Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2024

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.

Discussion shifted to RfC, so keeping this open makes little senseRedacted II (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Modify the Orbital/Integrated test table to show the misson outcome:

Flight	Date and time (UTC)	Vehicles	Launch site	Orbit	Duration	Launch outcome	Mission outcome	Booster landing	Spacecraft landing
IFT-1	20 April 2023, 13:33:09	Ship 24/Booster 7	Starbase Orbital Pad A	Transatmospheric (planned)	3 minutes, 59 seconds (until vehicle loss)	Failure (SpaceX declared success)	Failure (SpaceX declared success)	Precluded	Precluded
	The first integrated flight test of Starship was the first flight test of the full launch vehicle with both the Super Heavy booster and the Starship upper stage integrated. If all early parts of the test were nominal on the test plan, the booster would ultimately make a powered splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico, and the ship would enter a transatmospheric Earth orbit before reentering and impacting the Pacific Ocean north of Hawaii. Three engines were shut down before the booster lifted off the launch mount, with at least three more engines shutting down during booster powered flight. The vehicle eventually entered an uncontrolled spin before stage separation due to loss of thrust vector control. The flight termination system detonated with the intent to destroy the vehicle immediately, but the vehicle remained intact until T+3:59, more than 40 seconds after activation of the flight termination system. SpaceX declared this flight a success, as their primary goal was to only clear the pad. The launch resulted in extensive damage to the orbital launch mount and the infrastructures around it, including the propellant tank farm.
IFT-2	18 November 2023, 13:02:50	Ship 25/Booster 9	Starbase Orbital Pad A	Transatmospheric (planned)	8 minutes, 5 seconds (until vehicle loss)	Failure (SpaceX declared success)	Failure (SpaceX declared success)	Failure	Precluded
	The second integrated flight test of Starship had a test flight profile similar to the first flight, with the addition of a new hot-staging technique and the introduction of a water deluge system as part of the ground support equipment at the launch pad. During the first stage ascent, all 33 engines fired to full duration. Starship and Super Heavy successfully accomplished a hot-staging separation. After initiating a flip maneuver and initiating boostback burn, several booster engines began shutting down. One failed energetically, which caused the destruction of the booster. The root cause was filter blockage leading to inadequate inlet pressure in the engine oxidizer turbopumps. The filter and filter operation were upgraded for the next flight. The upper stage ascended normally for six minutes. A leak in the aft section developed while a planned liquid oxygen venting was underway, triggering a combustion event that interrupted communication between the craft’s flight computers, causing full engine shutdown. The Autonomous Flight Safety System detected this mission rule violation and activated the flight termination system (FTS) as the ship reached an altitude of ~148 km and velocity of ~24,000 km/h.
IFT-3	14 March 2024, 13:25:00	Ship 28/Booster 10	Starbase Orbital Pad A	Suborbital	49 minutes, 35 seconds (until vehicle loss)	Success	Partial Failure (SpaceX declared success)	Failure	Failure
	The third integrated flight test of Starship involved an internal propellant transfer demonstration, a deorbit burn, and a test of the Starlink dispenser. A hard splashdown of the ship was planned to occur in the Indian Ocean, approximately 1 hour 4 minutes after launch. The booster successfully propelled the spacecraft to staging and relit its engines for the boostback burn, however, during the burn preceding a soft splashdown, only three engines ignited, and successive engine failures resulted in the destruction of the booster 462 meters above the ocean. The apogee and perigee of the spacecraft was 234 km (145 mi) and −50 km (−31 mi), respectively, on a suborbital trajectory (though one that did reach orbital speed). A scheduled restart of a raptor engine for a prograde burn did not occur, which would have resulted in a 50 km (31 mi) perigee and transatmospheric Earth orbit. Minutes into atmospheric re-entry, Ship 28's telemetry cut off, leading SpaceX to conclude it had disintegrated prior to its planned splashdown. After the launch had concluded, SpaceX confirmed that the booster failed to reignite properly and was destroyed at 462 m above sea level over the Gulf of Mexico. The FAA declared that a mishap had occurred involving both the upper stage and booster, triggering the start of a SpaceX-led investigation overseen by the FAA.

