Talk:SpaceX Starship/Archive 12

Move History section after Description section?

It somewhat breaks the flow of the reader to have the history of a vehicle ahead of the description of the vehicle. I know this is commonly how launch vehicle articles are written, but what do people think of the idea of swapping them? Or can someone give a good explanation why this ordering is important? Ergzay (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

SUPPORT. I think swapping them is a great idea. Redacted II (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding mention of the various classifications of IFT-1 and IFT-2

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

---

Since IFT-1 and IFT-2 have been called partial failure, failure, and success by different (and sometimes even the same) sources, should a section be dedicated to this?

Here's a (very) rough draft. If it lends too much weight to Partial Failure or Success, then please let me know.

"Classification of both IFT-1 and IFT-2 has been varied, with several sources calling it a partial failure or success, due to the goals of each flight. However, the majority of sources have called both flights failures, due to not reaching the desired orbit."

Redacted II (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

No. It doesn't need it's own section for multiple reasons.

1.) We've had multiple RFC's about this now. Once consensus is reached, it's reached.. The overwhelming majority of editors last time disagreed with anything other than a failure to classify this as. We have no reason to doubt the same editors will have the same views once again.

2.) More importantly; this would violate WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH. It violates WP:NPOV because this is not a discussion being had in the reliable sources. The sources are not discussing with any prominence the categorization of the launch and whether it should be a failure or success. Per NPOV, we represent viewpoints in the sources in proportion to their prominence. It's a violation of WP:SYNTH because you are coming to conclusions about the relative assessments of failure/success in the sources based on your own reading of the sources. You would need a reliable source saying what you are saying here, that "Classification of both IFT-1 and IFT-2 has been varied, with several sources calling it a partial failure or success, due to the goals of each flight".

I apologize if I'm coming across too strongly here; but I really need to make this clear that we can't keep bringing this issue up over and over again. What you're suggesting is manifestly inconsistent with Wikipedia's core policies of NPOV, SYNTH and RS. Chuckstablers (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

"1.) We've had multiple RFC's about this now. Once consensus is reached, it's reached.. The overwhelming majority of editors last time disagreed with anything other than a failure to classify this as. We have no reason to doubt the same editors will have the same views once again.-

-I apologize if I'm coming across too strongly here; but I really need to make this clear that we can't keep bringing this issue up over and over again."

That isn't what I'm trying to do. I want to note that reliable sources have called both flights successes, while also noting that the majority are calling them failures. We've seen lists of sources, so I don't think I need to go over that again.

"It violates WP:NPOV because this is not a discussion being had in the reliable sources. The sources are not discussing with any prominence the categorization of the launch and whether it should be a failure or success. "

That's not true. Reliable sources have called both launches both failures and successes.

"It's a violation of WP:SYNTH because you are coming to conclusions about the relative assessments of failure/success in the sources based on your own reading of the sources."

I'm not all that familiar with WP:SYNTH, but from my initial readings, I don't think this violates it. I'm not coming to a new conclusion regarding the outcome by combining the sources, I'm acknowledging the disagreement between the two. Redacted II (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The RFCs weren't, and can't possibly be, prohibitions on any and all mention of views stating the launches were a success. WP:NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." NPOV thus requires those views be represented because they are significant and published in reliable sources. An RFC can't change that. There is room to discuss what exactly is "proportionate" or "fair", however.

WP:SYNTH does not precluding simply stating in a neutral way that disagreement between sources exists. Aside from being WP:BLUE, sources available in this talk page have stated open disagreement directly or indirectly with WP:RSBREAKING headlines. Foonix0 (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Saying that most sources call it failure, but the most reliable ones dont shouldnt break npov, since its just a simple statement. Also it has been said, that including both negative and positive make a balance, thus achieving neutrol point of view Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

We already link to the IFT-1 and IFT-2 articles on this page a lot. All that info is already there. We don't need to bring this back up for the N'th time to try and go around consensus and RFC's. --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The goal (or at least my goal) is to note that there is disagreement among sources, and why. That doesn't "unfairly" weaken the assignment of failure, it shows that it has been debated.

Leaving out a major POV (major does not mean majority), one backed by several Reliable Sources, should be included. Redacted II (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Redacted II, So where is those RS that you mentioned? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

IFT-2

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2023/11/ift-2-launch/

"Sorry doubter's, Starship actually had a remarkably successful flight"

"In a blaze of flame and smoke, SpaceX launched the largest rocket ever built and sent the Starship craft into space—but then the vehicle was destroyed. Though the full mission was not completed, the launch represents a major step for the rocket, which NASA plans to use to land astronauts on the moon"

Doesn't call it a success or failure, cites the mishap investigation, talks about the failure of the previous flight.

IFT-1:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/22/world/starship-science-newsletter-wt-scn/index.html

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/21/1171202753/spacex-starship-launch-explosion-cheer-success Redacted II (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Not this again... DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 14:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The goal of this isn't to reclassify IFT-1 and IFT-2, it to lend due weight towards the partial failure/success arguments (as well as explain why the majority classify it as a failure. I think this will reduce the number of editors who try to reclassify those two flights). Redacted II (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

No. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 09:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

This wouldnt be misinforming others, and who dont call it failure have a good reason to do so. This wont make the failure side baseless, its just to include a major side. The example listed on the “bothsideism” isnt very accurate to what is happening here and what the goals of doing this are. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Let me say this again. To quote WP:42:

Articles generally require significant coverage

in reliable sources

that are independent of the topic.

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

From the article you linked:

"False balance is a bias which usually stems from an attempt to avoid bias and gives unsupported or dubious positions an illusion of respectability. It creates a public perception that some issues are scientifically contentious, though in reality they may not be"

The idea of "IFT-1/2 weren't failures" had significant support. It wasn't a majority, but it was a "major viewpoint", among both editors and sources. And there were valid arguments to support those viewpoints (as well as equally valid arguments against those viewpoints).

False Balance is for cases where 99% support view 1, the remaining 1% supports view 2. For IFT-1/2, it's a roughly 2:1 ratio.

Furthermore, this is a few sentences. Not a paragraph explaining why it's controversial, nor a section.

Finally, this isn't an attempt to overturn the RFCs. This is an attempt to lend due weight towards the "opposing view". Redacted II (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Redacted; you need to stop.

There have been three RFC's showing you very clearly that editors overwhelmingly disagree with what you're trying to do. You said yourself at one point that you need to learn when to "admit defeat" (the wrong way to look at it in my view, but your words). This would be one of those times.

You would need reliable sources to cite specifically talking about the classification of these launches as failures/not failures in order to justify adding that to this article.

You can't make your own assessment of the relative ratios of sources that call it a success/failure and use that as a citation. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Please stop. Leijurv (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Not part of the previous discussion, but I've reported Redacted II for the second time since they're still refusing to drop the stick and move on. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 11:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Ponzi Scheme

WP:NOTFORUM. Yasslaywikia (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Elon is persuasive. I wonder when people will travel on the system. Imagine if airliners were built the same way. Or cars, or elevators. I just wonder, enough "success" to keep the cash flow? 2A00:23C6:F680:2C01:E574:709E:9B4:C0 (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC) Please keep comments on-topic and related to improving this article. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC) Should I hat this section as off topic and NOTAFORUM? User3749 (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Rapid Prototyping

WP:NOTFORUM. Yasslaywikia (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How exactly is this better than scientific method? 2A00:23C6:F680:2C01:E574:709E:9B4:C0 (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC) WP:NOTAFORUM. User3749 (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Failures

Did you see launch pad chunks in the air at launch, thermal tiles detaching on return, flames around the engine bay on re entry burning up the plumbing. Being positive is great but emperors new clothes here. What goes up must come down, in one piece people. Rockets aren't new. 2A00:23C6:F680:2C01:E574:709E:9B4:C0 (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Starship blew up. The principal mission objective was for it to not blow up. Those are the facts. At the very least, it should be a partial failure, but frankly I think we should wait a bit for more information to come in to make a definitive determination between partial failure and total failure. 184.181.39.72 (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Starship did not blow up. It was lost on entry but ascent (as far as literally every other launch vehicle goes) were successful.

Neither the booster nor ship were planned for recovery and both were anticipated to breakup.

JudaPoor (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't really feel like responding to this because there are multiple discussions above and below, and the purpose for it is to gain data to make Starship better. It's a test flight and although the full mission wasn't a complete success (success in this context defined by achieving every mission objective), the launch itself was a success. User3749 (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I thought the flying FONDAG and other OLM debris was in IFT-1 only. I didn’t see it in both IFT-2 or 3. CaptHorizon (talk) 09:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

That did not happen on IFT 3. Most vehicles burn up on entry too including the Saturn V you guys love to keep bringing up.

Consensus and precedent are clear. It was a success JudaPoor (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

A success, it crashed and burnt, no survivors. Were the space shuttle disasters partial successes. You can have my place to mars. 2A00:23C6:F680:2C01:E574:709E:9B4:C0 (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I propose removing Success and Failure statistics for now and leaving only total Launches. As SpaceX is using iterative development model, one could call all the launches (partially) successful (1st launch cleared the pad, 2nd launch enabled the vehicles to separate, 3rd launch reached orbital speeds etc.). At the same time, none of the launches reached all mission objectives. When test flights are over, we can start using Success/Failure statistics for operational flights as already proposed by Ergzay. IlkkaP (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Consensus poll

Reply once with either a yes or no option to the two questions.

