then we can start a new discussion on Energia with the same orbital standard.
We both agree on: 1) IFT-3 was suborbital and 2) Starship will likely have a successful orbital flight later this year (but hasn't had an orbital flight yet). Without a substantive objection based on a Wikipedia policy or guideline, can you agree this should remain "2024 (planned)" in the table? Redraiderengineer (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Let's wrap up IFT-3, and then we can start a new discussion on Energia with the same orbital standard."
Agreed. The sooner this is done, the sooner more productive discussions like Include/Remove Energia can be done.
"We both agree on: 1) IFT-3 was suborbital and 2) Starship will likely have a successful orbital flight later this year (but hasn't had an orbital flight yet)"
Yes, I do agree that IFT-3 was suborbital, and that Starship will likely (but not guaranteed) have a successful orbital flight this year.
"Without a substantive objection based on a Wikipedia policy or guideline, can you agree this should remain "2024 (planned)" in the table?"
Temporarily yes, but that could change depending on the result of the Energia discussion. Redacted II (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALL that matters, as with any other Wikipedia article, is what the sources say. The source I linked to above clearly states it was launched "into orbit" and there are many other sources that say the same thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of sources too that correctly state it was on a sub-orbital trajectory and the IFT-3 wikipedia page lists it as sub-orbital. Even you acknowledged that it's periapsis was below the surface of the Earth and know that it was sub-orbital.
If you want to re-define the flight as an orbital flight, the most appropriate way to do that would be on the IFT-3 wikipedia page first. CtrlDPredator (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Order versus Building[edit]

I am confused by the Class Overview headings. Both Falcon Heavy and SLS are listed as On Order but only SLS as Building. What are the criteria for these categories? 86.1.190.147 (talk) 07:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed!
(On Order means its operational, building means its still in dev) Redacted II (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IFT-3 had a 70 ton "payload"[edit]

At engine cutoff, IFT-3 had at least 70 tons of propellant remaining in its main tanks. Does that count as a payload? Redacted II (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. Normally, I would say it does not count because a payload is something that is meant to be delivered. If the extra propellant was part of the attempt to demonstrate tank-to-tank transfer, I don't think that counts either. However, if the extra propellant was intended to act as a mass simulator, I think an argument could be made to consider it to be a payload. This seems the least likely case though. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The propellant was residual, but was most likely a mass simulator. Redacted II (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You would probably have to find a reliable source that actually states it was intended to act as a mass simulator. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starship v1 only can do 40-50 tons[edit]

This was in the most recent presentation 72.76.72.238 (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a 100 ton difference between reusable and expendable, as shown on the Starship website.
A statement by Elon Musk claimed that V1 expendable could lift ~200 tons expendable. 200-100=100.
Also, the payload listed was for Flight 3, which was noticeably underfueled, compared to the IFT-1 and IFT-2 vehicles (look at the frost lines).
I hope this was helpful. Redacted II (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Long March 10 NET[edit]

The source listed for an edit claiming NET 2025-2026 is unreliable. I have reverted it to 2027, which had a more reliable source. Redacted II (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Error of number of Saturn V launches?[edit]

It is my understanding that the Saturn V had 13 orbital launches while this article says it had 12. Am I missing anything? DaveTree (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - Apollo 6 was a partial failure but did reach orbit. So 13 it is (Apollo 4, 6, 8-17, Skylab). --Zac67 (talk) 06:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super_heavy-lift_launch_vehicle&oldid=1224985410"