Talk:SpaceX Starship

Do not classify IFT-1, 2 and 3 as success or failure

Discussion around IFT-1, 2 and 3 have demonstrated that classifying these launches as either "success" or "failure" is a bit simplistic. Rather, it would be better to classify them as "development test flights", and leave success/failure classification for actual payload missions. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Support The launch vehicle design hasn't been finalized yet. I think it'd also help avoid all the debates every time there's a launch. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. The IFT launches can be labeled as v1, like Falcon 9.Redacted II (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Support. iT would help alleviate the conflicts between editors and reduce vandalism IMO. Norovern, bro! (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I would support such a move based on the same grounds as my comment for IFT-2 - in summary, these aren't actual production launches, but rather test flights for development phases. This is also different from most other test flights that do get counted into the Infobox because those test flights are for the final vehicle, not for development. It would also solve this issue where we would have an entire debate each time there is a test flight, considering most of the comments and !votes I've seen aren't that policy/previous consensus-based. User3749 (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Support per my (now archived) comment (formerly) above. Quoted here: Success or Inapplicable. Given that the whole purpose of the launch/flight/mission was to find potential points of failure in the vehicle/system any outcome that doesn't cause collateral damage is either a successful search for failures or not quantifiable as a success or failure. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC) Largely Legible Layman (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Strong support enough editor time has been wasted on this trivial point. Those are development flights and it is clear that this topic requires more nuance than a "success/failure" binary option. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Other aerospace companies spend a lot of time making sure that everything is done right the first time around, before they put together and launch a complete vehicle. Rockets failing on the first try is the exception, not the norm, and there's no logical reason why SpaceX should be treated as "special" in some way. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 17:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose your opposition. SpaceX does just the necessary to get FAA approval, and their prototypes are guaranteed to fail, and sometimes get intentionally destroyed. So, SpaceX instead of taking their time to make a good prototype, they launch an uncompleted prototype. And I disagree of test flights being in the safety record of rockets. 2800:E2:4A80:DCB:3D98:4ABE:5591:3E06 (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose your opposition. SpaceX is using a rapid development approach, and has very little expectations for these launches. Their primary goal is to get flight data, not to send a payload, which they succeeded in. 136.169.243.150 (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I came to close the above RfC, took a brief look at the complex arguments and analyses, and immediately thought: "This is why we normally only include simple details in infoboxes!" —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Since all but two editors here (me and DASL51984) have supported the motion, I believe this topic should transition to what we are going to call the launches, if anything at all.

My proposal is this: Under other outcomes, list: V1 Test Flights: 3 (and a note to explain why they are excluded from success vs failure, similar to what exists on the Space Shuttle article) Redacted II (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I think doing this will finally enable us to work on more productive things rather than writing kilobytes over kilobytes of debates. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Should we add it in now, or wait until the RfC is closed? Redacted II (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Let's wait until the RfC is closed :) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support — these were test flights, with the goal for the company to flight test on an integrated vehicle things they could not completely test in ground tests, or under conditions that exist on the surface of Earth. No one, and no engineer on the SpaceX development team, knows how far one of these test flights will go, where thousands of sequential events have to go right to even get to the later parts of a flight test. There was no commercial objective for these test flights: e.g., like "place the xyz payload into orbit". It is just wiki-original research to try to simplify into "Success" or "Failure" when many tens of major test objectives are in play. N2e (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support — as SpaceX itself publishes only informal launch objectives and post-launch summaries we end up in endless and needless discussions after every IFT launch. IlkkaP (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Now that the IFT-3 RfC has been closed, and that only two editors (myself and DASL51984) have expressed opposition to not classifying IFT flights as Success, partial failure, or failure, I believe it is fair to say a consensus has formed in favor of this option.

I have already made a proposal for a new classification, which I will repeat here:

Under other outcomes, list: V1 Test Flights: 3, with a note saying "V1 Test Flights are not included with other flights due to significant differences between vehicles, and the iterative flight plans of the various launches" Regardless of the outcome of IFT-4, 5, 6, or 7, they would be included under this category as well.