Based on previous requirements for success (being a targeted orbit not entry) do you consider IFT 3 a Success or a Failure?

JudaPoor (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Two problems here. First, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. And second, it's a false dilema. There is also Partial Failure, which is a classification given to other similar missions (most notably Apollo 6). That mission is classified as a partial failure on the Saturn V page despite accomplishing more mission objectives than IFT-3 did. Gojet-64 (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Apollo 6 was targeting a different orbit. It had a complete propulsion failure

Starship broke up way past other missions would have.

It also met all but 3 objectives. Apollo 6 had more objectives but its partial failure is based on the failed restart not the milestones reached.

I will happily allow an additional partial failure option however the purpose was to gauge consensus on whether it was or was not a success (which based on the previous requirements from 1&2 being a target orbit insertion) it was

How can Wiki be consensus driven if polls or measurements for consensus aren't possible? JudaPoor (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

"Apollo 6 was targeting a different orbit" It was targeting LEO as its initial orbit, which it reached.

"It had a complete propulsion failure" Which doesn't sound as catastrophic as a complete structural failure.

"Starship broke up way past other missions would have" Something Apollo 6 didn't suffer at all.

"Apollo 6 ... partial failure is based on the failed restart" IFT-3 also did not accomplish a planned engine restart.

"How can Wiki be consensus driven if polls or measurements for consensus aren't possible?" I apologize, I assumed this was aiming to resolve the dispute with a simple poll. I understand now that was an incorrect assumption to make. Suffice to say, my vote on the matter is partial failure, mainly based on he precedent of other similar missions (e.g. Apollo 6) Gojet-64 (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Apollo 6 is a bad comparison. It had multiple propulsion failures, entering an off-nominal orbit, and it's engine failed to restart (IFT-3 had a planned engine relight, but this was canceled and wasn't mission-critical).

Meanwhile, IFT-3 had a flawless ascent (which is the only part that even matters for success v.s partial v.s failure, according to established precedent), and even ignoring that achieved all but one of it's tests. Redacted II (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Technically it could be argued it didn't achieve 3. Being booster landing burn, entry and controlled decent. But agreed

Past precedent was constantly brought up in previous discussions for flights and the requirement of success being the targeted orbit was repeatedly stated. I am not a fan of some (not many) wanting this goalpost to be moved JudaPoor (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

That's false. It was targeting a high earth elliptical orbit (to simulate a direct return from the moon).

All rockets burn up on entry btw. So did the SIVB from Apollo 6. If there was a payload deployment planned it would've happened. For literally every launch that is a success. That is the end goal of a launch

They didn't conduct the restart but that was an additional milestone not one they needed to. They did conduct the rest of the demonstrations.

All of this is screaming to me that you don't follow spaceflight or at least not closely.

I think we can agree to disagree though since this was intended as a measure for consensus to avoid disputes or at least clarify positions. JudaPoor (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

"[Apollo 6] was targeting a high earth elliptical orbit" Then we could equally make the argument that IFT-3's "intended trajectory" was to splash down in the Indian Ocean (in one piece), which it failed to achieve.

"All rockets burn up on entry btw" Failures of reentry vehicles are still considered failures (See Space Shuttle... granted, this is the only precedent for a reentry vehicle which is also integral to the launch process). However, this comes back to the ambiguity of whether missions or launches should be counted (A clarification that is made on the Space Shuttle page).

"All of this is screaming to me that you don't follow spaceflight or at least not closely" Oh I most definitely do, and have been noticing all the special treatment SpaceX has been receiving of late (The fact that both IFT-1 and IFT-2 were wanted to be classified as successes boggles my mind). It just saddens me to see SpaceX held to a different standard than any other launch operator here on the "neutral" Wikipedia. I'll drop the stick if the consensus of the other editors differs, but please be sure to keep any biases in check. Gojet-64 (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Apollo 6 was not inserted into it's intended orbit due to two engine failures during launch, IFT-3 was inserted (as far as we are aware so far) into it's intended sub-orbital trajectory. There isn't any real similarity here.

As for the Shuttle counting missions instead of launches, that is the only page that does so and that is a question more for the Shuttle wiki page, not here. For every other launch vehicle the success/failure is for launches. CtrlDPredator (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

See, this is the problem. Editors have been repeatedly stating that for Starship, "Everything after SECO is irrelevant". Apollo 6 had a successful insertion into LEO. So by that standard, everything after that SECO "is irrelevant". Why is the goalpost getting moved around for only Starship like this? Gojet-64 (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Apollo 6 was not inserted into the planned orbit, not sure how many times that needs to be pointed out. It isn't similar in any way to IFT-3 which was on its intended sub-orbital trajectory.

The goalposts are not being moved. IFT-3 would be classed as a launch success as per any other launch vehicle page on Wikipedia except for the Space Shuttle.

The problem here isn't with IFT-3, but with the Space Shuttle page. CtrlDPredator (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

And IFT-3 did not reach its intended final trajectory either (namely, Indian Ocean impact)

So which is it? Initial orbit, or intended final trajectory? You're applying the former to Starship, and the latter to Apollo 6. Why does the threshold for success stop at SECO for Starship but not for Apollo 6? Gojet-64 (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

IFT-3 never reached orbit, it was on a sub-orbital trajectory, which is why I don't refer to it's orbit. It reached that trajectory, that it was destroyed on reentry has nothing to do with the launch.

The Saturn V for Apollo 6's launch had multiple engines fail during launch and was not inserted into the planned orbit, that was before SECO.

So the question really is actually the opposite of what you are asking. CtrlDPredator (talk) 09:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Engine failures are not in themselves cause for a mission failure. Falcon 9 has had missions with engine failures that still reached the desired orbit. And the planned initial orbit for Apollo 6 was always LEO, followed by an engine restart to TLI. I'm not sure how many times that last part needs repeating. Gojet-64 (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

But engine failures that insert you into the wrong orbit do.

Apollo 6 was meant to be in a 190km circular orbit, but instead was inserted into a 173km by 360km elliptical orbit. Trying to claim that it was "still LEO" is disingenuous. The Apollo 6 Saturn V launch gets the partial failure because it was still able to complete many of its objectives despite the poor launch.

And absolutely none of this has anything to do with IFT-3, which didn't have any issues during launch and was inserted in its correct trajectory. CtrlDPredator (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@JudaPoor and @WyoGrad2024, please stop edit warring and discuss on the talk page instead of the edit summary. Redraiderengineer (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The dispute part is not false.

There are editors who are disputing it.

(Yes, it will almost certainly continue to be labeled as a success, with no disputed tag, but this is part of the process) Redacted II (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The consensus in this thread is clearly in support of it being a success. Of course not everyone agrees but to claim it's disputed is false especially when that's based on ignorance not facts JudaPoor (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The majority (all but 2-3 IIRC) say success.

But the process is the process. Keep the disputed tag for a week.

Just ask yourself "would I want the disputed tag to remain if the situation was reversed?" Redacted II (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with it for any. My point is that by the logic of 1 or 2 all should have a disputed tag.

Personally I think they shouldn't be counted as either due to the developmental nature of the flights and possible confusion between them and operational flights.

JudaPoor (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

"I don't agree with it for any. My point is that by the logic of 1 or 2 all should have a disputed tag."

IFT-1 and IFT-2 aren't being discussed. So they aren't disputed (and trying to add disputed to either will go VERY badly, so please don't).

"Personally I think they shouldn't be counted as either due to the developmental nature of the flights and possible confusion between them and operational flights."

Agreed, but most likely, once v2 starts flying, these will all be labeled as (v1)

Finally, if you don't mind, I'll move this tangent to a dedicated section. Redacted II (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

That's incredibly threatening. Maybe that's not a good look for you guys when that's what you resort to.

I also was simply explaining my opinion and position after you asked about it prior. I thought I made that clear

I'd prefer to keep this open for others to see JudaPoor (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

"That's incredibly threatening. Maybe that's not a good look for you guys when that's what you resort to."

How was that threatening? Trying to add that tag will go badly (trust me, ANI is not a pleasant part of Wikipedia to be).

"I also was simply explaining my opinion and position after you asked about it prior. I thought I made that clear"

And then enforcing it in the infobox, deleting the disputed tag while it is being disputed.

"I'd prefer to keep this open for others to see"

I wasn't saying "delete this", just "give it it's own dedicated section", so it isn't sending a notification to everyone who doesn't want to take part in this argument. Redacted II (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

It came across as a "try and edit it and you'll be suspended". I apologise I misread

There is a clear consensus as you acknowledged. That was enough to remove them from the previous two.

Understood for the last part. Agreed JudaPoor (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Consensus is not always truth, sometimes just belief. Honestly held but misguided 2A00:23C6:F680:2C01:E574:709E:9B4:C0 (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Redacted II On the v2 aspect feel free to respond to the section I created below. Ergzay (talk) 07:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Judging the successfulness of a rocket launch is something that us Wikipedians shouldn't do. This is something that independent secondary sources (reliable sources) do, not us. Instead, we evaluate a wide range of reliable sources, and if a majority of them state X, then the article states X. If a roughly equal amount of sources state X or Y, then we state X or Y. If this proves to be contentious, then we discuss to come to a consensus on the issue. Most sources, e.g. [1], [2] & [3] conclude that the launch was either successful or partially successful/a failure, so I'm inclined to include either option. Yasslaywikia (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect mass/thickness of barrel sections

The description section mentions that the "cylinders have a diameter of 9 m (30 ft), a height of 2 m (7 ft), a thickness of 4 mm (0.16 in) and a mass of 1,600 kg (4,000 lb) each" Together these numbers don't make sense unless SpaceX has created an amazingly dense stainless variant. It would be in the ball-park of 560 kg with those dimensions. The source doesn't mention the thickness of the barrel so I am unsure where the 4mm number is taken from. For the math to make sense the thickness should be slightly thicker than 1.1cm. It is an old source however (2020) so it could be that the 4 mm thickness is more up to date - and that it's the mass number that's the issue instead. Tokemich (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, I only now read that the 9m is the diameter and not length. Tokemich (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

3rd flight test feb 2024?