177.121.123.63 (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Listing Mission Success is unneeded, as the events of the mission are described in the text. Also, would we define mission success with the FAA filings (Failure/Failure/Partial Failure), or SpaceX's stated goals (Success/Success/Success)? Redacted II (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Failure/Failure/Partial Failure is definitely more accurate than Success/Success/Success. Goes without saying, we should take what SpaceX and Elon say with a grain of salt. 179.54.222.182 (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The second example is judging stated goals, and is a potential option (and btw, I'd probably go with failure, partial failure, success for mission outcomes of IFT-1, 2, and 3).

But either way, there is no reason to add the mission results to the table: no other vehicle has mission outcome in the launch table, except maybe the shuttle. Redacted II (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Half of the arguments about IFT-3's outcome are about "launch success v.s. mission success". This would at least ameliorate those arguments.

Still, i believe we should go with Failure, Failure, Partial Failure. If IFT-3 didn't go to plan, and there is a mishap being investigated, then chances are it wasn't a full success, regardless of launch outcome.

So, can we do it? Can we accept the edit request? This doesn't really seem to be a contentious topic, and there is specificity (the modified table) in the request. For any edit request, this should be enough.

Cheers, 179.54.222.182 (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

"Can we accept the edit request?"

No, as I do not think mission results should be added. It creates more problems than it solves. Redacted II (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Shadow311 (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I see. Can we get a WP:3O in here? That should be enough. Or do we need to open an RfC? 179.54.222.182 (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Just for your information: People don't read, they scan. They will see the green box and think the whole mission succeeded, not bothering to read the rest of it.

Listing both launch and mission outcomes should clear up the confusion. We may need to open an RfC, though, if we have to.

I'm reopening the request. 179.251.80.181 (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The request has already been answered, and rejected. Redacted II (talk) 22:14, 20 April 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.

RfC: Should we list IFT mission outcome alongside launch outcome?

Hi everyone, this RfC is to retrieve consensus regarding the addition of mission outcome to the Orbital/Intergated launch wikitable, as well as adding the associated chart in the same section.

Context: IFT-3 has ben the subject of confusion and debate here in Wikipedia. The confusion between Launch outcome and Mission outcome has led editors to think of the two as one, despite those being different things. This article also doesn't show the launch outcome alongside mission outcome, meaning editors and readers alike might see the green "success" entry in the launch column/chart and believe the mission succeded, not reading the other text to learn that the mission wasn't a full success. This factor will lead to confusion among Wikipedia editors, and confused editors can't properly write a wiki.

The question: Should we list the mission outcome as clearly as we list the launch outcome?

If you wish to dispute this RfC, please raise your concerns over at the appropriate WP:DRN and WP:PUMP noticeboards. You may also bring this discussion up at WP:DfD and WP:AN, and if all discussions go wrong or end up with no real result, you can contact the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. But bear in mind, contacting the Arbitration Committee is a last resort option that should not be done for minor reasons, so only contact them if the discussions go very wrong. Thanks, 179.251.80.181 (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Support

• I support having both entries, even if only by adding a redirection. Persons who are familiar with the field are too inclined to underestimate the difficulties that naive users have with technical distinctions. But the pedia is primarily for the uninformed user, not the maven. Even the maven is likely to want to deal with one item at a time without being distracted by a lot of stuff bundled in with other material. And adequate entries help with context in discussions and other applications. JonRichfield (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support: The distinction between launch and mission was "the primary point of contention" in the RfC on IFT-3. The majority of editors that supported "success" indictated that "launch success" and "mission success" are different standards with different outcomes for IFT-3, and editors largely agreed that — even if the launch was a success — the mission was not fully successful. This view is supported by reliable sources (RfC on IFT-3 discussion) and should be represented.

The primary point of contention here is that "launch success" and "mission success" are different standards and different pages apply them slightly differently.
— Soni (RfC closer)

Yes, the mission was not a complete success.
— Redacted II

Additionally, the entire mission doesn't matter at all for launch success.
— Redacted II

Mission success is on mission pages (for example for spacecraft).
— Ergzay

IFT-3 was a successful Starship launch, even though the overall mission was not fully successful.
— mfb

...although the IFT-3 mission was not fully successful, it was a successful launch of Starship.
— User3749

I did not fully understand that we were going with mission success vs launch success, launch was definitely successful.
— Cocobb8

Attempts here to redefine the success criteria from "launch success" to "mission success" are moving the goalposts.
— Foonix0

The launch phase was successful. But the overall mission was a failure (due to both vehicles being lost early). I suggest adding a column called "Mission status" to clarify this.
— 57.140.16.18

We could perhaps note launch succes and mission partial succes then?
— Fehér Zsigmond-03

Launch: Full Success Mission: Partial Success
— Largely Legible Layman

Redraiderengineer (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Find a single article that lists mission success in a chart like the proposal (which was an edit request that was denied countless times).

