Talk:SpaceX Starship/Archive 4

1313: 31: 2712:

mission was not considered a failure. There are some issues here on rocket vs mission. If you narrow it to only the rocket, unless it goes without a hitch (no engines at less than optimum, all gauges perfect) it will always be listed as failure. You have hardly any successful prototypes and have to do OR to write the article. Sources don't tend to do that. As I said, I have no problem moving forward no matter the decision of the closer.

2098:'s proposal, is because we wanted to change the page structure. It IS NOT the merger's responsibility to improve the article's content quality if it wasn't the goal of the merge. Again, we only merged to change page structure, and not to improve quality, even though other editors mentioned it. Furthermore, unanimous consensus has been reached for merging of the articles, so we cannot go back and undo it. 2136:, I'd just like to let you know that when I restored the Infobox rocket template I included the Dubious tag from prior revisions, because that had been the state at which the outcome box had been "frozen" with the locking of the article. I don't know whether or not it's still appropriate to have it now. Either way, it'd been there out of procedure, not because I disagree with the assessment personally. 1865: 304: 3431:

I'd support reducing it dramatically until we get to the ACTUAL development of hardware, at which point all the technical detail is warranted. But currently I just see a lot of undue weight given in the article to these concepts which were abandoned until a final design was chosen to start actual development on beyond the concept stage.

1931:. For copyright reasons the text needs to be initially copied verbatim. You can now edit it as you please if you think it is "unreadable" (what problems do you see exactly?). But please do not revert the merge. There is unanimous support for it (including you) and we cannot go back at this point without making a big mess. 1982:. This is actually a copyright requirement. Any editing and rearranging follows the merge and you can go right ahead and do that as you please. But do not revert this once again please or editing of the article will become problematic as well as coordination with several other pages as we are now in the 2660:

same sources and facts and come up with diametrically opposed conclusions. It's a head scratcher to be sure. And I am not going to express opinion in separating the vehicle/mission when sources do it so well. Apollo 13 included which was a successful failure itself. Per sources this article has issues.

3336:

Were they though? We're comparing a rocket design that doesn't exist to an existing rocket. Comparisons only make sense when comparing real stuff to real stuff. I feel like the entire history would make more sense if it was a table comparing the rocket at its different stages, with the rows being the

2726:

Not overlooking that it was a prototype and it doesn't change that it was a launch failure and having rock-bottom expectations doesn't change that it was a launch failure. I still don't think you actually understand what everyone else is discussing here, you continually confuse launch success/failure

2711:

But this is a prototype... totally different expectations than an operational launch. That's what you seem to be overlooking and what sourcing seems to understand. There were several options that included a separation of prototype tests and operational missions but they were thrown out. And Apollo 13

2696:

That you still don't understand the difference between the Apollo 13's successful Saturn V launch and Apollo 13's mission failure is a serious issue. You are confusing what a success/failure of a launch vehicle actually is with something else and I suspect that is why you are finding yourself at odds

2611:

if our other articles are based on sources or not, I haven't dug into them, but this one I noticed big time. We have to let our readers know in some way that there is controversy on what the test flight accomplished. Even if it's just a footnote telling readers about the different printed arguments.

2610:

I admit that consistency is important, but if the article does not follow the plethora of sources then we cease being an encyclopedia based on printed facts. Sources are all over the place on this topic and we can't just pick one because it makes our other articles look neat and tidy. I have no idea

2595:

The information we give needs to be consistent, else we mislead readers of this article. I know you have previously stated that you don't care about other articles, but that raises concerns about why you think we should be treating this article differently. I feel like we have gone over this so many

1240:

is fraught with issues, while also being split from the project/vehicle itself is exceptional. A merge, ideally, should also address the numerous problems of the aforementioned article, especially relating to its high dependence on primary sources, video, extensive jargon use, and possibly excessive

451:

After reading the current policy, full protection is now deemed an acceptable alternative to striking involved user accounts when an edit war involves multiple parties. Edit war was the reason invoked by admin in the protection log. In short, I'm afraid there's not much to complain about to the ANI.

2974:

Agreed that failure is now the law of the land here. No problem with that. I also agree that a simple note showing that many sources don't agree with that is appropriate, especially since it's a prototype. We are an encyclopedia that simply gives the info that's out there and we let readers make up

2659:

I don't think any of the multitude of sources have used those exact terms of "that the vehicle/spacecraft suffered a failure in flight that left it unable to carry out the mission." I guess this is what makes politics and other topics so interesting to discuss... that several people can look at the

2249:

While we ignore more sources that say partial failure, partial success, and moderate success? C'mon. Consensus on listing it as failure or partial failure will likely be handled by the closer depending on strength of argument or number of hands up. Either side is certainly not wrong at all, however

492:

While the old image shows the vehicle in more detail, it is showing an outdated set of prototypes (B4/S20). In order to accurately show what the vehicle looks like, the newest set of prototypes should be used. The new image I've added is of B7/S24, the most recent set of prototypes. Furthermore, it

107:

3430:

Now that I think about it some more, I think the tense was fine. Keeping it as is makes it simply misleading; I think part of the problem with the wording in the whole history section is that it gives way too much detail and consideration to concepts that never progressed beyond the drawing board.

3400:

The use of "would have" there is confusing as the statement still holds true for Starship. All these tense changes need to be reverted or more thought put into how things are phrased. Or aspects of the history section moved into the design section. Or phrased as "this was the first time that X was

3103:

As to my revert of the section heading changes, it's because "Announcement of" doesn't really describe the sections well. The sections describe the individual development phases and segment the time periods when the vehicle was called by various other names and the events that happened when it had

2644:

Just to be clear, the "plethora" you mention, from what I've seen tend to note that the vehicle/spacecraft suffered a failure in flight that left it unable to carry out the mission, while putting a quoted statement "successful failure" or something like that and attributing it as a quote. It's not

2194:

It boggles my mind as to how people will obsess over something that is extremely obvious and turn it into an absolute intergalactic war when the answer is right in front of their eyes the whole time. The ship has been resting on the ocean floor for quite some time now; why do you still insist that

523:

I do not think B7/S24 has featured any visual differences from B4/S20 that are enough to warrant the image to be removed IMHO; the in-flight image is too small for readers to have an idea of the configuration of Starship. Best way is to use B4/S20 for the time being while a B7/S24 stack image with

138:

3184:

I've also had many of my edits reverted in the past so my feeling is the same. Let's discuss the edits a bit more as I found the information being removed should be kept but I can kind of see why the place the information was located at was maybe not the best for it. Can you try an edit where the

2674:

I'm sorry, but I don't get what the point of bringing up Apollo 13 is. The impression I have is cut-and-dry: that the mission was a failure and was widely acknowledged and classified as such, because the goals of the mission could not be completed (and the crew placed at risk), even though nobody

2044:

You have consensus, but you haven't done the job properly. The reason people want to merge SpaceX Starship development in is because the article's content is horrible, and I was among them that agree that this is the case. Therefore, your merge must reflect that consensus: by making sure that the

1767:

I would not be in favour of that though. Those are individual vehicles with a lot of information available and a lot of history already. On this merge we currently have unanimous consensus so I'll close the discussion soon and proceed with the merge I think. We'll see what next steps lay ahead in

3878:

P.s. I maybe rushed this a bit too fast because I assumed nobody would be contrary to it (The templates are very similar) and I had initial support. Of course if other editors have very big problems with it just go ahead and revert my edit and we can discuss it better. In any case the reasoning

3830:

I'm not going to pick apart the comparisons to Apollo or Shuttle - but even the objectives you've stated are already achieved by the present arrangement. Shifting over to "program" and Infobox space program while the entire endeavour is still LV dev is a little crystal-ballish, don't you think?

3377:

One of the other problems is that the tense of the history section has been messed up a bit resulting in some confusion. Several of the vehicle elements described in the history section carried on to the current vehicle, but with the tense now changed it now sounds like these aspects are now no

2629:

While it may have been an accomplishment for SpaceX to test Starship for the first time, it is still a launch failure. I have noticed that you haven't been able to make that distinction during other discussions here, separating the success of a launch vehicle against the overall the mission,

3222:"The design for the Interplanetary Transport System (ITS) did not include a dedicated second stage solely designed for reaching orbit. Rather, the second stage function was to be fulfilled by a spacecraft that was primarily designed for long-duration spaceflight". Something like that. 3215:"The ITS did not aim to have a dedicated single-function second stage for achieving orbit. Instead, the second stage function of reaching orbit was to be a secondary role for a spacecraft capable of long-duration spaceflight. Two variants were proposed, each intended to be reusable." 3031:, I saw you reverted my section heading changes. However, after that we had the problem again that the headings wrongly suggest to the reader that all these early design proposals were real spaceships. As reason for your change you noted that the sections were redundant. Therefore I 1618:

The Starship is much closer to a rocket stage than either of these spacecrafts. Though the Shuttle OVs are critical parts of the launcher, their role and function is also pretty heavily biased towards the spacecraft element. The current Starships are planned as rocket stages, aren't

538:

Lets see, 33 engines, a completed heat shield, and chines. Those are some major changes. And the launch pad shown isn't remotely similar to what it was in the moments before launch. We shouldn't put a misleading image in as a placeholder. Better to use a less detailed image instead.

153:

1169:- Merging the articles would make a lot more sense. I suppose the outcome article would be slightly longer, but it'd be easier to promote it to a good article :). Also, both articles have the same maim picture, so merging them would avoid confusion and makes it way easier to edit. 3721:

In this case I don't see the point of having a separate article for the full stacked Spaceship+booster. We need individual pages for those vehicles as they are independent and a program page for the history of the whole thing. This article structure has also been discussed here:

3185:

information you delete is moved to say the design section? Also look at my long comment in the "Rewriting a section of the ITS design" above where I talk about past tense issue. Also I didn't revert all the edits, just a couple of them. The other ones I found more or less fine.

2741:

Then I guess I just don't see it as this article tends to crossover both those domains. Where does one draw the line between a launch failure and a launch success without injecting your own opinion rather than sourcing? Do we use some artificial wikipedia doctrine to decide?

2625:

The other launches are littered with sources, we have already covered that and provided examples during discussions above. The accomplishments of Starships first launch are less than other failed launches of other launch vehicles, which again have been covered in discussions

2675:

died. The Saturn V had a successful launch for Apollo 13, because it completed all of its objectives and had nothing to do with the failure of its payload. Failure of spacecraft and mission, success of launcher. There isn't a payload separate from the launcher in this case.

3579:

and in the future tanker variants of Starship or other payloads. A Starship can also individually fly on it's own (once in space or on another planet). So it is is incorrect to talk about a single "rocket" as it wouldn't even be clear exactly what you are referring to.

2509:

and you probably won't be the last, but while CSS highlights useful points sometimes, he has a questionable motivations and opinions that do not pair well with the creation of an encyclopedia. Sometimes it's just misinformation. I used to watch him around two years ago.