"SpaceX is currently planning its next Starship launch, Starship Integrated Flight Test 3 (Starship-IFT-3), for February 2024."

What is the planning in March 2024? Uwappa (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I've changed this text to say March 2024. User3749 (talk) 11:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Some sources say NET March other NET April. After successful WDR 4th March, the FAA approval will take minimum 2-3 weeks ===> April is much more likely than March — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.146.191.212 (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems like the FAA was quite speedy Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Starship IFT-3

I think this time we can agree that its a succes, since it did reach intended trajectory (as far as I know) Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. B10 loss doesn't matter, as that isn't part of ascent. Redacted II (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed too, but let's wait until we know if all objectives have been accomplished or not (re-entry etc.) just in case Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The orbital test objectives don't matter. Success v.s failure is decided between 0:00 and 8:35 for the ship, and between 0:00 and 2:42 for the booster. Redacted II (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I belive re entry happened, but it lost control some way into it Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

yes it did but reentery was always gonna be the hardest part fans such as I knew this since before ift1 in fact I would've been surprised if it did survive reenetry Onemarsyboi (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

While I'm glad you keep up with Starship dev, try to stay on topic. Redacted II (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Launch itself should be considered a success as it reached orbital velocity unlike the past two flights. Landing for Super Heavy should be loss on landing and apparently re-entry was not successful. User3749 (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed for outcome: success ---> booster: loss on landing ---> ship: loss on re-entry Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I feel one should not claim that orbital velocity was achieved. From the detaile article on this test flight, you see that periapsis (lowest point of orbit) was 50 km below ground. From the article in SpacDaily, I calculated that achieved speed was about 1000 km/h below orbital speed. QthTue (talk) 07:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The flight was sub-orbital CtrlDPredator (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Let the dust settle. When more information is available from reliable sources, the outcome of the launch can be added based on the consensus. Redraiderengineer (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/14/world/starship-launch-spacex-scn/index.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/14/spacex-starship-rocket-third-test-flight-launch.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-launch-super-heavy-starship-rocket-third-test-flight/ Redacted II (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion is to wait on adding the outcome to the infobox per WP:RSBREAKING.

Not all of the sources listed directly support "success." According to the CNN article, "The company routinely frames failures during these early test flights as normal."

Additionally, the FAA will also oversee a mishap investigation. "A mishap occurred during the SpaceX Starship OFT-3 mission that launched from Boca Chica, Texas, on March 14." [4] Redraiderengineer (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

According to wikipedia precedent, reaching the desired orbit=success.

S28 reached the desired (not) orbit.

Therefore, success Redacted II (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

FAA announcing a mishap investigation is not relevant in this context. Plus, saying "[SpaceX] routinely frames failures ... as normal" isn't directly calling it a failure, but that source does not state in its own tone that it was a success. User3749 (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that a mishap investigation likely involving what happened after MECO means the launch was a failure (or even a partial failure). If the FAA/other RS announces that there was a mishap during launch that opinion will change but I don't see evidence for that RN. Rainclaw7 (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

NASA has called it:

https://twitter.com/SenBillNelson/status/1768288689694642398

"Congrats to @SpaceX on a successful test flight! Starship has soared into the heavens. Together, we are making great strides through Artemis to return humanity to the Moon—then look onward to Mars." — NASA Administrator Bill Nelson

Mysterius (talk) 04:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Launch success, Booster landing failure (very much like early F9), Ship lost prior to landing (precluded). Suborbital rather than TAO (since in-space maneuver which would have raised perigee did not occur).Jrcraft Yt (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The maneuver, IIRC, would have lowered perigee.

If they said otherwise during the official livestream, then it's suborbital. Redacted II (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

At about 1:14:00 in the stream, they said the test relight would raise the perigee ("the opposite of a de-orbit burn"). At ~1:15:05 they explained that it would be at a steep trajectory and would be "coming home no matter what."

It's unclear if the resulting perigee would have been positive from the information in the stream. Foonix0 (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

According to calculations by Jonathan Mcdowell, without the engine burn, perigee is -100 (or was it -50?) km.

My objection is withdrawn. IFT-3 was (technically) suborbital Redacted II (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd say partial success, as the booster completed almost all objectives. Ship failing during reentry certainly triggered a mishap investigation, so that will prevent the mission from being fully successful Stoplookin9 :) Send me a message! 15:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Launch success, not full mission success :) Jrcraft Yt (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand what you mean here but we are talking about the launch itself. On the page SpaceX Starship flight tests we have separate outcomes for the launch itself (the ascent phase), booster landing (everything Super Heavy does after hot staging), and spacecraft landing (everything from deorbit, reentry and landing). Landing phases are viewed separately from the launch itself. Same thing applies here. User3749 (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah exactly this Jrcraft Yt (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, and we already have the booster splashdown failure and Starship splashdown preclusion on the proper page. The infobox asks about the launch and that was a success. Rainclaw7 (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

It was a failure because did not reach the surface of the Indian Ocean intact as planned. May also take Columbia disaster as a reference: it was classified as a failure in the Space Shuttle article. 42.98.182.158 (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Columbia lost crew. Very different.

Success for launch only means it launched successfully. Everything after SECO is irrelevant. Redacted II (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The overall mission was not successful, but there is a distinction between mission success and launch success (which is what we are discussing here). A better comparison would be to the launch of Starliner OFT-1, which is recorded as a success even though the overall mission was a partial failure. Rainclaw7 (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

If we're keeping this consistent with other launch vehicles, I think Partial Failure would be the fairest judgment. IFT-3 was almost identically-successful as Apollo 6 (Reached [intended] orbit, failed to perform engine relight. Starship additionally did not survive reentry, which was a mission milestone). However, 2 things:

1: As other editors have mentioned, it is unclear whether Starship statistics should measure mission success (e.g. Space Shuttle) or launch success (e.g. Falcon 9). I believe it's important that we come to a consensus on this matter.

2: We should also make our judgement based on how most third-party sources are describing the flight. Wikipedia is meant to follow what sources say, not advocate for its own positions (WP:PODIUM) Gojet-64 (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed now that I think of it, we have to follow what reliable sources say, let's wait a day or two to see Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Not trying to to Bludgeon the discussion, but the RS have declared it a success:

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/outlook/article/spacex-test-launch-rocket-booster-elon-musk-moon-18986410.php (Separates IFT-3 from 2 and 1, calling the earlier flights partial successes)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/03/14/spacex-starship-test-flight/ (most successful yet)

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/spacex-starship-third-test-launch-thursday-rcna143286 (Starship launches successfully) Redacted II (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, aguess so be it! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

No, as launch was flawless (0 engine failures, 0 known issues during flight).

The booster Mishap was after Stage Separation. According to established precedent (Falcon 9), this is irrelevant for success v failure.

The ship burned up on reentry, but the same precedent applies.

Furthermore, upper stages (not just reusable stages) being destroyed after SECO has never meant launch failure or partial failure. There have been multiple Delta II upper stages and Centaurs that explode in orbit after SECO.

Launch success does not require mission success. Redacted II (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but still, that's us making those thoughts, remember that Wikipedia is a tertiary source trying to summarize what reliable sources say Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Not to nitpick, but whats different between partial failure and partial succes? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

One is an official category. The other is identical, just not officially recognized Redacted II (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Can we all agree the disputed part of this is false. The success criteria (as many of you stated before) was the targeted orbit. It did that. So by the boundaries set for 1&2 it was a success. Anything other is moving the goalposts

Entry and landing are secondary and if there was payload on the flight going to an orbit it would've been a success.

Numerous industry leaders including the NASA Administrator called this a success.

Funny how quickly the failure disputes get shut down but the moment there is a success it's disputed. If this is seriously going from clickbait headlines yall need to grow up and learn journalists don't have more knowledge or expertise than engineers

This should not be disputed because of personal gripes or ignorance JudaPoor (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Please know that Wikipedia relies on statements from reliable sources in articles, and that gathering consensus through discussion is at the basis of decision-making in Wikipedia. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Consensus here looks firmly as a success. That's also not what I was told before and plenty of high quality sources (NASA, SpaceX, Thomas Zurbuchen, Chris Hadfield) testify to it being a success.

Articles also don't abjectly call it a failure but simply call it's a Loss of vehicle which happened after a norminal flight. For any other vehicle this would be indisputably a success. JudaPoor (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

If success/failure is determined by the mission, as it should be, this was a failure in the technical sense. The mission was to land Starship in the Indian Ocean and Super Heavy in the Gulf, neither of which happened. On the wiki page for the Space Shuttle, under Launch History, Columbia (which burned up on reentry) was listed as a failure, and the same metrics should apply for Starship. 184.181.39.72 (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

STS-107 carried crew, which is why it was a failure.