Until a new classification is decided, the infobox should remain unchanged. Redacted II (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

In other articles, including Falcon 1 (Flight 1-4 were tests, Flight 5 was operational) and Space Shuttle (STS 1-4 were tests, STS 5-135 were operational), test flights are counted. Consensus should still respect precedents and standards, and must only overrule them with proof that the precedents and standards were erroneous. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note to closer - While I closed the previous RFC, I explicitly did not override consensus on this discussion, wherever it lands. If the consensus here is not clear cut, I recommend reading the previous RFC's discussion, as multiple editors there discussed removal without repeating those arguments here. Soni (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Strongly oppose The only argument supporting this is to avoid further debates, but this is misguided and I hope that experienced editors here can avoid rushing to that conclusion, consensus can't be mere arbitrary majority. Every other article on the topic, such as Falcon 1, Falcon 9, Saturn V, include this information. The standard is that every rocket, both SpaceX and NASA, successes and failures are recorded, and laypersons like me can readily understand it. I don't believe there will much more debates for three reasons, first that we agreed upon the upper limit of failure in IFT-2 and the lower limit of success in IFT-3, second that we find each of these supported by reliable sources and not original research, third that we have every reason to expect that most future launches are more likely to be successful, please wait until IFT-4, IFT-5, IFT-6 before deciding to omit this information. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Strongly oppose this opposition. O.

ther companies take an approach of taking their time, and avoid explosions, but Spasometimes intentionally blows up prototypes to ensure success as fast as possible.ceX , Yukielgato (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Support. Starship follows a very different approach compared to traditional rockets, wherein failures are expected as part of the development process. It would be unfair for Starship to classify IFT1, IFT2 and IFT3 as failures when they met their respective goals of testing different aspects of the vehicle, and it would be unfair for other rockets to classify them as success when their respective vehicles very clearly suffered unintended catastrophic failures. Even IFT4, which was the first to reach all of its stated flight plan, is not a complete success because of the heavy damage suffered during reentry that would probably preclude it from being reused in an operational flight (if it didn't land on water of course). In my view the only option here is to list test flights in a different category. Agile Jello (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to correct something, the final RfC consensus was IFT-3 was a success. Redacted II (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Strongly support. Every time there’s an IFT an edit war starts and this can finalize that problem by acknowledging that these are tests. CaptHorizon (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Strongly support, why you would dirt a safety record with test launches? After all Starship is under development. Yukielgato (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It would be better to include them, and label them as developmental launches.

Such as Failures 2 Block1: 2.

This should be done the moment S33 flies. Redacted II (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I think is a dumb idea to consider test flights as successful or failures

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

Topic already exists elsewhere Redacted II (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

---

This rocket is under development, so, why use test launches for the safety record? Yukielgato (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Given that you commented here, should this topic be closed? Redacted II (talk) 02:15, 4 November 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.

Potential missions and Potential use cases

They're basically the same section.

Shouldn't they be merged? Redacted II (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I think they could very well be merged. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Done Redacted II (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The S33 problem

IFT-7 will be using a V1 booster and a V2 ship.

What are we going to be calling this config? V1? V2? V1.5? Redacted II (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I suppose we always explicitely say that this is a mixed configuration. I would not want to say V 1.5 as it could create a confusion about a not talked about, in-between version. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 06:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

What about in the infobox? Or the tables in Super Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle?

It will have to be in one of the categories Redacted II (talk) 13:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe a footnote in the infobox. I would like to hear the opinion of others though. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

If Block 1.5 is off the table, it'll have to be listed as Block 1 or a Block 2 (with a note listing that X flights were using a Block 2 ship and a Block 1 Booster) Redacted II (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good! Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

But which one is it going to be listed under?

Block 2 (New ship) or Block 1 (Same booster) Redacted II (talk) 14:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Imo, it should be block 1. Like sure the ship gets bigger and gets different flaps, but overall not so much change to call the whole stack block 2 Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 08:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The ship upgrades look more significant than booster changes. We could make a v1/v2 category in infoboxes, but long-term I don't think that matters. --mfb (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

While i agree, i dont think its enough to make us write v2/ block2 instead of just 1 with a footnote Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 12:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Atlas V gets separated by # of SRBs.