There aren't any. There is no precedent for such an addition nor any reason.

Due representation means "represent fairly". Fair representation applies to everything. And this is included on nothing.

This RfC was closed for a reason (and being an experienced editor is not required, as stated in the IFT-3 RfC closing). I'll be reclosing it. Redacted II (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support There is a clear difference between launch and mission that has been pointed out. Foonix0 points to moving the goalposts in quotation, and it is easy to see that other users clearly agreed in a significant difference to support themselves in the other RfC. Reliable sources were dismissed as supporting a mission failure and not launch failure.

Users created a unique carve out and now are using that carve out to dismiss a POV that is supported by reliable sources like Reuters. It is circular reasoning to argue "Starship or this launch is different than others" on one article's RfC and then claim information can't be added about that launch because it would be different than the other articles. This is WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST and doesn't override the "non-negotiable" nature of Neutral POV.

Neutral POV doesn't mean only the preferred POV. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 07:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Neutral POV means treating Starship like Atlas V, SLS, and every other launch vehicle.

Mission success isn't listed for those vehicles, and therefore it violates NPOV to include it. Redacted II (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Responding with arguments and then closing is disruptive and pushing your POV since you are an involved user. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The RfC was closed, and then an involved IP unclosed it. Reclosing an already closed RfC is not disruptive: unclosing it, however, is. Redacted II (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

You added arguments and do not get to have it both ways.

I added this to the request for closure list. they can make the decision. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

"You added arguments"

I believe I am allowed to correct incorrect statements, while also saying that it should be reclosed.

"I added this to the request for closure list. they can make the decision"

I'll go comment there. Redacted II (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course everyone is allowed to add their arguments but yours are not The Truth. Disagreeing with my statements does not make them incorrect.

You do not get to be involved in the discussion and then promptly shut it down. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I'm honestly surprised that it isn't already there. I don't think that the average reader will equate the green "launch outcome" box to "the mission was a success," as the failure to land either the booster or the craft is a good clue that it didn't really go as planned, it's still good for clarification and a quick reference. Note that there was a discussion on what to classify IFT-3 as, and I recommend doing what the SpaceX Starship page does. Ships & Space_(Edits) 16:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Again, the issue is that this isn't done on any other page (I've looked at every list of launches I could find: none had anything like this one).

  So, if we do it here, it has to be done for every other article. Redacted II (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  This is an "other content" argument without deeper reasoning and should be dismissed. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Deeper reasoning: No reason to list mission success/v.s failure, and there are several potential interpretation for what the mission even was (go with SpaceX stated goal or FAA filing?)

  The results of post-launch testing, as well as the mission in general, is described in detail already. So adding a section for "mission success" adds no (useful) additional information, while running the risk of confusing uninformed readers.

  Additionally, "Other content" holds meaning when considering NPOV: NPOV means treating the topic (in this case Starship) fairly. In other words, treat Starship as Titan and Atlas were/are treated. And since mission success isn't listed there, it shouldn't be listed here.

  Finally, this RfC started as an edit request, which I rejected. They reopened the request, and I rerejected it. Instead of accepting the rejection of the edit request, they started an RfC. Redacted II (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Those are not deeper reasons. WP:AADP#Personal taste "no need" and WP:NOTUSEFUL are arguments to avoid.

  The result of both launch and mission required interpretation. That level of concern was not in your responses to the RfC for IFT-3. You also stated the result of the mission without hesitation in the quotation. Either way NOR policy allows for interpretation based on reliable secondary sources.

  Can you give the quotation from WP:NPOV that supports your approach on fair?

  The repeated rejections you listed are not a reason to resist more discussion after you continue to add to it. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  " WP:AADP#Personal taste "no need""

  That applies to saying "there is no need because I don't like it", not explanations as to why the edit is not required and does not improve the encyclopedia.