3396:

vehicle for cargo and passengers. It aimed to transport up to 450 tonnes (990,000 lb) per trip to Mars following refueling in Earth orbit. Its three sea-level Raptor engines were designed to be used for maneuvering, descent, landing, and initial ascent from the Mars

3805:

the Spaceship "program" has already had a long history and will continue to evolve substantially over time. So we should track that progress somewhere. This article should be separate from the single vehicle articles that will have their own "history" as they are

2903:

have driven everyone's patience, mine especially, far below negative infinity (and this is being exceptionally generous). Any attempt at "clarification" is just beating a dead horse. Everyone who reads up on Starship or its maiden flight will know that it's a

4334:

Well, each and every unrilaible source I brought up used twitter messages as source, so we should look there. I also asked another channel to make a video about this Topic. Maybe he will use twitter too. Insadly cant check it, since I dont have twitter.

508:

I agree, the page should show the newer version. It is also important that the image shows the vehicle in flight. However, it is very difficult to make out the Superheavy booster and Starship in the picture. If there is a better image, perhaps use that?

123:

3321:

That seems reasonable. I'm in the process of doing a bunch of edits and restorations of some of the stuff that was removed. It appears that a lot of comparisons to Falcon 9 and Saturn V were removed which were important contextualizations of Starship.

2892:

1. Whether it is a prototype or not is irrelevant. Knowledge (XXG)'s paltry information on prototypes means that it doesn't really make sense to distinguish them. And no, vehicles' status as prototype or operational does not make consistency any less

1722:

We know a fair bit about each of the Saturn V stages because they are public information. We know very little about the Starship spacecraft from SpaceX directly though: most are just educated speculation from those at Boca Chica. I'd reckon that the

221:

If the proportion of development progression to stated goals is considered (i.e., how far along are you on development of stated intent for capability), previous reusable launch system development efforts advanced to a comparable development level.

4351:

But to be clear; I'd be opposed to adding this section. The article has enough content about future/speculative capabilities that have not been demonstrated. When Starship demonstrates these (very exciting) capabilities, then we can look at them.

2495:

I really hope this is clear enough. Facts are facts, and the criteria I'm using are exactly the same criteria that are used to judge the status of other rocket launches. It's incredibly hypocritical and dishonest of you to call me "intransigent".

1965:

This is not the reason for the merge. The reason for the merge is detailed in the consensus above which you supported yourself. There was no point in having separate pages abut the same thing. If you want to improve the quality go right ahead but

3764:

The Apollo program also includes much more than just the flight hardware (CSM, LM, SV). I think this is where the problem lies. A program consists of more than just its vehicles. You in fact illustrated this pretty well by linking both

2013:

and some of your subsequent edits had to go with it. This is the problem with making such a huge revert without discussion here first. The move was days ago and several editors have already edited the page since. You need to seek

2356:

It's true that no source should be ignored, but the majority of arguments that claim that the launch wasn't a failure involve moving goalposts and creating double standards to artificially skew things in favour of Starship.

4150: 4316:

If you have a reliable source for them, then maybe we can look at it. But you need to be careful about your sources. But I'd caution against thinking anything is a "guaranteed" thing in the real world. There is no such

2479:

And, when SpaceX ended up losing control of the vehicle, they triggered the FTS (Flight Termination System) to try to end the flight. The FTS deployed, but it certainly did not end the flight as it was supposed to, as

3810:

that can have their own path even if not integrated together. They are not just components like the Apollo Service Module which is not an independent vehicle, or like the shuttle orbiter that cannot fly on its own.

2380:

This is not my opinion; it is a well-established fact at this point based on the same criteria that other launches were judged on. Your attempt to frame it as "my opinion" is you trying to push an agenda just like

2975:

their own minds about the situation. As to how someone feels or their lack of patience after coming off a block...that doesn't matter to me. But please stop using my handle in a derogatory manner and all is well.

3218:

It's "instead the second stage function of reaching orbit was to be a secondary role for a spacecraft capable of long-duration flight" that I can't figure out. I was tempted to reword it to something like this.

2045:

content that you are adding back to the article is high quality. Hopefully you have understood my reasoning. I urge you to revert your revert and perform the merge slowly. There is no rush to make stuff worse.

1950:

It's fair that you need to copy the text during the merge. But any text must require significant rework afterwards, because the reason that the article is merged in the first place is due to its poor quality.

3968:

Elon just announced a next next gen. Starship, with 18meters in diameter, and twice as much cargo to orbit, do you think, that we should write it in? It will launch years after starship becomes operational.

1908:

I've unmerged the content because it has caused the article to become unreadable. IMO it is better to not port the text from the SpaceX Starship development in verbatim, but only the high-quality sources.

3118:

Yes but the previous page also had the development including the development history of Starship spacecraft and Superheavy, which wasn't very practical and are better placed now on their respective pages.

2191:

There is also no question as to whether it "should remain" or not. It should not. It never was appropriate to mark it as "dubious", it isn't appropriate now, and it never will be. That's it. End of story.

3415:

That's a fair point, in any case it needs significant reworking. I don't think reverting the tense changes would be ideal, at least not all of them. It makes it clear that these are not current designs.

2855:

As the previous intergalactic nuclear war showed, we want consistency across all articles about rockets and rocketry. The failure really does not need any "clarification". If you still think otherwise,

3049:

What about moving the whole history section in a separate article? The content is more or less irrelevant for today's Starship. I think it would make the article better readable. Any other opinions?

1976:

No, the onus is on YOU that you do the merges properly in terms of content, as said in WP:MERGETEXT. Getting a consensus for a merge is not an excuse for a bad merge. Please discuss at the talk page.

4538:. On 5 August 2020, SN5 performed a 150 m (500 ft) high flight and successfully landed on a nearby pad. On 3 September 2020, the similar-looking Starship SN6 repeated the hop; later that month, the 2067:

so we can take all the time in the world to fix the issues you see with the article. The merge only affected some sections of this article so we can fix them. The merge was done in accordance with

676: 336: 1446: 1406: 1221: 1213: 1096:- Merging SpaceX Starship development and Spacex Starship seems like a nice solution to me, otherwise I sometimes feel like I'm copy-pasting the same paragraphs on both pages... it's repetitive. 1070: 657: 312: 4507:

and Mk2's Florida facility was abandoned and deconstructed throughout 2020. After the Mk prototypes, SpaceX began naming its new Starship upper-stage prototypes with the prefix "SN", short for "

3718:

Both structures (with or without an article for the integrated vehicle) work. But both vehicles have a "program" page detailing the history and funding of the project which is necessary I think.

1840: 749: 703: 363: 2875:

2: Clarification is desired. The vehicle that launched last month will be extremely different to the final product (if there even is such a thing). It's like calling grasshopper a falcon 9.

1350:. Basically, using "SpaceX Starship Program" would leave the fact that the Starship launch vehicle would not have a page - we would not rename the SLS page to Space Launch System Program. 2188:

For the 1000 time, there should be absolutely no question as to whether this launch was a success or failure. It was a failure, plain and simple. Arguing otherwise is beating a dead horse.

4592:'s Florida facility was abandoned and deconstructed throughout 2020. After the Mk prototypes, SpaceX began naming its new Starship upper-stage prototypes with the prefix "SN", short for " 2394:

It is not a fact at all and not established by sources. It is your opinion that we can only call it a failure. And your soapboxing indicates why you are so intransigent on the subject.

3355:

When a design is proposed that breaks records for any previous design, its important to contextualize the design versus existing rockets at the time of the proposal. For example, see

4285:

Elon didn't announce anything. There's tons of fake youtube videos going around claiming all manner of nonsense, or digging up ancient statements from years ago. It's clickbait.

744:

be a Disambiguation page, or a Redirect.--One has a feeling that "Starship (spacecraft)" is an idea that goes back to "pre World War II" - including cases of alarm, and cases of

3303:

Maybe "the second stage was planned to be used for long-duration spaceflight, instead of solely being used for reaching orbit. The two proposed variants aimed to be reusable."?

2264:

I am not saying that the sources that say failure should be ignored. No side should be ignored. Even a simple note (like the one I added to the failure label) would do the job.

2160:

IMO, the Dubious tag should remain, as the outcome of the launch is debated by various sources. Keeping it there at least somewhat acknowledges that the label is controversial.

2235:

And ignore the numerous sources, including launch catalogues that have it as failure? ok. You can pick and choose based on your opinion. But it's settled debate at this stage.

2221:

While I understand saying the discussion is settled, saying that one side is obviously wrong is, well, obviously wrong. It goes against almost every single policy I have read.

1364:

I agree with you, changing the article name to SpaceX Starship Program would probably not make the point that the main article purpose is about the full stack of the vehicle.

1459:

I think that SpaceX Starship should be kept. This would be the main article about the Starship program, so we probably want the article title no more than three words long.

437:

I will go to ANI to report this. This is just egregious behavior from both sides. It's sad to see an article that I've worked hard for 2 years having been torn by disputes.

1809:

Starship is not “just a stage”. A single booster will carry multiple starships to orbit. Each starship is independent from the booster and then goes on to do its mission.

3652:

would have Infobox space program and not Infobox rocket - and that's absurd. Starship is advertised as a launch system by the company itself and by all the writing on it.

2852:

There is no point in attempting to "clarify" it. I'm not aware of any other article that distinguishes between failures of prototypes and failures of operational vehicles.

3499:

This infobox seems more complete, likely a good idea. (note from May 8,2023 : I would like fields of both infoboxes to be kept, somehow.. not sure if that's possible)

3620:

Even when the design of Starship is fixed, there will be so many variants of the upper stage that making one, generic, description of the vehicle will be misleading.

3254:"The main function planned for the second stage was long-duration spaceflight, as reaching orbit was to be secondary. The two proposed variants aimed to be reusable." 3240:

I genuinely don't know how to reword it. I'm tempted to just not have a whole area for the second stage section and just merge them together with the main section.

3078:

Keeping the development and forking the history isn't that bad of an idea. Two steps forward one step back. I'd reckon go for it, that wall of text is an eyesore.

2366:

That's your opinion and opinion is not something we use at Knowledge (XXG). We give the info with sources and let readers make their own "opinions" on the subject.

1110:

For example, I find some info about the launch tower from a source. Should it go in Starship development, SpaceX Starbase, SpaceX Starship? There's too many pages.

2320:

Indeed there was. But it was a common theme in the compromise options, so I thought it would be a rather non-controversial way to express the unrepresented views.

1741:

Sure, I understand your argument. Maybe we should consider recreating those articles once we get more technical information if we decide to delete them for now? @

3848:

Two: During catch procedures, Super Heavy will operate without a Starship. And, after orbital insertion, the Starship spacecraft will operate without a booster.

225:

Therefore, it may be beneficial to rewrite this segment of text to reflect both prior development efforts and the developmental progress of the SpaceX vehicle.

3617:

All of the falcon 9 variants have their own Knowledge (XXG) page. Given the rate of change in starship vehicles, it would be downright foolish to do the same.

2775:

Huh? It was extremely explicitly cast as a failure. The only reason the "successful" modifier is added because nobody died, which was a very real possibility.

577:

Maybe replace the image of b4/s20 being used in the article with that? The main image should be of the vehicle in flight. But I'd love to see this new image!

192:

Maybe replace the image of b4/s20 being used in the article with that? The main image should be of the vehicle in flight. But I'd love to see this new image!

2278:

And because of that simple note (which does need some sources by the way) I didn't object to the dubious/discussion tag being removed. It seemed reasonable.