Recovery doesn't matter for success v.s failure, according to very well established precedent with Falcon 9. Therefore, anything after 8:35 doesn't matter. And since the ship and booster had flawless ascents, there is no reason for it to be anything but success. Redacted II (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

On the Space Shuttle page, they are listing success and failure of missions, not launches. They even have a note saying they are doing things differently.

That also means they obscure an abort-to-orbit which for a launch should be a partial failure even if the mission was still successful. CtrlDPredator (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

But SHOULD it be? Thats the question. Most people are fine with counting launches, not missions. And I dount we want to start another month long dispute about that too. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

If so, then first Vulcan launch was also a failure, as Peregrine mission failed. Elk Salmon (talk) 11:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I’m unfamiliar with the subject so I can’t provide much comment, but what precedent was established for the success criteria of Falcon 9 (Heavy)? I think this would be a good starting point to resolving the dispute. I participated in the previous RfCs involving IFT-1 and IFT-2 which resulted in excessive drama, so it’s ideal that we get this over with ASAP as to not waste contributor time. Yasslaywikia (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Falcon 9 had several stages fail to be recovered. These failed recoveries didn't impact the wikipedia designation, establishing a precedent for what is part of launch and what isn't (in terms of success v failure).

I couldn't agree more on the goal of getting this over quickly. But at the same time, this should last about a week before being closed, to give everyone a chance to voice their opinion. Redacted II (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I see, thank you. After reviewing the article on Falcon 9 test flights, e.g. Grasshopper, it would be ideal if the success criteria for IFT-3 et al to be assessed on the basis of each system tested from what reliable sources say. The sources I’ve searched through so far haven’t come to a conclusion on what they thought of the test flight, so I think we need to wait a little while as you say to see more reliable sources publish their opinions on the flight. However, they seem to allude to the flight being a partial success/failure, for example this article from the Guardian [link], which to me seems to be a reasonable reading of the article. However, I haven’t done an in-depth look into the subject yet, so we’ll need to compare more reliable sources to come to a proper conclusion. This is a step in the right direction though. Yasslaywikia (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Journalists are not reliable sources. Industry leaders are. All industry leaders including the NASA administrator called this a success

Past precedent for calling successful missions successful would make this a success.

The consensus is clear JudaPoor (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've read, it seems there's an inconsistency between prior success/failure metrics, where Falcon 9 is determined by a successful launch and the Space Shuttle it determined by a successful mission. If so, why is this the case? And shouldn't this be changed for consistency, regardless of which way it goes? 184.181.39.72 (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

If crew is lost due to a part of the vehicle (and the shuttle was a part of the vehicle), Auto-failure. After all, calling a mission a success when seven astronauts died is just wrong.

Otherwise, if the launch is successful, anything afterwards doesn't matter. Redacted II (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

"Otherwise, if the launch is successful, anything afterwards doesn't matter." Not exactly. See: Apollo 13, which is listed as a failure, and rightly so. I get your point about the crew, and that makes sense, but it just doesn't seem right to call something a success if not all mission objectives are met. 184.181.39.72 (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Apollo 13 was a successful launch of Saturn V. The issues with the service module were unrelated to launch.

The Saturn V has one partial failure, which is actually the Apollo 6 launch. CtrlDPredator (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I think partial failure is a reasonable assessment. 184.181.39.72 (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Loss of crew after launch doesn't automatically mean the launch was a failure. Soyuz 11 was a successful launch of the R-7, but the capsule depressurised on re-entry and the crew died.

For Columbia, the launch caused the damage preventing a safe return. CtrlDPredator (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I would like to re-emphasis this:

"If crew is lost due to a part of the vehicle"

Soyuz 11's loss was not the fault of the rocket.

And Apollo 13 isn't listed on the Saturn V page as a failure. Redacted II (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah ok, I see. 184.181.39.72 (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia must not lose its independence and must call things as they are. Namely - failure. Otherwise, the attitude and rhetoric of SpaceX that they have towards themselves would be adopted. To brag about themselves. 87.252.175.140 (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

We are only talking about the launch, not the full mission. The launch part is all that happens during ascent which was essentially flawless. User3749 (talk) 06:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Infobox, launch lists and statistics all have an entry for the launch, not the full mission. I don't see how it could be anything than a launch success. It reached the target trajectory. Booster and ship landing failed, obviously. We use the same groups for Falcon 9: List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches#2020. --mfb (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a personal opinion and assumes bad faith. The NASA administrator, past precedent, past requirements for success and consensus is for a success

Your own bias against SpaceX or weird idea they're obsessed with themselves isn't a valid criticism or argument JudaPoor (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. The idea that it reached its intended trajectory is from an unreliable source and should be seen only as business marketing material. I don’t think judging events as a “success” or “failure” is an encyclopaedic thing to do. 95.98.134.109 (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

"Disagree. The idea that it reached its intended trajectory is from an unreliable source and should be seen only as business marketing material"

SpaceX is a RS.

"I don’t think judging events as a “success” or “failure” is an encyclopaedic thing to do."

For test flights, I agree, but there is a VERY strong consensus that disagrees with us. Redacted II (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

SpaceX is not a reliable source because it is a dependent primary source as they own the rights to (i.e. launched and designed) the rocket. Independent secondary sources should be used to evaluate the launch success of IFT-3, not the personal opinions of editors nor information gathered from primary sources. The current preponderance of reliable sources seems to suggest that the launch was at least a partial success/failure - I’ll link some later.

A lot of people seem to be conflating mission success with launch success, which are distinct from one another. In this instance, mission success refers to the overall success of the mission, whereas launch success focuses on how successful the launch was, i.e. before orbit. The scope of the discussions should stick to the latter as that is what is supposed to be discussed at the moment. Yasslaywikia (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you; so far it looks like the launch was a complete success, but the mission (which includes in-orbit demos, re-entry and booster comeback) was not totally Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

In that case, shouldn't we declare this a "partial success"? We should declare a flight test successful based on one of two things (mission and launch success as stated above). And thus, if the launch was successful, yet the general mission wasn't, it'd be a "partial success", and we'd call a "full success" if both launch and mission went according to plan. I'd like to point to the fairly recent Peregrine Mission One, where the launch itself was flawless, and yet the mission wasn't. Thus, it was declared a "failure". That can be applied here, where relanding and keeping Starship intact were technically "objectives". See here, here, and here. Media outlets described the test as "the most successful to date", and not a wholly "success", and I think that's important to take into account. For my part, I believe we should declare it a partial success. --WellThisIsTheReaper ^Grim 19:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Your confusing Launch and Mission success.

For every launch vehicle (other than shuttle, due to the vast differences from anything else) launch success means reaching the desired trajectory, and not destroying the payload. That's it. The mission failing doesn't even matter.

Nor does the booster rud, as that didn't impact S28. There is also dozens of prior failed landings that prove this.

Therefore, calling IFT-3 anything but a Success is an NPOV violation. Redacted II (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Both Space Shuttle and Space X Starship comprise of the launch vehicle and orbiter. This is an article about Space X Starship, not about Super Heavy launch vehicle alone, and the title of the infobox is "Starship". Therefore, we should not just look at the launch vehicle regarding Success/Failure but also the orbiter, and overall mission objectives. That being said, I would say this launch is Partial Success. IlkkaP (talk) 07:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

How is it an NPOV violation? Also mentioning @IlkkaP, do you have independent secondary sources to verify your claims? I’m concerned that reliable sources aren’t being used to determine the successfulness of the recent launch. Yasslaywikia (talk) 08:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

There are no independent secondary sources at least at the moment regarding successfulness of the launch. The best primary source at the moment is https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-3 and states that "Starship successfully lifted off at 8:25 a.m. CT from Starbase in Texas and went on to accomplish several major milestones and firsts". I think that is the best available summary of the flight, and based on this would call the flight "Success (Partial)". IlkkaP (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

This is still incorrect.

Success in the Infobox only means it reached the desired trajectory, and didn't destroy the payload.

IFT-3 reached the desired trajectory, and it didn't destroy any payload.

It is therefore a 100% launch success. Redacted II (talk) 11:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not arguing on the basis of a "100% launch success". I'm arguing from the standpoint of both launch and mission success. In a mission, the launch is only one part of the larger goal. In this case, the "larger goal" was (and is, for that matter) to have Starship be fully reusable, and that amounts to having landed both Super Heavy and Starship successful, as that was one of their primary goals (however I do note that it has been said that "mission success" doesn't matter). Yet, most press coverage refer to the launch as the most successful to date or even "(the flight) achieved many successes", not a complete "success". Nodding my head to what @Yasslaywikia said before, we need have to reliable, independent sources to verify if this test was "truly" a success. And it seems that the general consensus in the view of the sources are: yes, the test did have many successes and was a drastic improvement over the last, but it can't "technically" be called a success. See New Scientist, CNET, Reuters, The Washington Post, CNN, The Indian Express, and I'm sure there's many, many, many more who'll same the same thing! Calling it a success is a clear WP:NPOV violation, and thus should be declared as a partial success. --WellThisIsTheReaper ^Grim 01:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

See the IFT-1 RfC. The crux of that decision was that the infobox information should be based on criteria consistent across (most of*) all wikipedia articles that use that infobox. What sources say is thus irrelevant to what goes in the infobox, except for the extent to which they support or refute editors' consensus chosen infobox criteria.