Changing pretty much the entire design of both stages is a much larger difference. Redacted II (talk) 12:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Most sources are saying that this is Block 2. Redacted II (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I dont agree with calling it Block 2. But if the sources say block 2 then i guess we do so too. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

New flight succes

Infobox says ift6 is block 1, i thought we agreed to call it block 2? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 08:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

IFT-6 is Block 1.

IFT-7+ are Block 2 (until Block 3, if that ever happens) Redacted II (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry,my bad! Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2024

In § Super Heavy booster, change the text

is composed of four general sections: the engines, the fuel tank, the oxygen tank, and the interstage.

to

is composed of four general sections: the engines, the oxygen tank, the fuel tank, and the interstage.

As explained in the "Tanks" subsection, the LOX tank is immediately above the engines, so this puts the parts in the right order. 97.102.205.224 (talk)

The section you are requesting be changed is transcluded from Super Heavy.

So the edit requested has been completed there. Redacted II (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Uncourced claim of sat clearance

by Thistheyear2023. Where is the sense of protecting an article when users may put every unsourced nonsense in thile IPs can't even put an "citation needed" flag up? Same nonsense was in Flight Test 7 article where @RickyCourtney removed it; please do so here. 47.64.128.79 (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Article was protected due to heated dispute regarding IFT success v.s failure status.

There was a lot of edit warring, so the page was protected.

However, I am not sure why that was included.

@Thistheyear2023 do you have a source regarding Starship being cleared to begin deploying payloads? Redacted II (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes from this article: https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/11/the-key-moment-came-38-minutes-after-starship-roared-off-the-launch-pad/

” That's when Starship reignited one of its six Raptor engines for a brief burn to make a slight adjustment to its flight path. The burn lasted only a few seconds, and the impulse was small—just a 48 mph (77 km/hour) change in velocity, or delta-V—but it demonstrated that the ship can safely deorbit itself on future missions.

With this achievement, Starship will likely soon be cleared to travel into orbit around Earth and deploy Starlink Internet satellites or conduct in-space refueling experiments, two of the near-term objectives on SpaceX's Starship development roadmap.“ Thistheyear2023 (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Will likely soon be cleared ≠ was cleared. RickyCourtney (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree, this doesnt mean a anything Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Wonder why all the Starship articles became playgrounds for people who watch and read lots of videos and websites, but then seem to understand not properly and put halfbaked info as facts into articles that even the source rates as mere guessing... 47.69.168.221 (talk) 08:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Probably because Starship has garnered the attention of more youngsters,who will then watch clickbait videos not knowing the Info isnt correct. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Fehér Zsigmond-03 That's what I think, too. Even worse, all the Original Research coming from false/doubtful interpretation of some vague facts. Lots and lots of them lately. Most recent example is the ongoing discussion in several places whether a flight was actually orbital. They look up some raw flight data from an unsources third party private website (wp:rs non-reliable sources), compare with the one definition of "orbit" (out of many = cherrypicking) they like best, and then insist that this flight therefore (wp:or) was orbital or suborbital and to put that as fact into the article. Why can't anyone stick to the official statements or wait for them to come up? Might it be mere satisfaction for a know-it-all to be the first to have discovered a tiny new fact? Serious work on an encyclopedia should work differently... 47.69.168.221 (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I belive in the past there were arguments here about the flights being trans-atmospheric or suborbital too. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of a complete removal, it should be changed to "Potentially enabling Starship to begin orbital flights", which is backed by a source. Redacted II (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It would be fine to be put it somewhere on the page but it’s not notable enough for inclusion in the intro to this page. RickyCourtney (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed.

Maybe in the IFT-6 mini-section? Redacted II (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Speculation by some third party about what might happen in the future should not be part of the main area of an article in principle. In an article about a movie, it would belong in the "reception" section. No such thing is in any rocket related article. So kindly wait until FAA really clears sat deliverance and not jonjecture around. Does not help the article at all, only flatters some ego. 47.69.168.221 (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)