2918:

With that aside, there is precedent for separating different versions of the same launch vehicle. Look at the falcon 9 page. It's section for Failure(s) is:

2505:

I completely agree with you and this debate has become slightly ridiculous. I'm unsure however about using Common Sense Skeptic on Knowledge (XXG). You're

1980:

Ideally, do any necessary copyediting and rearranging in a separate, second edit rather than when you first paste the moved text (to simplify attribution).

1275:

support addition of "program" to page title. Starship development is not organized into a program and there's no literature supporting that name change. –

3104:

such previous name. They cover time periods of several years where several design portions were announced whereas "announcement" implies a single event.

1338:

obscures the fact that the entire launch vehicle is, as a unit, named Starship. There also exists an SLS Program (managed by CESD at NASA); there exist

1308:

is realizing this goal with the crew configuration of Starship. Drawing on experience from the development of Dragon for the Commercial Crew Program...

2697:

with so many others here, and also why your view on the launch status here on this article isn't one shared with other launch vehicles on wikipedia.

3693:

This is not a good comparison though as the SS could only carry the orbiter and not other vehicles and the orbiter could not operate independently.

785:

for now. If you search for "Starship (spacecraft)" I think you are most probably searching for the SpaceX vehicle rather than a generic "starship"

268:

was "intended to be fully reusable". Therefore the current statement that Starship is the "First intended to be fully reusable" is obviously false.

1505:

merging everything, including the spacecraft and booster article. It's better to have 1 quality article than many shitty articles. For comparison,

2682:- I'm clearly not quoting verbatim. But linking "failed to separate" and "was destroyed" is something which happens in a huge number of articles. 3289:

What does "as reaching orbit was to be secondary" supposed to me? All rockets going to space have to reach orbit. It is the minimum requirement.

2556:

I'm not terribly good at sensing irony because of the language barrier, but if you disagree with my comment you can explain if you feel like it.

2306:

There was a lot of discussion in Success or Failure 20-Apr-2023 that centred around whether or not to have such text, which was never resolved.

3162:

I'd also agree. A lot of my changes were essentially reverted. Discouraging to try to edit a page if reversion is going be the likely outcome.

1660:

Hm - can anyone think of stages NOT used on multiple different launchers that have their separate articles? Every time I think of something -

1204:, and I am looking forward to the name possibly being "SpaceX Starship Program".--Regarding same pictures in similar articles: the image(s) 1011: 969: 558: 173: 3148:

Agreed, but what's the point of doing anything if it gets reverted by Ergzay (statistically, though sometimes I do appreciate his edits).

4398:

and a couple of other mentions of widening the rocket eventually, but without serious follow-up. No need to include it in the article. --

808:

seems to be clear enough that appending (spaceraft) to the end of it would probably denote looking for the specific article in question.

2946: 1343: 247:, VentureStar, DC-3, DC-X, the list goes on. None of them ever got close to a full-scale prototype. Therefore, no change should be made 2878:

3: I added the note back in because it was the most recent stable version. As such, until this discussion concludes, it should remain.

680: 340: 3682: 1839:. (Sorry for change of heart.)--"SpaceX Starship development" article: Your welcome is worn out.--Everything else seems okay for now. 1450: 1410: 1225: 1217: 1074: 661: 510: 316: 125: 4526:

In June 2020, SpaceX started constructing a launch pad for orbit-capable Starship rockets. The first flight-capable Starship SN5 was

2837:

However, clarifying that the failure was a prototype vehicle, and not an operational launch, would give more information to readers.

2756:"Where does one draw the line between a launch failure and a launch success without injecting your own opinion rather than sourcing?" 1844: 1442: 753: 707: 367: 1293: 1062: 4380:

If something is well documented in credible and reliable reporting, it may be added. Things like this - which is not - then don't.

3359:. Also the original ITS/BFR carbon fiber design was significantly larger than the current Starship, almost twice the thrust of it. 4213:

I have found countless other youtubers who talked about this, and other websites. Youtuber(new one): elon musk zone, future unity

4183:

Well, we could make a new category for possible upgrades, and list it there, but alright. Btw, will someone write about raptor 3?

3096:

The entire history section WAS in a previous article, by consensus it was merged into this article. Available in the history at:

2896:

2. No other ærospace company in the entire history of spaceflight has been as reckless as SpaceX when this vehicle was launched.

3773:. One covers the hardware, and the other covers the 30-year human spaceflight endeavour. These things are far from synonymous. 3516:: That would be far more accurate than using the "rocket" infobox to represent this vehicle, at least during it's development. 1750: 1587: 94: 3337:

different stuff being compared (number of raptor engine, thrust, tons to LEO, etc) and columns being MCT, ITS, BFR, Starship

1287: 529: 144: 86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 4151:

Https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/08/spacex-super-heavy-starship-2-0-will-be-8-times-bigger-than-super-heavy-starship.html

4057:

Trust me, Alpha tech is unreliable. They create clickbait titles in order to get views from anyone who doesn't know better.

2872:

1: Knowledge (XXG) doesn't have a large amount of info on prototype. As such, consistency, in this case, is less important.

2151:

I don't want to accuse you of anything as this isn't your fault, but the "dubious" tag never belonged there to begin with.

1858:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1547:. Separate articles like other vehicles that include a spaceship and boosters. So merging everything would be "too much" 230: 4645:

performed a 150 m (500 ft) high flight and successfully landed on a nearby pad. On 3 September 2020, the similar-looking

3139:

does not indicate a need for splitting. There is a (dire) need to improve the quality of the content that was merged in.—

4475:

Right now it's a bit of both, we should probably settle on a standard. Here's an example of what this would look like :

3854:

Three: The program is in development. Okay. Before Artemis I launched, Artemis had a dedicated Knowledge (XXG) Article.

3733: 3608: 3572: 3554: 3466: 2063:

What issues do you see with the current content? Point them out so other editors can fix them. I Agee with you there is

2054: 2038: 1956: 1914: 1881: 1746: 1732: 1724: 1661: 1579: 1530: 1339: 1256: 1000: 951: 782: 442: 4302:

I have an Idea though. How about we make a future upgrades section, where we could write possible/ guaranted upgrades?

3998:

I saw a video, wich used elons twitter messages(?) as proof. The youtubers name is alpha Tech, if you are interested.

3686: 2204:

Agreed. With a clear consensus, there's no more debate to have. For intents and purposed, this has all but concluded.

2174:

Readers see it and may join in the conversation we are having here. A closer should come along soon to move us along.

1873: 1383: 1237: 988: 963: 888: 3711:

This is a much more comparable example to Spaceship as the Saturn V was used as booster for different payloads (e.g.

840:

had changed the outcome to partial, while it had been placed as Failure with the dubious tag at the time of locking.

493:

shows the vehicle in flight, which is what almost every single rocket's Knowledge (XXG) page has as the main image.

108:

shows the vehicle in flight, which is what almost every single rocket's Knowledge (XXG) page has as the main image.

4625:

In June 2020, SpaceX started constructing a launch pad for orbit-capable Starship rockets. The first flight-capable

4320:

That being said; if you have a source for changes you're looking to make, please provide it and we can take a look.

4012:

Alpha Tech is an unreliable source, as they have a tendency to make things up (such as 18 meter starship) for views.

457: 428: 38: 1510: 1402: 1058: 4638: 4535: 1518: 525: 524:

proper license is found, I am sure one can be found given so many people have visited Starbase in recent months.

140: 139:

proper license is found, I am sure one can be found given so many people have visited Starbase in recent months.

1346:(though no separate article for the core stage). The article for the complete set of things, however, is simply 3461:

We currently use the infobox "Rocket" on this page while we should use the "Space program" infobox like on the

1640:

Agreed for Starship HLS. I believe SpaceX defines the Starship as both a spacecraft and a second-stage though.

1514: 226: 4371: 4340: 4307: 4246: 4218: 4188: 4160: 4127: 4113: 4082: 4048: 4034: 4003: 3974: 3951: 562: 177: 1522: 1051: 993: 4357: 4325: 3604: 3564: 3550: 3436: 3421: 3245: 3230: 3167: 2980: 2747: 2732: 2717: 2702: 2665: 2635: 2616: 2601: 2399: 2371: 2339: 2283: 2255: 2179: 2050: 2006: 1952: 1924: 1910: 1728: 1526: 934: 514: 438: 129: 4366:

Well, maybe next year, when starship is supposed to get into business, we could add it, what do you think?

3271:

The entire area needs rework and to be similarly condensed anyway (condensed rather than deleted, mostly).

2072: 2064: 2018:

before making such a big move or you will disrupt editing of this page. What problems do you see exactly?

1474: 1244: 1144: 1066: 214:

What about earlier vehicles that received substantial development effort, such as (but not limited to) the

3845:

One: They are independent vehicles. SN8, SN9, SN10, SN11, and SN15 all flew without a Super Heavy Booster.

3135:

There was consensus to merge the development article into here, and this being at 42kb of readable prose,

2448:

4. SuperHeavy was supposed to separate from Starship, which did not happen when it was supposed to happen

928: 675:

I don’t see where funding for this project is discussed. Is funded by Tesla? Spacex Falcon profits? NASA?

335:

I don’t see where funding for this project is discussed. Is funded by Tesla? Spacex Falcon profits? NASA?

4367: 4336: 4303: 4282: 4242: 4214: 4184: 4156: 4123: 4109: 4078: 4044: 4030: 3999: 3970: 3947: 3898:

Settle with both infoboxes until the program matures perhaps? Only one of the infoboxes needs the image.

2015: 4417: 4232: 4202: 4174: 4141: 4099: 4065: 4020: 3989: 3917: 3859: 3792: 3766: 3678: 3669: 3625: 3521: 3069: 2994: 2954: 2883: 2842: 2325: 2297: 2269: 2226: 2165: 1608: 1583: 836:, I've reverted the infobox to the state at which the article was locked for discussion and resolution. 741: 582: 544: 498: 453: 424: 252: 197: 159: 113: 1983: 4077:

They too list twitter as a source. I belive, this is a green light. But again, you do the final call.

3946:

Exactly, this isnt a programm, this is building a rocket, there is no programm referred to by anyone.

3549:

No, this is not a space program. This is a rocket, and the infobox should be about the rocket itself.

2834:

As a consensus has formed, the label of Failure should not be removed (until a new consensus forms).

2727:

with payload or mission outcomes and achievements. Multiple people have tried to explain this to you.

571:

i have a picture of b7/s24 stacked on the pad the day before flight if you're all interested in that

186:

i have a picture of b7/s24 stacked on the pad the day before flight if you're all interested in that

4650: 4539: 3723: 2240: 2209: 47: 17: 3136: 2068: 1928: 1183:

Edit: They do no have the same image, sorry I was thinking about the page on the first test flight.

419:

I second this, why is this page protected? I don't like this, it goes against WP principles. Admin @

4741: 4705: 4671: 4029:

Iam sorry, are you sure tho? They said he talked about it on twitter. Dont write it in until then.

3903: 3700: 3504: 3342: 3308: 3276: 3262: 3153: 3140: 3126: 3083: 2561: 2538: 2515: 1787:

Sounds good. We'll let you proceed with the merging and we'll figure out everything after. Thanks!

1677: 1481: 1391: 1347: 1151: 1115: 1101: 923: 725: 471: 385: 2963:

Again, other rocketry articles don't list prototypes separately. And neither should this article.