The wider consensus for launch vehicles on wikipedia seems to be that anything that does not impact delivery of the payload to its intended trajectory is not a failure of the launch.*

Given that reuse operations (re-entry, booster landings, etc) is primarily an economic concern, does not affect the ability to accomplish a mission, and is not even possible for the vast majority of launch vehicles, the consensus for those vehicles is to track them separately from launch success. (I suppose this may chance in the future if reuse becomes the norm, or some other situation arises such as carrying payload down from orbit.)

So as I see it, the choices per policy are:

• Classify as success, because information from sources indicate it meets the infobox criteria for success. There is just not much room inside wikipedia policy to argue otherwise. If had had a payload, that payload would have gone where it was supposed to go.
• Lobby to change the infobox criteria across wikipedia, which may cause other unrelated launches to be marked as failure. Not likely to happen.
• Lobby to overturn the prior RfCs for this article and define new infobox criteria or just delete the darn thing. People have repeatedly been threatened to be (and sometimes have been) reported for disruption when attempting to do this.

(* There is an exception for the Space Shuttle explained elsewhere in this discussion.) Foonix0 (talk) 06:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

In all fairness, I think that everyone’s coming to a consensus on this to call it a success of varying degrees, but I’m indifferent to what’s selected in the end, as long as the article declares the launch at least a partial success.

As for the launch success criteria, I think that this should be augmented with the opinions of reliable sources if possible. IFT-1 was a standout case as it received huge media attention and was declared to be successful. Personally, I interpreted this to be stating that IFT-1 was successful as a test of Starship’s systems, not as a launch, but others seemed to disagree with this notion. I don’t think I expressed this view at the time of the RfCs though. I also have a feeling that many editors chose to ignore all rules while voting due to the confusion.

, we shoutly to rd reflect what reliable sources should sto the best of our ability.ay Yasslaywikia (talk) 08:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

From where is the criteria that infobox should reflect launch successes? If it is a launch vehicle infobox, like Saturn V or Ariane 5, then it is clear that we are reporting launch successes. If it is an integrated system like Space Shuttle then we should report integrated system successes, i.e. including the payload/orbiter. In my mind it is clear that this article is about an integrated system, and partial success is best supported by the sources, including primary sources. IlkkaP (talk) 08:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Prior precedent in this article makes it an infobox for the launch vehicle.

AFAIK, the ONLY reason the shuttle is different is because STS-107 shouldn't be labeled a success in the infobox. Redacted II (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that as stated previously by many members of this forum, had the spacecraft carried a payload, it would've been lost, as the second stage didn't achieve orbital velocities due to failure to relight its engines and the fact it started tumbling uncontrollably shortly after SECO. Even if its intended trajectory could be achieved without re-lighting the engines, it failed to demonstrate the use of the system as a whole, including re-usability. Which is critical for every and all missions involving Starship, given that both Super Heavy and Starship have to fly at least 16 times successfully with full re-usability in order to complete the Artemis 3 mission. The major difference between IFT-2 and IFT-3 is that Starship wasn't lost shortly after booster separation. Despite this, the second stage Starship still failed to demonstrate its reliability.

It is true that IFT-3 was more successful than the previous two flights, but it cannot be called a full success by any stretch. As the example I gave involving the Delta IV heavy, if the same criteria was to be used, a partial failure should be assigned to the flight test as a whole, or have separate criteria for integrated systems and phases of flight. Silviyssa (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

"as the second stage didn't achieve orbital velocities due to failure to relight its engines"

Not true. The relight test was to simulate performance required for a deorbit burn. The test was set up specifically to be unable to put the vehicle into orbit.

"Even if its intended trajectory could be achieved without re-lighting the engines,"

It actually was. The second stage burn achieved the intended trajectory for the coast phase.

"it failed to demonstrate the use of the system as a whole, including re-usability."

Re-usability doesn't matter for the sake of a payload launch.

"It is true that IFT-3 was more successful than the previous two flights, but it cannot be called a full success by any stretch"

That's not what is being discussed. The concern is the success of the launch. Foonix0 (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Moving for visibility.

"The issue is that as stated previously by many members of this forum, had the spacecraft carried a payload, it would've been lost,"

There was no payload, so that's irrelevant. Nothing after SECO matters.

"as the second stage didn't achieve orbital velocities due to failure to relight its engines and the fact it started tumbling uncontrollably shortly after SECO"

Again, nothing after SECO matters. Upper stages have literally exploded (and not from reentry) and still had the launch be a success. Furthermore, even IF the Raptor relight had happened, it still would have reentered?

Why?

Because the plan for IFT-3 post-launch testing included reentry. Saying IFT-3 failed because it didn't enter a stable orbit is as ludicrous as saying a New Shepard flight failed because it didn't enter a stable orbit.

"Even if its intended trajectory could be achieved without re-lighting the engines, it failed to demonstrate the use of the system as a whole, including re-usability."

Which doesn't matter. Reusability wasn't going to be demonstrated this flight no matter what (given the planned hard splashdown). And the booster would have been sank if it was still floating, so your point above is completely invalid.

"Which is critical for every and all missions involving Starship, given that both Super Heavy and Starship have to fly at least 16 times successfully with full re-usability in order to complete the Artemis 3 mission."

Irrelevant.

"The major difference between IFT-2 and IFT-3 is that Starship wasn't lost shortly after booster separation"

Shortly? IFT-2 almost reached the desired trajectory (off by ~2000 kph)

"Despite this, the second stage Starship still failed to demonstrate its reliability."

This is both incorrect and irrelevant.

"It is true that IFT-3 was more successful than the previous two flights, but it cannot be called a full success by any stretch."

Then why has almost every single RS called it just that?

"As the example I gave involving the Delta IV heavy, if the same criteria was to be used, a partial failure should be assigned to the flight test as a whole, or have separate criteria for integrated systems and phases of flight"

The criteria being discussed is for Launch ONLY. And that was a 100% success. Redacted II (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Because it would be treating Starship differently than every other vehicle. Redacted II (talk) 11:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

From my reading of policy and trying to apply it to this context, it seems that SpaceX's statements are largely acceptable: WP:PRIMARY notes that "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

WP:ABOUTSELF criteria are also met here. Simple statements like "the door closed" or "the booster was destroyed" etc are "neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim(s)" and "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity." There is risk that excessive use could break rule #5, but at this point in time there are just not a lot of better options for getting the at level of detail editors seem to want to include.

A given statement merely being a reliable news source does not shield it from being considered primary. From WP:PRIMARY: "For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources." From WP:RSBREAKING: "All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution."

Most of the news sources are just stating what SpaceX stated either on the live stream or on their web page at this point, so even though that publication lends SpaceX's statements significance, it's still just primary sourcing all the way down. An exception would be something like a news source that bothered to consult an actual subject matter expert that provided "thought and reflection" as per WP:SECONDARY. That did happen in the IFT1 RfC, but the consensus there was to disregard those statements and impose the editors' own standards based on their own evaluation of WP:RSBREAKING article content.

It makes sense to strive to include published quotes references and seek expert statements wherever possible. But in this context, literally nobody knows more about the launch than SpaceX its self. So, it makes sense to source their claims where appropriate, not extravagant, and not contradicted.

(Agreed about the 2nd paragraph, btw.) Foonix0 (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

If breaking news from secondary sources is a concern, then we should wait a while to see if any more information is published from reliable sources. I stand by my assertion that using SpaceX as a source of information is bad and introduces an inherent bias into the article. This is why sourcing information from independent sources is so important. While stating if the launch was successful or not is a simple statement, it is highly contentious as evidenced by the existence of this discussion, so ideally we should use secondary independent sources as our source of information for the article. Yasslaywikia (talk) 07:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

We have already discussed this many times. The precedent is clear: if it reaches orbit it is considered a success. This is the only way of achieving consistency with all other rockets. Most rockets are not intended to be reusable/recovered. So the recovery phase is irrelevant.

However, the best solution would be to just remove the success/failure numbers from the infobox as it lacks the required context to allow readers to understand what is happening here. We should use the body to provide complete descriptions of what happened. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The second paragraph has been discussed many times. Unfortunately, it's not gonna happen. Redacted II (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who has been tallying such statistics in various places for more than a decade, including Wikipedia, I think one major caveat in this is that this launch has definitely proved fully the capability of Starship as a launch vehicle to orbit, in expendable mode. Everything up to SECO for all actions relevant to deploying payload in orbit has worked out as planned. And if payload deployment is counted, the payload bay door opening and closing have also been tested in full too. One may even claim the "theoretical" capability of propellant transfer for the tanker version is proven this time too.