  "and WP:NOTUSEFUL are arguments to avoid"

  I should have phrased it as "Adding a section for "mission success" does not improve the understanding of readers, while also running the risk of confusing readers" instead of "So adding a section for "mission success" adds no (useful) additional information, while running the risk of confusing uninformed readers."

  "Either way NOR policy allows for interpretation based on reliable secondary sources."

  If an addition creates confusion, it should not be added. Remember: a sourced statement can be incorrect (given that there are contradictory reliable sources regarding topics).

  "Can you give the quotation from WP:NPOV that supports your approach on fair?"

  I can give multiple quotations.

  Quotation 1: "Watch out for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints"

  This directly applies to the discussion at hand: the proposed edit will "make it more difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints", as the article will have contradictory statements.

  Quotation 2: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources."

  Fairly representing the partial failure narrative would be no representation at all. I recommend looking at the archived IFT-1 discussions regarding representation of Success or Partial Failure.

  As for "treating vehicle A as one would treat vehicle B, otherwise NPOV", that was the majority opinion in the IFT-1, IFT-2, and IFT-3 RfCs.

  "The repeated rejections you listed are not a reason to resist more discussion after you continue to add to it"

  If that is your main objection, my reason is simple: the RfC had already been closed, and was a result of a rejected edit request. As keeping it open is rewarding the disruptive editing by an IP, the correct course of action is to reclose it. That does not make me the closer, that makes me someone who is obeying the closer. Redacted II (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Your first explanation was "no reason to list" without a reason after that in the sentence or a policy.

  Either way you phrase your WP: NOTUSEFUL it is a reason without an explanation beyond it "is described in detail already" or a policy. Also if its already described in detail the interpretation argument is not very strong because it would have already been interpreted.

  The policy does not include your statement on contradictions. WP:SOURCESDISAGREE says the opposite of your statement.

  Quotation 1 is WP:STRUCTURE that is explained as "articles that read too much like a debate and content structured like a resume." A column in a table is does not meet this.

  Quotation 2 supports this RFC. Your argument against it is WP:OTHERCONTENT again.

  The other RfCs were about determining the outcome. This is not about the outcome (you agree as quoted) but about including it following "non-negotiable" WP:NPOV policy.

  If you add arguments to the discussion you are not reclosing it. You are closing it a second time as a new closer but applying the another user's explanation. To obey the closer means to reclose the discussion without adding then promptly shutting it down to have the last word.

  This is mainly WP:REHASH based on a POV (you admit this POV on your user page) and this should be noted for the closer. When reviewing your statements from the other RfCs they contradict or are inconsistent based on the outcome wanted. Instead of continuing to rehash, I will let the formal closing user judge. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support, relevant and easy to understand. – SJ + 16:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

• I think the existing columns (launch, booster landing, ship landing) are sufficient. I also think we have too many RfCs. Keep the status quo, revisit it in a year. --mfb (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Disagree about too many RFCs. How many is too many? How would you ration the number to get just the right number? You no like RFCs? Opt out or ignore them. JonRichfield (talk) 04:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  We keep getting RFCs with very similar questions, they generally get rejected with an overwhelming majority. It's time for WP:STICK. mfb (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• Vehement Oppose. There is no reason to list mission success, unless the failure of the mission results in the death of an astronaut. The outcome of the launch is already described in the entry.

The encyclopedia is for the uninformed user, which is exactly why the outcome of the launch is described in the table, and not just as "success/partial failure/failure". Because if we just did that, 95% of our editors would be confused.

Having both the descript and the "success/partial failure/failure" seems good at first glance, but it has two major issues. The first is that the average reader will just see "Launch Success, Mission Partial Failure", and just stop reading, thus decreasing their understanding. The second is "How do we define mission success?". Do we go with "SpaceX achieved their goals", or "SpaceX succeeded at every part of the mission, as described on their descript of the launch". Too many debates have been had on this, and none of these debates have ended satisfactorily for either side. In at least one case, users have been temporarily banned for their behavior. As someone who has been in every single one of these debates since IFT-1, lets not have another.