1124:

I totally agree. They need to be clearly delimited in scope. The proposal above should fix that.

694:."--How much money is spent on Starship - that seems to be relevant for this article.--Where does 354:."--How much money is spent on Starship - that seems to be relevant for this article.--Where does 4714: 4569: 4492: 4353: 4321: 4169:

That's discussing a concept, and it's dated to 2019. Plans have changed considerably since then.

3737: 3568: 3473: 3432: 3417: 3390: 3241: 3226: 3177: 3163: 2976: 2900: 2743: 2728: 2713: 2698: 2661: 2631: 2612: 2597: 2395: 2367: 2335: 2279: 2251: 2175: 1885: 1281: 1005: 956: 4717:

says NO Italics for spaceships unless they have a specific "name". E.g. challenger, eagle etc.

1143:

I'll add however, like other have said, that the page should keep the name SpaceX Starship per

4700:

To me, no italics implies a separate article, italics implies the section of another article.

2103: 1792: 1758: 1699: 1645: 1599: 1464: 1369: 1188: 1174: 3932:

I strongly disagree. Starship is not a space program. Starship is a rocket and a spacecraft.

3575:) is also referred to as Starship. However the booster can also carry other vehicles such as 720:. Needs improvement and may not be not be in the right place on the page but that's a start. 380:. Needs improvement and may not be not be in the right place on the page but that's a start. 4722: 4686: 4437: 4428: 4413: 4385: 4290: 4228: 4198: 4170: 4137: 4095: 4061: 4016: 3985: 3937: 3913: 3884: 3855: 3836: 3816: 3788: 3778: 3750: 3657: 3621: 3585: 3535: 3517: 3484: 3406: 3364: 3327: 3294: 3190: 3109: 3065: 3028: 2990: 2950: 2879: 2838: 2787: 2687: 2650: 2382: 2321: 2311: 2293: 2265: 2222: 2161: 2141: 2095: 2080: 2071:

and undoing it days later and after other editors have worked on the article since would be

2023: 1991: 1936: 1893: 1814: 1773: 1742: 1713: 1685: 1665: 1631: 1567: 1552: 1431: 1355: 1320: 1252: 1129: 1029: 895: 849: 833: 813: 790: 772: 578: 555: 540: 494: 409: 287: 248: 193: 170: 155: 109: 4503:

respectively. Neither prototype flew: Mk1 was destroyed in November 2019 during a pressure

2492:

As you can see, Starship and SuperHeavy failed at everything that they were supposed to do.

1310: 4654: 4543: 4395: 3729: 3393: 2236: 2205: 1877: 1571: 1540: 1379: 1335: 984: 945: 884: 717: 377: 2408:

I wish I didn't have to spoon-feed all of this to anyone, but lo and behold, here we are.

4523:

collapsed during pressure stress tests, and SN4 exploded after its fifth engine firing.

3465:

article. The spacecrafts involved in this program already have their own articles (e.g.

2418:

Getting off the pad is a fundamental requirement, so the success of that does not count.

1386:, keep the name SpaceX Starship. SpaceX Starship Program would confuse a lot of people. 1303:

Not true. Of course it is organised as a program and SpaceX says it in their materials:

4737: 4701: 4667: 4585: 4577: 4504: 4500: 3899: 3696: 3500: 3462: 3352: 3338: 3318: 3304: 3286: 3272: 3258: 3181: 3149: 3122: 3098:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=SpaceX_Starship_development&oldid=1153462153

3079: 3054: 3040: 3004: 2964: 2907: 2861: 2760: 2630:

particularly with Apollo 13. You are not doing anyone any service by conflating those.

2571: 2557: 2548: 2534: 2525: 2511: 2497: 2440:

3. Perform a targeted splashdown in the Pacific Ocean near Hawaii, which it did not do

2424:

1. Starship was supposed to fly nearly one orbit around the Earth, which it did not do

2386: 2358: 2196: 2152: 2133: 1477: 1387: 1147: 1111: 1097: 918: 844:

was reverting the former, albeit removing the dubious tag, which I have also restored.

721: 652:

Regarding the infobox saying "partial failure" or "partial success" - that is probably

467: 381: 273: 4745: 4731: 4709: 4695: 4675: 4446: 4421: 4407: 4389: 4375: 4361: 4344: 4329: 4311: 4294: 4250: 4236: 4222: 4206: 4192: 4178: 4164: 4145: 4131: 4117: 4103: 4086: 4069: 4052: 4038: 4024: 4007: 3993: 3978: 3955: 3941: 3921: 3907: 3893: 3863: 3840: 3825: 3796: 3782: 3759: 3661: 3629: 3612: 3594: 3558: 3544: 3525: 3508: 3493: 3440: 3425: 3410: 3389:

design proposed in September 2016. The ship would have operated as a second-stage and

3368: 3346: 3331: 3312: 3298: 3280: 3266: 3249: 3234: 3194: 3171: 3157: 3143: 3130: 3113: 3087: 3073: 3058: 3044: 3007: 2998: 2984: 2967: 2958: 2910: 2887: 2864: 2846: 2791: 2763: 2751: 2736: 2721: 2706: 2691: 2669: 2654: 2639: 2620: 2605: 2574: 2565: 2551: 2542: 2528: 2519: 2500: 2403: 2389: 2375: 2361: 2343: 2329: 2315: 2301: 2287: 2273: 2259: 2244: 2230: 2213: 2199: 2183: 2169: 2155: 2145: 2107: 2089: 2058: 2032: 2000: 1960: 1945: 1918: 1902: 1848: 1823: 1796: 1782: 1762: 1736: 1717: 1703: 1689: 1649: 1635: 1603: 1561: 1534: 1485: 1468: 1454: 1435: 1414: 1395: 1373: 1359: 1329: 1298: 1260: 1229: 1192: 1178: 1155: 1138: 1119: 1105: 1078: 1038: 904: 853: 817: 799: 776: 757: 729: 711: 684: 665: 586: 572: 566: 548: 533: 518: 502: 475: 466:

I'm still unsure why the page has extended protection. Semi-protection is sufficient.

461: 446: 432: 413: 389: 371: 344: 320: 296: 277: 256: 234: 201: 187: 181: 163: 148: 133: 117: 4593: 4508: 4403: 3770: 3673: 3645: 3356: 1612: 1575: 1544: 1423: 1276: 745: 4613: 4603: 4597: 4564: 4557: 4520: 4516: 4512: 4488: 4484: 4060:

Unless you can find a reliable source, I don't see any purpose in continuing this.

3576: 3469: 2929: 2782:

then the launch of Apollo 13 was a success. You seem to be misinterpreting people.

2099: 1788: 1754: 1695: 1641: 1623: 1595: 1506: 1460: 1365: 1184: 1170: 2411:

For a launch to be successful, it needs to meet certain minimum criteria, such as

400:

The page has edit protection enabled for reasons not specified on the talk page. @

4094:

Until development of an 18 meter starship begins, I see no reason to include it.

1978:

but MERGETEXT does not state what you are saying. Actually it says the opposite:

1708:

Ah, right. Now that I think of it, there are lots of things like that, probably.

623: 4431:

Archival is done automatically on article talk pages. No need to do it manually.

4381: 4286: 3933: 3832: 3802: 3774: 3653: 3402: 3360: 3323: 3290: 3186: 3105: 2783: 2683: 2646: 2415:

AND it needs to satisfactorily perform all of the things in its mission profile.

2307: 2137: 1709: 1681: 1627: 1427: 1351: 1248: 845: 809: 768: 405: 265: 244: 215: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

4043:

I just watched it again. They used twitter for source. Maybe you can check it.

3386: 2481: 1680:, etc. it's something that's been integrated to multiple different launchers. 1673: 3093: 3050: 3036: 2869:

Thank you for (politely) mentioning your concerns. Allow me to address them:

420: 401: 269: 3740:

booster (and various subpages such as List of SpaceX Starship flight tests)

3225:

Anyone have any thoughts? Help? It's just such an awkwardly phrased blurb.

1615:, all variants, either a) comprise payloads, not stages or b) carry humans. 3121:

Can anyone start a discussion to fork Starship History onto another page?

4630: 4527: 4399: 3787:

We can detail the various goal of the Starship Program in this article.

3704: 3649: 3600: 3003:

Just started an RfC on this subject since I don't want another edit war.

1888:

to preserve as much content as possibile. Some cleanup will be required.

805: 764: 1212:

picture, is not the same (in both articles) - then that would be a win.

1669: 1400:

So please list the best choices, for what to call the article about the

690:

This article starts by saying: "Starship is a ... under development by

350:

This article starts by saying: "Starship is a ... under development by

282:

Done. Obviously not the first vehicle "intended to be fully reusable"

3851:

It's kinda hard to argue that the stages aren't "independent vehicles"

3712: 695: 691: 355: 351: 4122:

Did you check twitter though? The website literally shows the tweet

2218:

Your ignoring that several sources are against the label of Failure.

1694:

All of the Saturn V stages have their separate articles I believe.

656:(and POV), until the space industry (or media) has set a standard. 4573: 4496: 4074:

Well, plenty of websites talk about it, for ex.: nextbigfuture.com

3724:

Talk:SpaceX Starship#Reorganise pages relating to Starship program

3666:

The full article structures for those two examples are as follow:

2334:

The consensus on the launch status wasn't on a compromise option.

763:

I don't have an opinion to provide on this, but there also exists

4634: 4531: 4197:

Any discussion of raptor 3 belongs in the Raptor Engine Article

1591: 3831:

Calling the stages independent vehicles is also a little rich.

622:": Stage separation at flight time c. 2 minutes and 50 seconds 3745:

Given this structure the "program" infobox just fits better.

25: 1344:

Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters#Space Launch System (SLS)

3378:

longer part of the vehicle design. For example this section.

1312:

and various sources do the same (just try a google search:

627:

If any of the following stuff also can be added, then fine.

4633:

as it had no flaps or nose cone: just one Raptor engine,

4530:

as it had no flaps or nose cone: just one Raptor engine,

2413:

getting off the launchpad and not damaging the launchpad.

2094:

The reason we proceeded with the merge, as described in @

4227:

Neither of those Youtube accounts are reliable sources.

4015:

There has been no announcement of an 18 meter starship.

3530:

Done. Please review and fill in any missing parameters

1753:

in your proposition, just so we can discuss it further?

243:

Starship was the first to have a full-scale prototype.

3097: 3032: 2506: 2010: 1971: 1473:

That is way too long and confusing of a title, keep it

1088:

and inserted into the proposal. 13:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

841: 837: 595:

Infobox (and "next hurdle" for booster-with-spacecraft)

1727:

article is just parroting what this article has said.

1419:

The current "SpaceX Starship" is perfectly fine as is.

1044:

I feel that there is something related that is urgent:

702:

question might not fit, in an article about Starship.

362:

question might not fit, in an article about Starship.

4412:

Unless anyone objects, I'll archive this discussion.

3644:

I strongly oppose this. By this standard things like

2645:

the same as directly citing it as a partial failure.