Re-entry capability for Starship is not need for expendable payload carrying, tanker and Artemis HLS versions of Starship. Booster recovery has nothing to do with the main mission. Which leaves the cancellation of the Raptor re-start as the only asterisk, however this is not the case of "engine commanded to re-start but failed" but "software made the decision not to perform test due to vehicle roll rate". While this do have some implications on the operational/licensing ability of Starship now, it most probably would not cause a theoretical payload deployment to fail if the attitude control isn't lost right after reaching "orbit". Thus I do think this is enough to call this flight a "success" in that SpaceX probably have proven enough things to consider carrying real payloads in the next flight, or at worst 2 flights later if the next one fully flies out as planned up till re-entry. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

well said. Redacted II (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Exellent. Last flight more people were objecting the majority, but it was called failure either way. So this should be called succes for the same reason. Hope the debate is going to be over soon, since most counterarguments confuse launch succes with mission succes. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Terms like "if" and "probably" have no place here. Their use does not lead to confirmation of facts. 87.252.175.140 (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

All the three flights reached some but not all mission objectives. At the moment, IFT-1 and IFT-2 are called Failures and IFT-3 Success. Undoubtedly there are sources for each flight with opposite outcomes. I would propose removing Success/Failure statistics from the IFT flights altogether (and add them to Operational flights once they begin), or at the very least call all three IFT flights the same way, either Partial Success or Partial Failure to be consistent. IlkkaP (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

That has been rejected already Redacted II (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

This idea Has been rejected too many times Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I have discussed this issue at length with engineers at NASA familiar with the matter, and despite official NASA media outlets classifying the launch as a "success", it was clearly a failure from any and all engineering points of view. With NASA possibly spinning it positively because of recent bad press regarding their spending and management of the Artemis program.

First of all we need to consider the fact the spacecraft itself didn't reach orbital velocities nor did it achieve a stable orbit because shortly after MECO (main engine cutoff) a persistent fuel leak was present, changing the trajectory of the Starship second stage and making it tumble at a rate that was unrecoverable. As Starship lacks any kind of reaction control system, it was unable to right the tumbling which is visible during the entire second stage of the live-stream. Because the spacecraft didn't achieve orbital velocities and because of the violent tumbling and loss of control, it ended up burning in the atmosphere, which has been wrongly classified as a "controlled reentry". Despite Starship automatically attempting to use its "wings" to stabilize itself, it failed to do so.

Had this been the second stage on any other rocket, the launch and mission would automatically be classified as a failure, due to the fact that no payload could've been deployed, or had it been deployed, it wouldn't have had a stable orbit and said payload would've burned up in the atmosphere. Just this fact alone would be enough to classify the launch and the mission as a failure, as the system/vehicle failed to demonstrate it can achieve its intended objective. In the same vain, many people seem to state we should ignore the fact the Super Heavy booster having a major failure and being unable to land in a controlled manner. I disagree with this point as well because, unlike with Falcon 9, the controlled landing of the booster is a critical part of the system as a whole. Landing the boosters successfully demonstrates the capability of the system for reuse which is completely necessary to be able to achieve its plan for the Artemis program. We must not forget that the intended purpose of Starship right now is to fulfill its NASA contract for the Artemis 3 and 4 missions. I also think the argument that the engines all lit up and worked correctly during liftoff shouldn't be taken seriously because it's an extremely low bar for such a rocket system. Rocket engines working as designed for the first phase of flight after 2 other test flights shouldn't be the parameter we use for success. Especially keeping in mind that either the engines or the piping on the second stage (Starship) failed shortly after MECO leading to a fuel leak and the engines in the booster also failed to relight correctly leading to the loss of said booster.

As stated previously, had this been any other rocket system, the criteria for "failure" would've been quite evident, but it seems because it's a SpaceX rocket, we should morph definitions and make lots of exclusions to allow ourselves to say it was a "success". To exemplify this further, let me point to the first test flight of the Delta IV heavy (ULA) on the 21st December 2004. Due to the Common Booster Core under-performing, the payloads were deployed at a lower than intended orbit. As the system demonstrated its capabilities and reached orbit successfully but the payloads were not deployed correctly, it was classified as a "Partial Failure". Starship failed to reach orbit altogether and any payloads would've been completely lost, including human occupants, due to the fact Starships lacks any abort system. If we're not able to give this leeway to other rocket companies, why should we give it to SpaceX? IFT-3 failed to demonstrate the rocket system is capable of completing its mission, and that should be all that matters. Silviyssa (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

"I have discussed this issue at length with engineers at NASA familiar with the matter, and despite official NASA media outlets classifying the launch as a "success", it was clearly a failure from any and all engineering points of view. With NASA possibly spinning it positively because of recent bad press regarding their spending and management of the Artemis program."

You have no source for any of the (already proven to be incorrect) claims have made.

"First of all we need to consider the fact the spacecraft itself didn't reach orbital velocities nor did it achieve a stable orbit because shortly after MECO (main engine cutoff) a persistent fuel leak was present, changing the trajectory of the Starship second stage and making it tumble at a rate that was unrecoverable. As Starship lacks any kind of reaction control system, it was unable to right the tumbling which is visible during the entire second stage of the live-stream. Because the spacecraft didn't achieve orbital velocities and because of the violent tumbling and loss of control, it ended up burning in the atmosphere, which has been wrongly classified as a "controlled reentry". Despite Starship automatically attempting to use its "wings" to stabilize itself, it failed to do so."

One, it's SECO.

Two, that doesn't matter. The trajectory was the desired one, and therefore it is a success. Period.

"Had this been the second stage on any other rocket, the launch and mission would automatically be classified as a failure, due to the fact that no payload could've been deployed, or had it been deployed, it wouldn't have had a stable orbit and said payload would've burned up in the atmosphere."

The unstable orbit was the desired orbit. If it HAD entered a stable orbit, then it actually would have been a failure, because it would have made the mission impossible.

"In the same vain, many people seem to state we should ignore the fact the Super Heavy booster having a major failure and being unable to land in a controlled manner. I disagree with this point as well because, unlike with Falcon 9, the controlled landing of the booster is a critical part of the system as a whole."

Everything you said is wrong. It hasn't been ignored, it is irrelevant due to the precedent from Falcon 9, and for Falcon 9, landing of the booster is also a critical part of the system.

"We must not forget that the intended purpose of Starship right now is to fulfill its NASA contract for the Artemis 3 and 4 missions."

Incorrect, it's still in development.

"I also think the argument that the engines all lit up and worked correctly during liftoff shouldn't be taken seriously because it's an extremely low bar for such a rocket system."

That isn't the bar for success, and no one here is claiming that it is. If it was, then IFT-2 would have been labeled "success", and not "failure".

"To exemplify this further, let me point to the first test flight of the Delta IV heavy (ULA) on the 21st December 2004. Due to the Common Booster Core under-performing, the payloads were deployed at a lower than intended orbit. As the system demonstrated its capabilities and reached orbit successfully but the payloads were not deployed correctly, it was classified as a "Partial Failure". Starship failed to reach orbit altogether and any payloads would've been completely lost, including human occupants, due to the fact Starships lacks any abort system."

None of what you just said is in any way relevant. It entered the desired trajectory, and it is therefore a success.

"IFT-3 failed to demonstrate the rocket system is capable of completing its mission, and that should be all that matters"

That isn't the case for almost every single other rocket (the ONLY exception being the Space Shuttle, and that is probably because no one should even consider calling STS-107 a success. Redacted II (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

"that doesn't matter. The trajectory was the desired one, and therefore it is a success. Period."

You consider the uncontrolled tumbling of the second stage due to an internal failure a desired trajectory?

Even if we ignore the uncontrolled tumbling and keep only SpaceX's mission objectives in mind, we cannot call the test flight a full success because they failed to achieve various other objectives, including the re-light of a Raptor engine and the controlled reentry. There is also no evidence of the propellant transfer being successful with the exception of SpaceX itself being a source. That being said, propellant transfer between internal spacecraft tanks is something that has been previously done before. The mission should at the very least be considered a partial failure. Silviyssa (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

You consider the uncontrolled tumbling of the second stage due to an internal failure a desired trajectory?

One, we don't know why it was tumbling. Two: Yes, as does almost every single other editor.

"Even if we ignore the uncontrolled tumbling and keep only SpaceX's mission objectives in mind, we cannot call the test flight a full success because they failed to achieve various other objectives, including the re-light of a Raptor engine and the controlled reentry"

Which is enough. Only the trajectory matters.

"There is also no evidence of the propellant transfer being successful with the exception of SpaceX itself being a source"

Which gives that more backing than some of your claims. (Oh, and NASA considers it successful enough to give them 53 million for it, so your statement is also incorrect)

"That being said, propellant transfer between internal spacecraft tanks is something that has been previously done before."

That is irrelevant, and also partially incorrect. Cryogenic prop transfer has never occurred, and neither has the transfer of 10 tons of propellant.

"The mission should at the very least be considered a partial failure"

Anything other than success would violate NPOV. Redacted II (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, was something more transferred fuel between external tank and internal tanks of space shuttle in more worst conditions. Transfer in Starship, if we have trust to Spacex for successful action, was between internal reservoirs which are inside ship corpus. This is far away from refueling another ship. 87.252.175.140 (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but that was the test: transfer 10 tons of lox between tanks on a vehicle.

Anyways, this entire debate is just ridiculous.

Pretty much every single RS I've seen has said success (including a representative of the FAA)

The rocket reached all the requirements to be declared a success by Wikipedia: it reached the desired trajectory (and there are non-SpaceX sources for this, like NASA). Redacted II (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Since the ship was destroyed, we'll have to take it on trust that there was some kind of transfer in the Starship. There is no way to take the tanks and look at their quantitative content. 87.252.175.140 (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we have to trust the various Reliable Sources.

Just as with every single other space mission.

So, I don't understand why we trust every single other space company/source except SpaceX.

It just seems absurd. Redacted II (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

That is because SpaceX and Elon Musk have demonstrated to be an unreliable source for objective information, especially when money is on the line. At the moment they are the only source available for weather or not several tests during IFT-3 were successful, and NASA is using them and their data as a primary source for it as well. Silviyssa (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

So, your entire point is "SpaceX is unreliable"?