Finally, editors on Starship pages have recently gone to RfC's when they don't get their way. Look at the IFT-3 RfC, for example. There was a clear consensus for success, and then an RfC was started at the last minute. RfC's aren't always the answer, sometimes you have to just accept Redacted II (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, no other list of launches for any other vehicle lists mission success. So why do that for Starship? Redacted II (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose—these are not at all "missions" in the ordinary sense that word is sometimes used for launch vehicles: where a specific payload is contracted to be delivered to a particular orbital trajectory or final orbit. These are simply, flights—specifically, test flights—they are integrated tests of an entire launch vehicle stack to test quite a number of things that cannot be tested on the ground, and are not tested when the myriad different subsystems are tested (on the ground) both before and after they are assembled into the rocket or the ground support equipment. We Wikipedia editors should not be tying to play handicap golf and rate every particular subtest, i.e., the ones sufficiently notable to be discussed publically, as to whether they succeeded or failed. N2e (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Leaning oppose per N2e's reasoning. This would be a very different sort of analysis when it comes to a very different sort of flight, but that analysis would have to come from independent reliable sources, not Wikipedian's making their own judgment and labeling calls.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Not sure overall mission success or failure adds anything at the level of a column and not even sure what mission "success" means. Cannot find a generic mission statement for the IFT program nor for any individual IFT. In looking at the flight profile of the 1st IFT it would seem "mission" success is successfully completing all of the events in a mission profile. I think the three events currently as table columns are sufficient. Tom94022 (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose (Invited randomly by a bot) A) We already have Launch and Landing Outcomes. That's the critical info for these ships. B) Mission success for test flights would not mean that every tested component met specs. It would only mean every test was successfully conducted with a clear result (component did/didn't meet specs). A single phrase describing that kind of success for all the tests would not make the distinction clear nor convey much meaning. Jojalozzo (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, mainly per N2e's reasoning. By their nature, test flights are different from "Production" launches, where the mission objectives are clear and documented. Trying to do this for IFTs will very likely lead to editors trying to parse through different sources that reached different conclusions on the success or failure of a mission. Would strongly prefer to keep the existing 3 columns through the IFT phase. GoPats (talk) 11:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

• Is success/failure a judgement call on the part of editors, or is this scoring based on a cited reference? For example, I don't see any of the refs for IFT-2 declaring the launch a failure; the only non-SpaceX ref [1] states, "Unlike the maiden flight, Starship stuck to the plan, with a clean liftoff and all 33 Raptor 2s running without issue as the vehicle flew out of South Texas."

More directly relevant to this RfC, do any reliable sources clearly state success/failure outcomes for mission as distinct from launch? If not, it would appear to be a violation of e.g. WP:SYNTH (as may existing columns). Carleas (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

COMMENT: Agree with Carleas; we should be guided by sources, and sources explicitly calling it one thing or another; and of course, not just on headlines inserted by editors to get clicks. N2e (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Success v.s failure for launches is determined by insertion into the correct orbit, and condition of payload post-launch.

The arrangement of how mission success will be determined (if it is added) is unknown. All previous discussions on the topic have not ended well, and usually resulted in multiple edit wars. Redacted II (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

"The encyclopedia is for the uninformed user, which is exactly why the outcome of the launch is described in the table, and not just as "success/partial failure/failure". Because if we just did that, 95% of our editors would be confused." We can still just describe it on the table while adding the extra column. I don't see why editors would be confused. "The first [issue with this] is that the average reader will just see "Launch Success, Mission Partial Failure", and just stop reading, thus decreasing their understanding." Not necessarily. Some people who want to know more will just read the table's description, or access the article. Face it: People just want summaries, they don't read much, they scan. To quote JonRichfield above, Wikipedia is primarily for the uninformed users, not the mavens, and even the mavens are likely to want to deal with one item at a time without being distracted by a lot of stuff bundled in with other material. "The second is "How do we define mission success?". Do we go with "SpaceX achieved their goals", or "SpaceX succeeded at every part of the mission, as described on their descript of the launch"[?]." Policy's a bit unclear about this, but i would lean toward the latter. After all, if there is a mishap investigation on IFT-3, then it wasn't a full success. This argument might work better for the "Discussion" section below, though. 179.251.80.181 (talk) 04:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on moving this to discussion. I'll do that soon.

But every other Wikipedia is designed to be read, not scanned. So, if you want to change that, this single article isn't the place for that (I don't know where such a discussion would even go).