1426:, which covers the complete vehicle and its program. 980:

some of the pages to obtain the following structure:

941:

For Starship we have a slightly different structure:

4568:

upper-stage prototypes, at the SpaceX facilities in

4556:

SpaceX was already constructing the first full-size

4491:

upper-stage prototypes, at the SpaceX facilities in

4483:

SpaceX was already constructing the first full-size

2935:

Something similar should be done here, looking like:

2460:

landing in the Gulf of Mexico, which did not happen

2432:

2. Re-enter Earth's atmosphere, which it did not do

873:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

3567:

as others have noted above the union of a booster (

3476:) which should be linked from the program infobox. 2773:

And Apollo 13 mission was not considered a failure.

649:Transatmospheric Earth orbit (intended) blah-blah. 604:Prototype launches (booster-with-spaceship): 1 (?) 4584:was destroyed in November 2019 during a pressure 3984:can you provide a source? I'm a bit.. skeptical. 2471:The entire launch facility was severely damaged. 1048:Change title (of "SpaceX Starship" article) to, 914:For Apollo we use the following page structure: 1443:SpaceX Starship (booster rocket and spacecraft) 1405:", or "SpaceX Starship (two stages)". Thanks! 1208:be the same. However if one can avoid that the 736:"Starship (spacecraft)" - disambig or redirect? 4394:18 m Starship was discussed for a while after 3035:the overall section name. Is this ok for you? 2250:one side may get more agreement at wikipedia. 3599:But it is still a rocket, much like how many 876:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 859:Reorganise pages relating to Starship program 8: 4618:collapsed during pressure stress tests, and 1236:I think this is a good idea. In particular, 599:Perhaps the infobox can say something like, 2860:discuss it here before adding it back in. 1927:I've performed the merge in accordance to 1242: 4649:repeated the hop; later that month, the 4622:exploded after its fifth engine firing. 3100:I personally wasn't a fan of this merge. 1882:SpaceX Starship (spacecraft)#Development 4299:Alright, only if i could check twitter… 2547:Nevertheless, thanks for the laugh ;-D 1574:main article, like we have one for the 677:2405:9800:B910:BA1B:88FC:901B:33FA:48AC 337:2405:9800:B910:BA1B:88FC:901B:33FA:48AC 4580:respectively. Neither prototype flew: 4091:All of that discussion is speculation. 2779: 2772: 2679: 2533:Euphemism for courtesy, as always. :) 1979: 1975: 1447:2001:2020:32F:ECE9:9D1E:3595:1943:D40E 1407:2001:2020:32F:ECE9:9D1E:3595:1943:D40E 1304: 1222:2001:2020:32F:ECE9:5879:240A:DCAB:1A59 1214:2001:2020:32F:ECE9:5879:240A:DCAB:1A59 1071:2001:2020:32F:ECE9:DDDC:CA43:1CDD:DA72 658:2001:2020:337:9762:A86A:78B0:B20D:35AD 313:2001:2020:32F:ECE9:E11F:F5E2:9E0E:3BA4 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4467:Should the prototypes names (besides 3211:Rewriting a section of the ITS design 2524:""""""""Slightly"""""""" ridiculous? 1841:2001:2020:32F:ECE9:88E:8F54:A428:25D2 1768:future votes. One step at the time. 750:2001:2020:32F:ECE9:7D47:F52:C4CA:66F3 704:2001:2020:32F:A3C0:80E:FC2C:BB98:750A 364:2001:2020:32F:A3C0:80E:FC2C:BB98:750A 210:“First intended to be fully reusable” 7: 2759:It's been explained numerous times. 1745:, do you want to add the merging of 1626:definitely deserve to be separated. 1012:List of SpaceX Starship flight tests 970:List of SpaceX Starship flight tests 867:The following discussion is closed. 3715:) that could operate independently. 2780:If you narrow it to only the rocket 2075:for this and several other pages. 3683:Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster 880:The result of this discussion was 828:Reverted edit by Bingelli Bongelli 24: 1586:. We should keep the article for 3603:rocket variants has been built. 1863: 1854:The discussion above is closed. 948:(=the full vehicle or "program") 302: 29: 3912:I don't think that would work. 2037:To copy paste my response from 1622:On the other hand, things like 781:I've pointed that redirect to: 4653:was fired in full duration at 4542:was fired in full duration at 4241:Alright, ill stop pushing it. 2915:Let's keep things civil, okay? 1886:SpaceX Super Heavy#Development 1539:That's not the same. You have 1010:(and various subpages such as 968:(and various subpages such as 962:with a major subpage which is 933:(and various subpages such as 1: 3385:, a large passenger-carrying 2830:Clarifying Failure In Infobox 1578:, and then keep the separate 4681:Why should we use italics? 3734:SpaceX Starship (spacecraft) 3573:SpaceX Starship (spacecraft) 3467:SpaceX Starship (spacecraft) 2039:User talk:CactiStaccingCrane 1725:SpaceX Starship (spacecraft) 1662:Delta Cryogenic Second Stage 1580:SpaceX Starship (Spacecraft) 1511:Falcon Heavy (side boosters) 1403:SpaceX Starship (full stack) 1340:Delta Cryogenic Second Stage 1059:SpaceX Starship (two stages) 1001:SpaceX Starship (spacecraft) 952:SpaceX Starship (spacecraft) 783:SpaceX Starship (spacecraft) 3687:Space Shuttle external tank 3457:Use infobox "Space program" 3257:I changed it, much better. 2292:I'll provide some sources. 1874:SpaceX Starship development 1582:article like we do for the 1519:Falcon Heavy (second stage) 1384:SpaceX Starship development 1238:SpaceX Starship development 1220:) 18:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)/ 1069:) 15:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)/ 989:SpaceX Starship development 964:SpaceX Starship development 889:SpaceX Starship development 716:I added the beginning of a 452:It's just sad as you said. 376:I added the beginning of a 4768: 3879:behind my edit is above. 1570:. It'd better to have the 1566:I totally agree with you @ 777:15:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC) 758:14:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC) 730:10:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC) 712:17:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC) 685:01:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC) 666:04:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC) 587:19:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC) 573:18:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC) 567:02:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC) 549:11:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC) 534:09:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC) 519:16:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC) 503:13:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC) 462:20:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC) 447:12:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC) 433:10:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC) 414:01:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC) 396:Why is the page protected? 390:10:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC) 372:17:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC) 345:01:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC) 297:18:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC) 278:17:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC) 264:It is obviously true that 257:17:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC) 235:07:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC) 202:19:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC) 188:18:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC) 182:02:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC) 164:11:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC) 149:09:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC) 134:16:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC) 118:13:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC) 4596:". No prototypes between 4511:". No prototypes between 3401:mentioned" or something. 1515:Falcon Heavy (core stage) 1334:"Program" in the name of 613:spacecraft: 39 kilometers 404:can you further explain? 4746:13:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 4732:12:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 4710:12:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 4696:12:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 4676:12:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 4471:) be written in italics? 4447:12:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC) 4422:12:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC) 4408:06:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC) 4390:13:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC) 4376:19:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC) 4362:18:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC) 4345:19:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC) 4330:18:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC) 4312:05:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC) 4295:23:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 4251:18:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 4237:16:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 4223:16:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 4207:16:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 4193:16:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 4179:16:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 4165:15:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 4146:15:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 4136:Can you provide a link? 4132:15:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 4118:15:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 4104:15:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 4087:15:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 4070:14:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 4053:14:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 4039:13:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 4025:13:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 4008:13:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 3994:12:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 3979:11:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 3956:18:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC) 3942:22:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC) 3726:with unanimous support. 