They are an extremely reliable source for everything except launch dates (I'm familiar with "Elon Time").

So, unless you have a reliable source saying SpaceX faked the data, then please stop repeating that garbage. Redacted II (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

"Which is enough. Only the trajectory matters."

If a Vulcan-Centaur carrying a payload to GEO ends up in a desired trajectory but fails to release its payload due to a late second stage electrical failure. Would you consider it a successful flight? You surely would have to right? By your own metrics. Silviyssa (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

No, however, that is irrelevant.

IFT-3 didn't carry a payload.

It's like saying a Starlink launch is a failure because any astronaut onboard would die from decompression. Redacted II (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

This is an admission of using different metrics for Starship than for other integrated systems then. Which goes against NPOV. Silviyssa (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

How?

Saying "Payload doesn't matter because there wasn't one" isn't NPOV. It's basic facts.

Saying "IFT-3 failure because payload wouldn't have made it" is like saying "That starlink launch failed because any astronaut onboard would have died" Redacted II (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

"Anything other than success would violate NPOV."

I'm not sure an editor that claims to be obsessed with Starship is a reliable arbiter of what would or would not violate NPOV 131.181.139.124 (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

1: I do pay attention to Starship, yes, but obsessed is a major exaggeration made on my user page only for comedic effect.

Also, I'm not the one whose entire editing history is trying to declare IFT-3 a failure. Redacted II (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

> First of all we need to consider the fact the spacecraft itself didn't reach orbital velocities

It did achieve its intended orbit, as described by the flight plan ahead of time.

> nor did it achieve a stable orbit because shortly after MECO (main engine cutoff) a persistent fuel leak was present, changing the trajectory of the Starship second stage

There is no source suggesting that there was a fuel leak nor is there any source suggesting that said fuel leak (if it was even present) changed the trajectory of the vehicle.

> As Starship lacks any kind of reaction control system

Starship has a reaction control system. Why it did not function is unknown and not something Wikipedians should be speculating on.

> which has been wrongly classified as a "controlled reentry".

Controlled re-entry is contrasted with uncontrolled reentry. Uncontrolled reentry is where a spacecraft is on a gradually decaying orbit and reenters without any target. Starship was on a ballistic trajectory with a narrow area of possible re-entry trajectories, by definition, it was a controlled reentry.

> Had this been the second stage on any other rocket, the launch and mission would automatically be classified as a failure, due to the fact that no payload could've been deployed, or had it been deployed, it wouldn't have had a stable orbit and said payload would've burned up in the atmosphere.

All of that is irrelevant given it was intended to be on a suborbital or a transatmospheric orbital trajectory rather than head to a stable orbit.

> I disagree with this point as well because, unlike with Falcon 9, the controlled landing of the booster is a critical part of the system as a whole.

Given that there is objective talk about using Starship as a regular disposable rocket, it is definitionally not a critical part of the system as a whole. Ergzay (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

One more data point on "successful launch" https://spacenews.com/spacex-planning-rapid-turnaround-for-next-starship-flight/

> Speaking at the Space Capitol III event by Payload March 18, Kelvin Coleman, FAA associate administrator for commercial space transportation, said he did not anticipate that investigation to turn up any major issues that could significantly delay the next launch.

> “It ended in what we call a mishap, but at the end of the day we deem it a successful launch attempt,” he said, because it resulted in no injuries or property damage. “SpaceX was able to collect a great deal of data from that launch.” Ergzay (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Already noted above, but thanks!

I think in a few days we can end this discussion (finally) for the side of success, given that the vast majority of editors (including those whose entire edit history is declaring IFT-3 a failure) seem to be in favor of designating it a success. Redacted II (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The FAA is not talking from an engineering standpoint, they are concerned about injuries and/or property damage. At the same time, the FAA investigations are carried out internally at SpaceX, much like in the case of Boeing. This has been the subject of controversy and suspicion of corruption due to the fact SpaceX has cleared themselves of wrongdoing several times despite being in clear violation of early FAA permits, being non-compliant and in direct violation of the Clean Water Act, and not seeking the correct building permits while creating conditions that are actively endangering the Boca Chica natural reserve which should rescind their FAA license until they are fixed. The FAA has been sued for their failure to prevent these mishaps and for continuing to grant licenses to SpaceX, due in no small part to governmental pressure and lobbying from SpaceX.

This has sparked many suspicions of corruption as well, as many FAA high ranking employees have ended up subsequently working at SpaceX. A situation not dissimilar to how Kathy Leaders, temporary NASA administrator, granted SpaceX a sole HLS contract despite their system as describe not complying with NASA requirements and after negotiating with them in secret and without the approval of her board and without any notice to other participants (Blue Origin and Dynetics). A move which is illegal and prompted Blue Origin to sue NASA. Shortly after, Kathy Leaders went on to work for SpaceX with a hefty salary. Silviyssa (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

ESGHound is an abysmally biased and WP:QUESTIONABLE source.

None of the reliable sources here suggest that SpaceX is lying about its IFT-3 claims, or even that SpaceX has a pattern of lying at all.

If there isn't an RS that at least contradicts the claims, then it's WP:OR to suggest otherwise. Foonix0 (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Not only that but ESGHound would also count as a "blog" so would also fail WP:RSSELF Ergzay (talk) 06:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Silviyssa Kathy Lueders (not Leaders) was not a "temporary NASA administrator", nor did she by herself grant SpaceX a HLS contract, nor was it the case that Starship failed to meet NASA requirements (it simply greatly exceeded the requirements). And lest you forget, Blue Origin lost that lawsuit you mentioned exactly because it was frivolous. Wikipedia talk pages are not soapboxes for your own personal (misguided) opinions. Ergzay (talk) 06:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Failure due to lack of successful mission completion for both the booster and the Starship. Even so, note that this is a high bar (but one that is consistent with IFT-1 and IFT-2). I acknowledge that there was wonderful progress and numerous significant milestones that were met in IFT-3. But blowing up 462 m above that water is not a successful booster landing, and entering the atmosphere in the wrong attitude (leading to the loss of the spacecraft) is not a successful re-entry. Had the Starship exploded on impact on the Indian Ocean as intended, that would have been a partial success (given the premature loss of the booster). I strongly call for the high bar of fully executing the flight plan for both the booster and the ship before full success can be declared. ems57fcva (talk)) (Not logged in.) 57.140.16.12 (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

"Failure due to lack of successful mission completion for both the booster and the Starship."

That is inconsistent with every single other launch vehicle. Nothing after payload separation (or SECO if there is no payload) matters.

Starship is not like every single other launch vehicle. It's mission is not over at payload separation or SECO. it is intended to land and be reusable. Even for Falcon 9, a failure to land the first stage as intended makes the mission a partial failure IMO (assuming that the rest of the rocket performed nominally). Just as the breakup of Columbia made its last mission a failure, so too is IFT-3. Or to put it another way, "Welcome to the 21st century".

I don't want to poo-poo what you claim to be the consensus opinion too much however. Consensus is a strength of Wikipedia. But I am comfortable is saying that it needs to be reconsidered in this case. 57.140.16.21 (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

"Starship is not like every single other launch vehicle."

Agreed, but there is precedent for reusable vehicles. A failed recovery doesn't impact success v.s failure. Go look at Falcon 9.

"It's mission is not over at payload separation or SECO."

And?

"it is intended to land and be reusable."

See the Falcon 9 example.

"Even for Falcon 9, a failure to land the first stage as intended makes the mission a partial failure IMO (assuming that the rest of the rocket performed nominally)."

Go look at the article again.

"Just as the breakup of Columbia made its last mission a failure, so too is IFT-3."

STS-107 was a failure due to the loss of crew. No sane person could declare seven astronauts burning up a success.

All established precedent makes IFT-3 a success. There is no reason for it to not be a success.

Anything other than success, therefore, would be an NPOV violation. Redacted II (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The heading reads "Launch success", while I mistook its context for "Mission success". So I retract my comments on that basis. Agreed that the Ship being placed in an intended trajectory makes the launch a success. (It did not get into its intended final trajectory, but that was not a major milestone for the mission.) 57.140.32.12 (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

"Even so, note that this is a high bar (but one that is consistent with IFT-1 and IFT-2)." Incorrect, those launches required launch success, which did occur.

"But blowing up 462 m above that water is not a successful booster landing, and entering the atmosphere in the wrong attitude (leading to the loss of the spacecraft) is not a successful re-entry"

Both examples are irrelevant, and if they are deemed relevant via consensus, then every single expendable launch vehicle would have 0 successful launches.

"Had the Starship exploded on impact on the Indian Ocean as intended, that would have been a partial success (given the premature loss of the booster)"

A failed landing doesn't matter for launches. See Falcon 9 for dozens of examples.

"I strongly call for the high bar of fully executing the flight plan for both the booster and the ship before full success can be declared"

The Infobox measures launch success, not mission success. Redacted II (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I found an issue with keeping the disputed tag:

It claims that some reliable sources counter the claim that IFT-3 was a success.

So far, that hasn't been the case. Redacted II (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

So it shouldn’t even be there or what are you trying to say? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm concerned that it's misleading editors into thinking that there are countering reliable sources.