As for why having the mission counter and descript will not improve the Wikipedia, the average reader will stop reading. After all, they have all the information they want. Redacted II (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand. However, the objective here is to prevent confusion among WP editors and readers. Confused readers will misinterpret facts and spread the misinteprtetations, while confused editors will make poor judgements and poor decisions, which hinders the objective of every WP contributor: To build a free encyclopedia. When the rules say no, when the precedent says no, heck, when they say nothing at all, sometimes, the best answer, if it means improving Wikipedia, is to ignore them. 187.46.139.138 (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

"However, the objective here is to prevent confusion among WP editors and readers" But the change proposed by the creator of the RfC (after I rejected their edit request twice) would increase confusion. Redacted II (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

"But the change proposed by the creator of the RfC (after I rejected their edit request twice) would increase confusion."

How would it do that? Please, explain. 187.46.139.138 (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

To quote myself:

"The encyclopedia is for the uninformed user, which is exactly why the outcome of the launch is described in the table, and not just as "success/partial failure/failure". Because if we just did that, 95% of our editors would be confused.

Having both the descript and the "success/partial failure/failure" seems good at first glance, but it has two major issues. The first is that the average reader will just see "Launch Success, Mission Partial Failure", and just stop reading, thus decreasing their understanding. The second is "How do we define mission success?". Do we go with "SpaceX achieved their goals", or "SpaceX succeeded at every part of the mission, as described on their descript of the launch". Too many debates have been had on this, and none of these debates have ended satisfactorily for either side. In at least one case, users have been temporarily banned for their behavior. As someone who has been in every single one of these debates since IFT-1, lets not have another." Redacted II (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

COMMENT: Exactly. There is no "mission" on these test flights, and to date (and announced for IFT4, there is no payload whatsover. It is original research for editors to be doing all this handicapping and success/failure calling on various parts of a test flight. Engineers run tests; they want to collect data on the integrated article being tested for as much of a flight as possible; but that is not at all the same thing as an operational mission with an objective and orbital destination or trajectory.

Yeah, there's nothing clearly defined, but IFT-1 and IFT-2 failed to launch (pretty clear Mission Failure), and the reentry failure (they were going for splashdown), no raptor relight, and uncertain payload door test results (among other stuff), as well as the mishap investigation makes me lean towards partial failure for IFT-3, regardless of what SpaceX said on this and the other two flights.

If you wanna discuss mission outcome, you might wanna use the "Discussion" section below. 179.251.80.181 (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

COMMENT: without sources for your statement " IFT-1 and IFT-2 failed to launch (pretty clear Mission Failure)", that is merely an editor opinion. Wikipedia should not be doling out original research to our readers. N2e (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

"that is merely an editor opinion."

What? How is this editor opinion? This is just simple logic: If the launch fails, then the mission fails. Simple as that.

I want you to explain everything. Explain how this is "doling out original research", how launch failure doesn't equate to mission failure, and what sources do i need to cite to "prove my point". 187.46.139.138 (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

"What? How is this editor opinion?" Because you don't have any sources

"how launch failure doesn't equate to mission failure" Because the mission for IFT-1 was to clear the tower. IFT-2 was stage separation. The mission was successful for both of those flights, but both launches were failures.

"what sources do i need to cite to "prove my point"" That's your job Redacted II (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

So... IFT-1 and -2 are partial failures, then? Those weren't full successes, there were mishap investigations and all of that.

Besides, SpaceX is known to scale back its objectives when it comes to Starship. Remember when IFT-1 was called an Orbital Flight Test? We should take what SpaceX says with a grain of salt, especially in regards to Starship, you know WP:SECONDARY and all that. 187.46.139.138 (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Moving this to discussion.

"Besides, SpaceX is known to scale back its objectives when it comes to Starship" Iterative development, only applied to hardware instead of software. They aren't "scaling back" the objectives.

Also, if the launch was 100% nominal, it would have reached Orbit, so Orbital Flight Test was an accurate descript. But that's irrelevant. Redacted II (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Requesting a formal closure based on policy can help avoid an edit war. Currently, three editors support (including the discussion/comments made by 179.251.80.181 that initiated this RfC) and three oppose, so this isn't a case where a straw poll demonstrates clear consensus. Redraiderengineer (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

"Requesting a formal closure based on policy can help avoid an edit war"

Policy clearly supports oppose. Redacted II (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

This RfC is chaos. Closures, reopenings, endless argumenting.