3441:02:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC) 3426:18:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 3411:10:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 3383:Interplanetary Spaceship 3369:11:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 3347:10:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 3332:10:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 3313:10:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 3299:10:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 3281:06:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 3267:06:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 3250:02:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 3235:02:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 3195:23:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 3172:16:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 3158:14:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 3144:14:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 3131:13:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 3114:13:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 3088:12:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 3074:12:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 3059:12:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 3045:12:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 3008:21:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC) 2999:20:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC) 2985:19:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC) 2968:20:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC) 2959:18:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC) 2911:17:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC) 2888:16:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC) 2865:12:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC) 2847:11:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC) 2764:23:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC) 2575:17:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC) 2566:16:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC) 2552:16:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC) 2543:16:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC) 2529:15:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC) 2520:08:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC) 2501:23:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC) 1856:Please do not modify it. 1590:too, like we do for the 1061:or something like that. 870:Please do not modify it. 3922:18:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 3908:17:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 3894:16:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 3864:16:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC) 3841:14:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC) 3826:11:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC) 3797:18:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 3783:18:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 3760:16:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 3732:(the "program page") = 3662:15:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 3630:16:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 3613:15:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 3595:14:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 3559:14:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 3545:14:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 3526:11:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 3509:10:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 3494:09:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 3064:I'd be okay with that. 2792:12:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC) 2752:07:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC) 2737:07:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC) 2722:05:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC) 2707:04:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC) 2692:04:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC) 2670:04:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC) 2655:03:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC) 2640:03:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC) 2621:02:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC) 2606:01:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC) 2404:22:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 2390:22:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 2376:22:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 2362:22:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 2344:01:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC) 2330:00:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC) 2316:00:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC) 2302:23:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 2288:22:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 2274:22:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 2260:21:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 2245:21:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 2231:21:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 2214:21:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 2200:21:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 2184:19:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 2170:19:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 2156:18:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 2146:18:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 2108:15:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 2090:15:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 2059:15:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 2033:15:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 2001:15:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 1968:do not revert the merge 1961:14:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 1946:14:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 1929:Knowledge (XXG):Merging 1919:14:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC) 1903:15:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC) 1878:SpaceX Starship#History 1872:: Merged content from 1849:19:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC) 1824:14:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC) 1797:17:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC) 1783:16:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC) 1763:14:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC) 1737:03:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC) 1718:16:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC) 1704:13:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC) 1690:13:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC) 1650:13:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC) 1636:13:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC) 1604:13:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC) 1562:10:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC) 1535:07:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC) 1523:Falcon Heavy (fairings) 1486:16:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC) 1469:16:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC) 1455:15:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC) 1436:16:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC) 1415:15:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC) 1396:16:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC) 1374:15:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC) 1360:14:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC) 1330:13:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC) 1299:08:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC) 1261:19:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC) 1230:18:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC) 1193:16:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC) 1179:16:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC) 1156:17:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC) 1139:13:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC) 1120:16:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC) 1106:16:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC) 1079:15:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC) 1052:SpaceX Starship program 1039:14:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC) 1024:- see reasoning above. 994:SpaceX Starship Program 935:List of Apollo missions 905:14:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC) 854:13:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC) 818:14:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC) 800:14:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC) 602:Operational launches: 0 476:18:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC) 321:15:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC) 311:(by user:Gtoffoletto). 2128:Dubious tag in infobox 1972:reverted a second time 1835:: "SpaceX Starship" - 1422:For instance, we have 929:Saturn (rocket family) 629:"Subsequent hurdles": 3767:Space Shuttle program 3679:Space Shuttle orbiter 3670:Space Shuttle program 3024:History section title 1747:Starship (spacecraft) 1609:Space Shuttle orbiter 1584:space shuttle orbiter 959:(=the booster rocket) 742:Starship (spacecraft) 42:of past discussions. 4651:Raptor Vacuum engine 4641:. On 5 August 2020, 4540:Raptor Vacuum engine 4519:flew either—SN1 and 3808:independent vehicles 3571:) and a Spacecraft ( 1592:Saturn V first stage 1509:is not split off to 1306:The Starship program 526:Galactic Penguin SST 141:Galactic Penguin SST 18:Talk:SpaceX Starship 3701:Apollo (spacecraft) 2570:You're good, mate. 1678:Briz (rocket stage) 1348:Space Launch System 924:Apollo (spacecraft) 882:support for merging 633:Periapsis altitude 227:Lemniscate-waldkauz 4715:MOS:NAMESANDTITLES 3738:SpaceX Super Heavy 3605:CactiStaccingCrane 3569:SpaceX Super Heavy 3565:CactiStaccingCrane 3551:CactiStaccingCrane 3474:SpaceX Super Heavy 2901:user:Fyunck(click) 2195:it's unsinkable?? 2051:CactiStaccingCrane 2007:CactiStaccingCrane 1953:CactiStaccingCrane 1925:CactiStaccingCrane 1911:CactiStaccingCrane 1729:CactiStaccingCrane 1527:CactiStaccingCrane 1241:level of detail. 1006:SpaceX Super Heavy 957:SpaceX Super Heavy 640:Apoapsis altitude 439:CactiStaccingCrane 4736:That settles it. 4729: 4721: 4693: 4685: 4665:ALTERNATIVE MIX ? 4444: 4436: 4432: 3891: 3883: 3823: 3815: 3757: 3749: 3685:and a disposable 3592: 3584: 3542: 3534: 3491: 3483: 3479:Any objections? 2680:those exact terms 2087: 2079: 2030: 2022: 1998: 1990: 1943: 1935: 1900: 1892: 1821: 1813: 1780: 1772: 1559: 1551: 1327: 1319: 1297: 1263: 1247:comment added by 1136: 1128: 1036: 1028: 902: 894: 797: 789: 294: 286: 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4759: 4730: 4727: 4725: 4719: 4694: 4691: 4689: 4683: 4445: 4442: 4440: 4434: 4426: 3892: 3889: 3887: 3881: 3824: 3821: 3819: 3813: 3758: 3755: 3753: 3747: 3593: 3590: 3588: 3582: 3543: 3540: 3538: 3532: 3492: 3489: 3487: 3481: 2489: 2476: 2465: 2453: 2445: 2437: 2429: 2385:has been doing. 2383:User:Redacted II 2088: 2085: 2083: 2077: 2031: 2028: 2026: 2020: 1999: 1996: 1994: 1988: 1944: 1941: 1939: 1933: 1901: 1898: 1896: 1890: 1871: 1867: 1866: 1822: 1819: 1817: 1811: 1781: 1778: 1776: 1770: 1666:Centaur (rocket) 1560: 1557: 1555: 1549: 1328: 1325: 1323: 1317: 1279: 1137: 1134: 1132: 1126: 1037: 1034: 1032: 1026: 903: 900: 898: 892: 872: 798: 795: 793: 787: 698:get its income? 454:Matthieu Houriet 425:Matthieu Houriet 423:please explain. 358:get its income? 