However, given that a consensus has basically formed, and waiting a week expires earlier today, it won't be there for very long. Redacted II (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Uh, what about the RfC below? Seems premature to remove the tag right now. Yasslaywikia (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC didn't exist when I made that comment Redacted II (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

orbital propellant transfer

I know a big "milestone" for starship IFT3 was the actual propellant transfer demo, which is why I'm surprised there isn't any mention of it being demonstrated as feasible on the HLS portion of the article, especially considering it'll be crucial for HLS itself to function. is there a reason behind it? Norovern, bro! (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a bit in the HLS article itself. Redacted II (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

"Starship is planned to be able to be refueled by docking with separately launched Starship propellant tanker spacecraft in orbit..."

I understand the plan to actually transfer it for HLS missions is in the article, but IMHO I think the way its structured makes it seem like it's still a feasibility rather than something that was demonstrated. It might just be how I'm looking at it. Norovern, bro! (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, prop transfer hasn't yet happened between two starships, so the docking is untested.

The wording does feel wrong to me as well, but I get why it is the way it is. Redacted II (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

ok, when you put it that way (transfer between two vehicles, not seperate tanks), it actually makes a bit more sense. thanks for clarification. Norovern, bro! (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

happy to help! Redacted II (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Rewrited lead

I just rewrited the lead of the article, focusing more on the general tenets of why Starship exists. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Great! Redacted II (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Do we need the History section?

The history section is a summary of the flight tests, as well as the development of the various prototypes.

But this is covered by no less than seven other articles: IFT-1, IFT-2, IFT-3, Super Heavy, Starship (spacecraft), Starship Design History, and Starship Flight Tests. In total, it amounts to 57 kilobytes.

So, it seems like a waste of text to include it here as well. Redacted II (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep and rewrite - That way, readers still get an overview of the history of the launch vehicle, but it needs to be shortened. Let's not delete full sections merely because the information there exists somewhere else in more detail (for example, in the SLS article, the core stage section also has its own article, though a summary of it is present in the SLS article). Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Bold suggestion to shorten it:

November 2005,

CEO Elon Musk first mentioned a high-capacity rocket concept dubbed the BFR.

2012

SpaceX called it the Mars Colonial Transporter.

2016

the name was changed to Interplanetary Transport System.

2017

the concept was temporarily re-dubbed the BFR.

December 2018,

the structural material was changed from carbon composites to stainless steel.

2019

SpaceX began to refer to the entire vehicle as Starship, with the second stage being called Starship and the booster Super Heavy.

March 2020

SpaceX stated the payload of Starship to LEO would be in excess of 100 t (220,000 lb), with a payload to GTO of 21 t (46,000 lb).

References

Uwappa (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems good to me.

Just expand it to include 2021-now Redacted II (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Uwappa I would make each section you have here 4-6 sentences, and as Redacted II said, expand to include 2021-now. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The example above is a bold alternative for current text in SpaceX_Starship#Early_design_concepts_(2012–2019). The history chapters for 2021 and beyond can be similar. Uwappa (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps this could serve as a balance? (Citations would be included in the final version)

In November 2005, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk first mentioned a high-capacity rocket concept dubbed the BFR. It was then renamed in 2012 to the Mars Colonial Transporter. In 2016, the vehicle was revealed to be a 550 t launch vehicle, now called the Interplanetary Transport System. However, in 2017, the concept was scaled back to a 100-150 t vehicle, once again called the BFR. In December 2018, after a test tank had been tested, the structural material was changed from carbon fiber to stainless steel, due to ease of manufacturability. In 2019, the vehicle was named Starship, with the second stage also being called Starship. The booster was named Super Heavy. Redacted II (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I know this will be a shock to many, but people do not read online, they scan, see Nielsen, 1997, How users read on the Web. Proze is hard to scan. Eye and brain have to work hard to find the start of each sentence. In fact, it is undoable. What scanning people will do: read the first few words of a paragraph and move on to the next paragraph if those first few words do not spark their interest. They'll probably not find what they were scanning for and give up. Too bad...

Scanning is just too easy in a scannable list. Eye and brain can quickly find the part of interest and move on to the right main page for more details. See Nielsen's test results: 47% improvement for same text, scannable layout.

My recommendation: Convert your text to a scannable list. It will be a weird experience to move away from proze, yet I hope you will see how much easier it will be for eye and brain. Uwappa (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree, we should write a bit longer and more connected text, altough not by much Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Infobox launch failure/succes

I cant see the number of failures/ successes, is that intentional? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 08:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

User:CactiStaccingCrane removed them here, probably on accident. --mfb (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I see. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 09:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Super Heavy animation

We now have better animation directly from spacex, shouldnt we use that rather then the old one? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

We cannot, because it is not Creative Commons licensed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Super Heavy landing

The booster didnt actually reach the surface in one piece, it exploded A few hundred meters above, but neither the text nor the source state this I do have a source state this though https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/spacexs-starship-rocket-reached-record-heights-before-it-was-lost/ “ Neither the Starship vehicle nor its Super Heavy booster survived all the way through to their intended splashdown…” Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Criticism Section

Should this article have a section dedicated to criticism of Starship (not Starbase)?

Personally, I think yes (so long as there is enough to warrant its own section), as not including those views is failing to lend due weight to them. Redacted II (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it's enough, or almost enough, to warrant Criticism of SpaceX Starship being its own article instead of just redirecting to the main article. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 19:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is enough to warrant its own article, unlike the Shuttle. But if you want to start hammering out a draft, please post a link here so others can work on it. Redacted II (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it should be a section in the main article, not a separate article. There are enough reasons for a critique section to exist. Example: Here. 149.62.206.5 (talk) 05:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

But that means we greatly expand the Page again, and we have been working on making it smaller, no? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we can reduce the History section? Redacted II (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Took a look, exellent idea, I belive its the longest by a mile anyway. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

"But that means we greatly expand the Page again"

Expand: Yes

Greatly: No

Yes problem.

"Maybe we can reduce the History section?"

Yes solution.

Also in section "Responses to Starship development" has few sentences which are criticism and will be moved in new section "Criticism". ГеоргиУики (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a discussion for shrinking/removing the history section below. Redacted II (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I know, this is answer to Fehér Zsigmond-03 to assuage concerns of bloat. By the way, the reduction of the "History" section, which is a solution to the colleague's concerns, may have been accompanied by the opening of a project history article. Unlike the restored "Criticism" section, the history section deserves a separate article, and the "History" section here in this article, is rather summarized (with a link to the project history article, where, as in a specialized article with a certain focus, all the facts will be described in detail.). ГеоргиУики (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay in responding.

The History section already has its own article. Redacted II (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Mass Revert

@CactiStaccingCrane, your revert changed the height of Starship to an incorrect value, removed the protected notice, and downgraded the wording of several sections. Redacted II (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

oof. reverting again CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

confusing language in IFT-3 orbital demonstrations

The propellant transfer test is described as having been "demonstrated" in the second to last paragraph of the History section. All that is known to the public is that a pre-planned test was conducted. The word "demonstrated" implies not only meeting the currently unknown test objectives, it also implies successful demonstration of the concept of orbital fuel transfer on this scale, which is an entire addition assumption beyond the results and scope of this specific test. These details are currently unknown to the public.

The qualifier "attempted to" should be included in this language for clarity. DewyDecimal (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The prop-transfer test was successful, according to NASA.

https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1783876985401299002 Tweet from Chris Bergin

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1783874894918193472 Tweet from Jeff Foust.

Sources less susceptible to link rot will probably exist in a few days. Redacted II (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Things that need work

1.V1 of starship is being phased out in favor of v2. This section needs to be fleshed out more with comparisons between the two and maybe even add details on v3. 2.lots of repetitive information. I have some time so I can look at this but it would really help if someone did a pass through of the whole article and removed duplicate information 3.some of the more technical mechanisms like the deluge system aren’t explained well. Ideally the article speaks to the layman just as effectively as someone in the industry Thistheyear2023 (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Added notes to V3, improved existing work on V1 and V2.

Working on removing repetitive info.

Any descript on the Water Deluge/Flame Diverter belongs in the SpaceX Starbase article. Redacted II (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I feel like the article really needs a clean-up since most information isn't well organized. IMO, the versions section could be moved to the description section. Some parts are overly-detailed and need more clarity - a lot of the details are covered can be moved and covered on pages. I also think that the sections on each IFT could be shortened since we will supposedly see many more flights in the future. Readers can read more on the main articles anyway. Spookywooky2 (talk) 09:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on almost everything.

Versions should remain it's own section, like on Falcon 9. Redacted II (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Yep a lot of text feels repetitive and unnecessary. Changed my mind on the versions section so I agree, but the order of some sections could also be changed. Putting versions after the impact of starship doesn't make much sense to me. Spookywooky2 (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll move it right now Redacted II (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree that going forward there shouldn't be as much verbiage needed for each individual IFT. This year alone there will probably be 3 more Thistheyear2023 (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Article for tanker variant of Starship

As the specs for the tanker variant of starship become finalized I believe an article will be needed for it - thoughts? 73.210.30.217 (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Variants SpaceX_Dragon_2#Crew_Dragon and SpaceX_Dragon_2#Cargo_Dragon are chapters of one article.

Variants of Starship can be similar. Uwappa (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

For now, it doesn't meet GNG so no, but if the tanker variant gets a lot of coverage, then maybe... Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The Tanker is certainly notable, but there isn't enough info to write a detailed section of an article, much less an entire article.

All we know is that it's a Starship (presumably V2, but in the future V3), its reusable (depot isn't), and it uses a pressure differential to transfer propellant. Redacted II (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)