310: 306: 305: 295: 292: 290: 284: 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4767: 4766: 4762: 4761: 4760: 4758: 4757: 4756: 4723: 4718: 4687: 4682: 4548:Super Heavy B7 4473: 4438: 4433: 4396:a tweet by Musk 3966: 3885: 3880: 3817: 3812: 3751: 3746: 3730:SpaceX Starship 3586: 3581: 3536: 3531: 3485: 3480: 3459: 3213: 3026: 2832: 2485: 2472: 2461: 2449: 2441: 2433: 2425: 2130: 2081: 2076: 2024: 2019: 1992: 1987: 1937: 1932: 1894: 1889: 1864: 1862: 1860: 1859: 1815: 1810: 1774: 1769: 1572:SpaceX Starship 1553: 1548: 1541:SpaceX Falcon 9 1380:SpaceX Starship 1378:I agree, merge 1336:SpaceX Starship 1321: 1316: 1130: 1125: 1030: 1025: 996: 992:and renamed to 985:SpaceX Starship 946:SpaceX Starship 912: 896: 891: 885:SpaceX Starship 868: 861: 830: 791: 786: 738: 718:funding section 673: 609:record for the 597: 490: 398: 378:funding section 333: 303: 301: 288: 283: 212: 105: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4765: 4763: 4755: 4754: 4753: 4752: 4751: 4750: 4749: 4748: 4660:Super Heavy B7 4639:mass simulator 4578:Cocoa, Florida 4536:mass simulator 4501:Cocoa, Florida 4472: 4465: 4464: 4463: 4462: 4461: 4460: 4459: 4458: 4457: 4456: 4455: 4454: 4453: 4452: 4451: 4450: 4449: 4368:Fehér Zsigmond 4349: 4348: 4347: 4337:Fehér Zsigmond 4318: 4304:Fehér Zsigmond 4300: 4283:Fehér Zsigmond 4279: 4278: 4277: 4276: 4275: 4274: 4273: 4272: 4271: 4270: 4269: 4268: 4267: 4266: 4265: 4264: 4263: 4262: 4261: 4260: 4259: 4258: 4257: 4256: 4255: 4254: 4253: 4243:Fehér Zsigmond 4215:Fehér Zsigmond 4211: 4210: 4209: 4185:Fehér Zsigmond 4157:Fehér Zsigmond 4153: 4124:Fehér Zsigmond 4120: 4110:Fehér Zsigmond 4092: 4079:Fehér Zsigmond 4075: 4058: 4045:Fehér Zsigmond 4041: 4031:Fehér Zsigmond 4013: 4000:Fehér Zsigmond 3971:Fehér Zsigmond 3965: 3962: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3948:Fehér Zsigmond 3930: 3929: 3928: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3924: 3876: 3875: 3874: 3873: 3872: 3871: 3870: 3869: 3868: 3867: 3866: 3852: 3849: 3846: 3743: 3742: 3741: 3719: 3716: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3697:Apollo program 3691: 3690: 3689: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3638: 3637: 3636: 3635: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3618: 3511: 3463:Apollo program 3458: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3444: 3443: 3428: 3398: 3391:interplanetary 3379: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3283: 3255: 3212: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3119: 3101: 3090: 3076: 3025: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2939: 2936: 2933: 2922: 2919: 2916: 2905: 2897: 2894: 2876: 2873: 2870: 2853: 2831: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2776: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2757: 2694: 2676: 2642: 2627: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2493: 2490: 2477: 2469: 2468: 2466: 2454: 2446: 2438: 2430: 2422: 2421: 2419: 2416: 2409: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2262: 2219: 2192: 2189: 2129: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2048: 2047: 2046: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1720: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1620: 1616: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1471: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1420: 1401: 1265: 1264: 1233: 1232: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1082: 1081: 1056: 1055: 1046: 1045: 1016: 1015: 1008: 1003: 998: 991: 974: 973: 966: 960: 954: 949: 939: 938: 931: 926: 921: 919:Apollo Program 911: 910: 909: 908: 907: 863: 862: 860: 857: 829: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 737: 734: 733: 732: 714: 672: 669: 651: 650: 647: 646: 645: 638: 628: 626: 625: 614: 605: 603: 601: 600: 596: 593: 592: 591: 590: 589: 569: 559:173.176.40.172 553: 552: 551: 521: 489: 486: 485: 484: 483: 482: 481: 480: 479: 478: 397: 394: 393: 392: 374: 332: 329: 328: 327: 326: 325: 324: 323: 259: 211: 208: 207: 206: 205: 204: 184: 174:173.176.40.172 168: 167: 166: 136: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4764: 4747: 4743: 4739: 4735: 4734: 4733: 4726: 4716: 4713: 4712: 4711: 4707: 4703: 4699: 4698: 4697: 4690: 4680: 4679: 4678: 4677: 4673: 4669: 4666: 4662: 4661: 4657: 4656: 4652: 4648: 4644: 4640: 4637:tanks, and a 4636: 4632: 4628: 4623: 4621: 4617: 4616: 4611: 4607: 4606: 4601: 4600: 4595: 4594:serial number 4591: 4587: 4583: 4579: 4575: 4571: 4567: 4566: 4561: 4560: 4554: 4553: 4549: 4546: 4545: 4541: 4537: 4534:tanks, and a 4533: 4529: 4524: 4522: 4518: 4514: 4510: 4509:serial number 4506: 4502: 4498: 4494: 4490: 4486: 4481: 4480: 4476: 4470: 4466: 4448: 4441: 4430: 4425: 4424: 4423: 4419: 4415: 4411: 4410: 4409: 4405: 4401: 4397: 4393: 4392: 4391: 4387: 4383: 4379: 4378: 4377: 4373: 4369: 4365: 4364: 4363: 4359: 4355: 4354:Chuckstablers 4350: 4346: 4342: 4338: 4333: 4332: 4331: 4327: 4323: 4322:Chuckstablers 4319: 4315: 4314: 4313: 4309: 4305: 4301: 4298: 4297: 4296: 4292: 4288: 4284: 4280: 4252: 4248: 4244: 4240: 4239: 4238: 4234: 4230: 4226: 4225: 4224: 4220: 4216: 4212: 4208: 4204: 4200: 4196: 4195: 4194: 4190: 4186: 4182: 4181: 4180: 4176: 4172: 4168: 4167: 4166: 4162: 4158: 4155:there you go 4154: 4152: 4149: 4148: 4147: 4143: 4139: 4135: 4134: 4133: 4129: 4125: 4121: 4119: 4115: 4111: 4107: 4106: 4105: 4101: 4097: 4093: 4090: 4089: 4088: 4084: 4080: 4076: 4073: 4072: 4071: 4067: 4063: 4059: 4056: 4055: 4054: 4050: 4046: 4042: 4040: 4036: 4032: 4028: 4027: 4026: 4022: 4018: 4014: 4011: 4010: 4009: 4005: 4001: 3997: 3996: 3995: 3991: 3987: 3983: 3982: 3981: 3980: 3976: 3972: 3963: 3957: 3953: 3949: 3945: 3944: 3943: 3939: 3935: 3931: 3923: 3919: 3915: 3911: 3910: 3909: 3905: 3901: 3897: 3896: 3895: 3888: 3877: 3865: 3861: 3857: 3853: 3850: 3847: 3844: 3843: 3842: 3838: 3834: 3829: 3828: 3827: 3820: 3809: 3804: 3800: 3799: 3798: 3794: 3790: 3786: 3785: 3784: 3780: 3776: 3772: 3771:Space Shuttle 3768: 3763: 3762: 3761: 3754: 3744: 3739: 3735: 3731: 3728: 3727: 3725: 3720: 3717: 3714: 3710: 3706: 3702: 3698: 3695: 3694: 3692: 3688: 3684: 3680: 3675: 3674:Space Shuttle 3671: 3668: 3667: 3665: 3664: 3663: 3659: 3655: 3651: 3647: 3646:Space Shuttle 3643: 3631: 3627: 3623: 3619: 3616: 3615: 3614: 3610: 3606: 3602: 3598: 3597: 3596: 3589: 3578: 3574: 3570: 3566: 3562: 3561: 3560: 3556: 3552: 3548: 3547: 3546: 3539: 3529: 3528: 3527: 3523: 3519: 3515: 3512: 3510: 3506: 3502: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3495: 3488: 3477: 3475: 3471: 3468: 3464: 3456: 3442: 3438: 3434: 3433:Chuckstablers 3429: 3427: 3423: 3419: 3418:Chuckstablers 3414: 3413: 3412: 3408: 3404: 3399: 3395: 3392: 3388: 3384: 3380: 3376: 3370: 3366: 3362: 3358: 3357:Nova_(rocket) 3354: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3344: 3340: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3329: 3325: 3320: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3310: 3306: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3296: 3292: 3288: 3284: 3282: 3278: 3274: 3270: 3269: 3268: 3264: 3260: 3256: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3247: 3243: 3242:Chuckstablers 3239: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3232: 3228: 3227:Chuckstablers 3223: 3220: 3216: 3210: 3196: 3192: 3188: 3183: 3179: 3178:Chuckstablers 3175: 3174: 3173: 3169: 3165: 3164:Chuckstablers 3161: 3160: 3159: 3155: 3151: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3142: 3138: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3128: 3124: 3120: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3111: 3107: 3102: 3099: 3095: 3091: 3089: 3085: 3081: 3077: 3075: 3071: 3067: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3056: 3052: 3047: 3046: 3042: 3038: 3034: 3030: 3023: 3009: 3006: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2996: 2992: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2982: 2978: 2977:Fyunck(click) 2973: 2969: 2966: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2956: 2952: 2948: 2944: 2940: 2937: 2934: 2931: 2927: 2923: 2920: 2917: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2909: 2906: 2902: 2898: 2895: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2874: 2871: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2863: 2859: 2854: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2844: 2840: 2835: 2829: 2793: 2789: 2785: 2781: 2778:In any case, 2777: 2774: 2771: 2765: 2762: 2758: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2749: 2745: 2744:Fyunck(click) 2740: 2739: 2738: 2734: 2730: 2729:CtrlDPredator 2725: 2724: 2723: 2719: 2715: 2714:Fyunck(click) 2710: 2709: 2708: 2704: 2700: 2699:CtrlDPredator 2695: 2693: 2689: 2685: 2681: 2677: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2667: 2663: 2662:Fyunck(click) 2658: 2657: 2656: 2652: 2648: 2643: 2641: 2637: 2633: 2632:CtrlDPredator 2628: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2618: 2614: 2613:Fyunck(click) 2609: 2608: 2607: 2603: 2599: 2598:CtrlDPredator 2594: 2576: 2573: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2563: 2559: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2550: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2527: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2517: 2513: 2508: 2507:not the first 2504: 2503: 2502: 2499: 2494: 2491: 2488: 2483: 2478: 2475: 2470: 2467: 2464: 2459: 2456:5. Perform a 2455: 2452: 2447: 2444: 2439: 2436: 2431: 2428: 2423: 2420: 2417: 2414: 2410: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2401: 2397: 2396:Fyunck(click) 2393: 2392: 2391: 2388: 2384: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2373: 2369: 2368:Fyunck(click) 2365: 2364: 2363: 2360: 2355: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2336:CtrlDPredator 2333: 2332: 2331: 2327: 2323: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2313: 2309: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2280:Fyunck(click) 2277: 2276: 2275: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2252:Fyunck(click) 2248: 2247: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2228: 2224: 2220: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2211: 2207: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2198: 2193: 2190: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2181: 2177: 2176:Fyunck(click) 2173: 2172: 2171: 2167: 2163: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2154: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2143: 2139: 2135: 2127: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2084: 2074: 2073:WP:DISRUPTIVE 2070: 2066: 2065:WP:NODEADLINE 2062: 2061: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2049: 2043: 2042: 2040: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2027: 2017: 2012: 2008: 2004: 2003: 2002: 1995: 1985: 1981: 1977: 1974:stating that 1973: 1969: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1958: 1954: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1940: 1930: 1926: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1897: 1887: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1870: 1857: 1850: 1846: 1842: 1838: 1834: 1831: 1825: 1818: 1808: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1777: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1744: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1734: 1730: 1726: 1721: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1701: 1697: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1687: 1683: 1679: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1659: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1621: 1617: 1614: 1613:SpaceX Dragon 1610: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1589: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1576:space shuttle 1573: 1569: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1556: 1546: 1545:SpaceX Dragon 1542: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1508: 1504: 1501: 1487: 1483: 1479: 1476: 1475:WP:COMMONNAME 1472: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1452: 1448: 1444: 1441: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1424:Space Shuttle 1421: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1357: 1353: 1349: 1345: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1324: 1314: 1311: 1309: 1307: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1295: 1292: 1289: 1286: 1283: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1267: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1239: 1235: 1234: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1211: 1207: 1203: 1200: 1199: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1176: 1172: 1168: 1165: 1157: 1153: 1149: 1146: 1145:WP:COMMONNAME 1142: 1141: 1140: 1133: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1092: 1087: 1084: 1083: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1068: 1064: 1060: 1057: 1053: 1050: 1049: 1047: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1033: 1023: 1019: 1013: 1009: 1007: 1004: 1002: 999: 995: 990: 987:(merged with 986: 983: 982: 981: 979: 971: 967: 965: 961: 958: 955: 953: 950: 947: 944: 943: 942: 936: 932: 930: 927: 925: 922: 920: 917: 916: 915: 906: 899: 890: 886: 883: 879: 878: 877: 874: 871: 865: 864: 858: 856: 855: 851: 847: 843: 839: 835: 827: 819: 815: 811: 807: 804:Sounds good. 803: 802: 801: 794: 784: 780: 779: 778: 774: 770: 766: 762: 761: 760: 759: 755: 751: 747: 746:mass hysteria 743: 735: 731: 727: 723: 719: 715: 713: 709: 705: 701: 697: 693: 689: 688: 687: 686: 682: 678: 670: 668: 667: 663: 659: 655: 643: 639: 636: 632: 631: 630: 624: 621: 617: 612: 608: 594: 588: 584: 580: 576: 575: 574: 570: 568: 564: 560: 557: 554: 550: 546: 542: 537: 536: 535: 531: 527: 522: 520: 516: 512: 507: 506: 505: 504: 500: 496: 487: 477: 473: 469: 465: 464: 463: 459: 455: 450: 449: 448: 444: 440: 436: 435: 434: 430: 426: 422: 418: 417: 416: 415: 411: 407: 403: 395: 391: 387: 383: 379: 375: 373: 369: 365: 361: 357: 353: 349: 348: 347: 346: 342: 338: 330: 322: 318: 314: 309: 300: 299: 298: 291: 281: 280: 279: 275: 271: 267: 263: 260: 258: 254: 250: 246: 242: 239: 238: 237: 236: 232: 228: 223: 219: 217: 209: 203: 199: 195: 191: 190: 189: 185: 183: 179: 175: 172: 169: 165: 161: 157: 152: 151: 150: 146: 142: 137: 135: 131: 127: 122: 121: 120: 119: 115: 111: 102: 96: 93: 90: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4664: 4663: 4659: 4658: 4647:Starship SN6 4646: 4642: 4627:Starship SN5 4626: 4624: 4619: 4614: 4609: 4608:flew either— 4604: 4598: 4589: 4581: 4563: 4559:Starship Mk1 4558: 4555: 4551: 4550: 4547: 4525: 4485:Starship Mk1 4482: 4478: 4477: 4474: 4468: 3967: 3964:Starship 2.0 3807: 3677:composed of 3577:Starship HLS 3513: 3478: 3470:Starship HLS 3460: 3382: 3224: 3221: 3217: 3214: 3048: 3027: 2942: 2925: 2857: 2836: 2833: 2596:times here. 2486: 2473: 2462: 2457: 2450: 2442: 2434: 2426: 2412: 2131: 2016:WP:CONSENSUS 1967: 1868: 1861: 1855: 1836: 1832: 1624:Starship HLS 1507:Falcon Heavy 1502: 1305: 1290: 1284: 1272: 1268: 1243:— Preceding 1209: 1205: 1201: 1166: 1093: 1085: 1021: 1020: 1018:Thoughts? 1017: 977: 975: 940: 913: 881: 875: 869: 866: 842:This IP edit 831: 739: 699: 674: 653: 648: 641: 634: 619: 615: 610: 606: 598: 556:@Redacted II 511:64.67.42.115 491: 488:Image Debate 399: 359: 334: 307: 261: 240: 224: 220: 213: 171:@Redacted II 126:64.67.42.115 106: 103:Image Debate 75: 43: 37: 4724:Gtoffoletto 4688:Gtoffoletto 4631:cylindrical 4586:stress test 4528:cylindrical 4505:stress test 4439:Gtoffoletto 4429:Redacted II 4414:Redacted II 4229:Redacted II 4199:Redacted II 4171:Redacted II 4138:Redacted II 4096:Redacted II 4062:Redacted II 4017:Redacted II 3986:Redacted II 3914:Redacted II 3886:Gtoffoletto 3856:Redacted II 3818:Gtoffoletto 3789:Redacted II 3752:Gtoffoletto 3622:Redacted II 3587:Gtoffoletto 3537:Gtoffoletto 3518:Redacted II 3486:Gtoffoletto 3066:Redacted II 2991:Redacted II 2989:Well said. 2951:Redacted II 2949:in-flight) 2899:3. You and 2880:Redacted II 2839:Redacted II 2322:Redacted II 2294:Redacted II 2266:Redacted II 2223:Redacted II 2162:Redacted II 2096:Gtoffoletto 2082:Gtoffoletto 2025:Gtoffoletto 2011:revert back 1993:Gtoffoletto 1984:WP:POSTMOVE 1970:. You just 1938:Gtoffoletto 1895:Gtoffoletto 1816:Gtoffoletto 1775:Gtoffoletto 1751:Super Heavy 1743:Gtoffoletto 1588:Super Heavy 1568:Gtoffoletto 1554:Gtoffoletto 1322:Gtoffoletto 1131:Gtoffoletto 1063:46.15.87.69 1031:Gtoffoletto 897:Gtoffoletto 834:Gtoffoletto 792:Gtoffoletto 579:Redacted II 541:Redacted II 495:Redacted II 289:Gtoffoletto 266:Kistler K-1 249:Redacted II 245:Kistler K-1 216:Kistler K-1 194:Redacted II 156:Redacted II 110:Redacted II 36:This is an 4570:Boca Chica 4493:Boca Chica 4479:NO ITALICS 4469:Starhopper 3387:spacecraft 3137:WP:SPINOUT 2932:in-flight) 2904:prototype. 2893:important. 2678:Regarding 2482:this video 2458:controlled 2237:Jrcraft Yt 2206:Jrcraft Yt 2069:WP:MERGING 1674:Blok DM-03 1271:merge, do 976:Should we 611:prototype 95:Archive 10 4738:CodemWiki 4702:CodemWiki 4668:CodemWiki 4655:McGregor. 4544:McGregor. 4108:Alright. 3900:CodemWiki 3501:CodemWiki 3397:surface." 3394:transport 3353:CodemWiki 3339:CodemWiki 3319:CodemWiki 3305:CodemWiki 3287:CodemWiki 3273:CodemWiki 3259:CodemWiki 3182:CodemWiki 3150:CodemWiki 3141:Alalch E. 3123:CodemWiki 3080:CodemWiki 3005:DASL51984 2965:DASL51984 2943:Prototype 2908:DASL51984 2862:DASL51984 2761:DASL51984 2572:DASL51984 2558:CodemWiki 2549:DASL51984 2535:CodemWiki 2526:DASL51984 2512:CodemWiki 2498:DASL51984 2387:DASL51984 2359:DASL51984 2197:DASL51984 2153:DASL51984 2134:DASL51984 2009:I had to 1837:no rename 1478:CodemWiki 1388:CodemWiki 1148:CodemWiki 1112:CodemWiki 1098:CodemWiki 838:This edit 722:CodemWiki 654:overkill 644:(planned) 637:(planned) 607:Altitude 468:CodemWiki 382:CodemWiki 87:Archive 6 82:Archive 5 76:Archive 4 70:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 3705:Saturn V 3650:Saturn V 3601:Falcon 9 1986:phase. 1294:subpages 1288:contribs 1277:Jadebenn 1257:contribs 1245:unsigned 806:Starship 765:Starship 671:Funding? 331:Funding? 262:SUPPORT. 4552:ITALICS 3514:SUPPORT 3381:"* The 3033:changed 2484:shows. 2100:Cocobb8 1789:Cocobb8 1755:Cocobb8 1696:Cocobb8 1670:Delta-K 1642:Cocobb8 1596:Cocobb8 1503:Support 1461:Cocobb8 1366:Cocobb8 1269:Support 1202:Support 1185:Cocobb8 1171:Cocobb8 1167:Support 1094:Support 1022:Support 740:Should 618:"major 241:OPPOSE. 39:archive 4382:Sub31k 4317:thing. 4287:Ergzay 3934:Ergzay 3833:Sub31k 3803:Sub31k 3775:Sub31k 3713:Skylab 3676:—: --> 3654:Sub31k 3403:Ergzay 3361:Ergzay 3324:Ergzay 3291:Ergzay 3187:Ergzay 3106:Ergzay 3029:Ergzay 2858:please 2784:Sub31k 2684:Sub31k 2647:Sub31k 2626:above. 2487:(Fail) 2474:(Fail) 2463:(Fail) 2451:(Fail) 2443:(Fail) 2435:(Fail) 2427:(Fail) 2308:Sub31k 2138:Sub31k 1884:, and 1710:Sub31k 1682:Sub31k 1628:Sub31k 1428:Sub31k 1352:Sub31k 1249:Sub31k 846:Sub31k 810:Sub31k 769:Sub31k 696:SpaceX 692:SpaceX 642:250 km 620:hurdle 406:Ergzay 356:SpaceX 352:SpaceX 4574:Texas 4497:Texas 2930:CRS-7 1833:Merge 1619:they? 1210:first 1086:Agree 978:merge 635:50 km 616:Next 16:< 4742:talk 4720:{{u| 4706:talk 4684:{{u| 4672:talk 4635:fuel 4629:was 4612:and 4602:and 4588:and 4576:and 4562:and 4532:fuel 4515:and 4499:and 4487:and 4435:{{u| 4418:talk 4404:talk 4386:talk 4372:talk 4358:talk 4341:talk 4326:talk 4308:talk 4291:talk 4247:talk 4233:talk 4219:talk 4203:talk 4189:talk 4175:talk 4161:talk 4142:talk 4128:talk 4114:talk 4100:talk 4083:talk 4066:talk 4049:talk 4035:talk 4021:talk 4004:talk 3990:talk 3975:talk 3952:talk 3938:talk 3918:talk 3904:talk 3882:{{u| 3860:talk 3837:talk 3814:{{u| 3793:talk 3779:talk 3769:and 3748:{{u| 3658:talk 3648:and 3626:talk 3609:talk 3583:{{u| 3555:talk 3533:{{u| 3522:talk 3505:talk 3482:{{u| 3472:and 3437:talk 3422:talk 3407:talk 3365:talk 3343:talk 3328:talk 3309:talk 3295:talk 3277:talk 3263:talk 3246:talk 3231:talk 3191:talk 3168:talk 3154:talk 3127:talk 3110:talk 3094:Zae8 3084:talk 3070:talk 3055:talk 3051:Zae8 3041:talk 3037:Zae8 2995:talk 2981:talk 2955:talk 2926:v1.1 2884:talk 2843:talk 2788:talk 2748:talk 2733:talk 2718:talk 2703:talk 2688:talk 2666:talk 2651:talk 2636:talk 2617:talk 2602:talk 2562:talk 2539:talk 2516:talk 2400:talk 2372:talk 2340:talk 2326:talk 2312:talk 2298:talk 2284:talk 2270:talk 2256:talk 2241:talk 2227:talk 2210:talk 2180:talk 2166:talk 2142:talk 2132:Hi @ 2104:talk 2078:{{u| 2055:talk 2021:{{u| 1989:{{u| 1957:talk 1934:{{u| 1915:talk 1891:{{u| 1869:Done 1845:talk 1812:{{u| 1793:talk 1771:{{u| 1759:talk 1749:and 1733:talk 1714:talk 1700:talk 1686:talk 1646:talk 1632:talk 1611:and 1600:talk 1550:{{u| 1543:and 1531:talk 1521:and 1482:talk 1465:talk 1451:talk 1432:talk 1411:talk 1392:talk 1382:and 1370:talk 1356:talk 1342:and 1318:{{u| 1282:talk 1253:talk 1226:talk 1218:talk 1189:talk 1175:talk 1152:talk 1127:{{u| 1116:talk 1102:talk 1075:talk 1067:talk 1054:, or 1027:{{u| 893:{{u| 887:and 850:talk 832:Hi @ 814:talk 788:{{u| 773:talk 754:talk 726:talk 708:talk 700:That 681:talk 662:talk 583:talk 563:talk 545:talk 530:talk 515:talk 499:talk 472:talk 458:talk 443:talk 429:talk 421:El C 410:talk 402:El C 386:talk 368:talk 360:That 341:talk 317:talk 308:Done 285:{{u| 274:talk 270:Zae8 253:talk 231:talk 198:talk 178:talk 160:talk 145:talk 130:talk 114:talk 4643:SN5 4620:SN4 4615:SN3 4610:SN1 4605:SN4 4599:SN1 4590:Mk2 4582:Mk1 4565:Mk2 4521:SN3 4517:SN4 4513:SN1 4489:Mk2 4400:mfb 2947:OFT 1876:to 1315:) 1273:not 1206:can 4744:) 4728:}} 4708:) 4692:}} 4674:) 4572:, 4495:, 4443:}} 4420:) 4406:) 4388:) 4374:) 4360:) 4343:) 4328:) 4310:) 4293:) 4249:) 4235:) 4221:) 4205:) 4191:) 4177:) 4163:) 4144:) 4130:) 4116:) 4102:) 4085:) 4068:) 4051:) 4037:) 4023:) 4006:) 3992:) 3977:) 3954:) 3940:) 3920:) 3906:) 3890:}} 3862:) 3839:) 3822:}} 3795:) 3781:) 3756:}} 3736:+ 3703:+ 3699:= 3681:+ 3672:= 3660:) 3628:) 3611:) 3591:}} 3557:) 3541:}} 3524:) 3507:) 3490:}} 3439:) 3424:) 3409:) 3367:) 3345:) 3330:) 3311:) 3297:) 3279:) 3265:) 3248:) 3233:) 3193:) 3170:) 3156:) 3129:) 3112:) 3086:) 3072:) 3057:) 3043:) 2997:) 2983:) 2957:) 2945:: 2928:: 2886:) 2845:) 2790:) 2750:) 2735:) 2720:) 2705:) 2690:) 2668:) 2653:) 2638:) 2619:) 2604:) 2564:) 2541:) 2518:) 2402:) 2374:) 2342:) 2328:) 2314:) 2300:) 2286:) 2272:) 2258:) 2243:) 2229:) 2212:) 2182:) 2168:) 2144:) 2106:) 2086:}} 2057:) 2041:: 2029:}} 1997:}} 1959:) 1942:}} 1917:) 1899:}} 1880:, 1847:) 1820:}} 1795:) 1779:}} 1761:) 1735:) 1716:) 1702:) 1688:) 1676:, 1672:, 1668:, 1664:, 1648:) 1634:) 1602:) 1594:. 1558:}} 1533:) 1525:. 1517:, 1513:, 1484:) 1467:) 1453:) 1445:? 1434:) 1413:) 1394:) 1372:) 1358:) 1326:}} 1259:) 1255:• 1228:) 1191:) 1177:) 1154:) 1135:}} 1118:) 1104:) 1077:) 1035:}} 901:}} 852:) 816:) 796:}} 775:) 767:. 756:) 748:. 728:) 710:) 683:) 664:) 585:) 565:) 547:) 532:) 517:) 501:) 474:) 460:) 445:) 431:) 412:) 388:) 370:) 343:) 319:) 293:}} 276:) 255:) 233:) 218:? 200:) 180:) 162:) 147:) 132:) 116:) 91:→ 4740:( 4704:( 4670:( 4427:@ 4416:( 4402:( 4384:( 4370:( 4356:( 4339:( 4324:( 4306:( 4289:( 4281:@ 4245:( 4231:( 4217:( 4201:( 4187:( 4173:( 4159:( 4140:( 4126:( 4112:( 4098:( 4081:( 4064:( 4047:( 4033:( 4019:( 4002:( 3988:( 3973:( 3950:( 3936:( 3916:( 3902:( 3858:( 3835:( 3801:@ 3791:( 3777:( 3656:( 3624:( 3607:( 3563:@ 3553:( 3520:( 3503:( 3435:( 3420:( 3405:( 3363:( 3351:@ 3341:( 3326:( 3317:@ 3307:( 3293:( 3285:@ 3275:( 3261:( 3244:( 3229:( 3189:( 3180:@ 3176:@ 3166:( 3152:( 3125:( 3108:( 3092:@ 3082:( 3068:( 3053:( 3039:( 2993:( 2979:( 2953:( 2941:( 2938:1 2924:( 2921:1 2882:( 2841:( 2786:( 2746:( 2731:( 2716:( 2701:( 2686:( 2664:( 2649:( 2634:( 2615:( 2600:( 2560:( 2537:( 2514:( 2398:( 2370:( 2338:( 2324:( 2310:( 2296:( 2282:( 2268:( 2254:( 2239:( 2225:( 2208:( 2178:( 2164:( 2140:( 2102:( 2053:( 2005:@ 1955:( 1923:@ 1913:( 1843:( 1791:( 1757:( 1731:( 1712:( 1698:( 1684:( 1644:( 1630:( 1598:( 1529:( 1480:( 1463:( 1449:( 1430:( 1409:( 1390:( 1368:( 1354:( 1296:) 1291:· 1285:· 1280:( 1251:( 1224:( 1216:( 1187:( 1173:( 1150:( 1114:( 1100:( 1073:( 1065:( 1014:) 997:) 972:) 937:) 848:( 812:( 771:( 752:( 724:( 706:( 679:( 660:( 581:( 561:( 543:( 528:( 513:( 497:( 470:( 456:( 441:( 427:( 408:( 384:( 366:( 339:( 315:( 272:( 251:( 229:( 196:( 176:( 158:( 143:( 128:( 112:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index