But, if you want something for your arguments: There is precedent i could find on Wikipedia regarding mission outcome: The probe/interplanetary mission lists. They distinguish between launch failure and mission failure (or "Spacecraft Failure"), even for missions where no one's inside the spacecraft. 187.46.129.213 (talk) 06:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Included FAA Mishap

Failing to note that the FAA declared a Mishap would be depriving readers of valuable information. Redacted II (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Mishap investigations have been the case for all previous flight tests but none of the previous ones are mentioned in this article. We do have the mishap mentioned in the articles about the test flights themselves but I don't think it would be necessary to mention it in that section, especially given that none of the previous flights mentioned it. User3749 (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Alright, self-reverting Redacted II (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Do we need a Integrated Test Flight 4 page yet

• i was wondering if we should make the wikipedia page for starship flight test 4 yet or should we wait for the flight plan to release?

Given that it will happen in the next few (3-5) weeks, yes.Redacted II (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected Edit Request on 21 May 2024

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.

Edit Requestor moved request to new topic. Request has been denied multiple times alreadyRedacted II (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

---

In the lead section of this article, or one of the sctions below, add the following infoboxes:

Starship suborbital flight tests

Starhopper prototype vehicle, used in suborbital testing, seen here under construction
Program overview
Country	United States
Organization	SpaceX
Purpose	Intra-atmospheric testing of Starship and its components
Status	Completed
Program history
Duration	2019-2021
First flight	Starhopper (tethered flight) April 3, 2019 (2019-04-03) Flight 1 July 25, 2019 (2019-07-25)
Last flight	Flight 9 May 5, 2021 (2021-05-05)
Successes	6 (not counting tethered flights)
Failures	0
Partial failures	3
Launch site(s)	SpaceX Starbase
Uncrewed vehicle(s)	SpaceX Starhopper, SpaceX Starship (test articles)

Starship integrated flight tests

Also known as: Starship orbital flight tests
Ship 24 and Booster 7, launching as part of IFT-1 (aka OFT-1)
Program overview
Country	United States
Organization	SpaceX
Purpose	Orbital/Suborbital flight beyond Karman Line, test of Starship components at orbital altitude, reentry testing, Starship/Superheavy recovery testing, test of Super Heavy booster components, among others
Status	Ongoing
Program history
Duration	2023-present
First flight	IFT-1 (S24/B7) April 20, 2023 (2023-04-20)
Successes	0
Failures	2
Partial failures	1
Launch site(s)	SpaceX Starbase
Vehicle information
Uncrewed vehicle(s)	SpaceX Starship
Launch vehicle(s)	SpaceX Super Heavy

187.46.129.213 (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, oppose, for similar reasons as to your previous edit request, which I will restate and rephrase here:

General Objections:

1: The article doesn't need an infobox, much less two.

2: The labelling of success v.s failure will lead both informed and uninformed readers to draw incorrect assumptions.

3: The wording of the "Purpose" section is needlessly long.

Suborbital infobox Objections:

1: A Suborbital infobox is unneeded, as those flights aren't important enough to have one.

IFT infobox objections:

1: Launch vehicle is incorrect: The launch vehicle is SpaceX Starship, with the Uncrewed vehicle being SpaceX Starship (Spacecraft) Redacted II (talk) 17:52, 21 May 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.

Semi-protected Edit Request on 21 May 2024

Further adjusted using Redacted II's advice.

In the lead section of this article, or one of the sections below, add the following infobox:

Starship integrated flight tests

Also known as: Starship orbital flight tests
Ship 24 and Booster 7, launching as part of IFT-1 (aka OFT-1)
Program overview
Country	United States
Organization	SpaceX
Purpose	Various: Orbital/Suborbital flight beyond Karman Line; Test of Starship components at orbital altitude; Reentry testing; Starship/Superheavy recovery testing; Test of Super Heavy booster components; Among others.
Status	Ongoing
Program history
Duration	2023-present
First flight	IFT-1 (S24/B7) April 20, 2023 (2023-04-20)
Successes	0
Failures	2
Partial failures	1
Launch site(s)	SpaceX Starbase
Vehicle information
Uncrewed vehicle(s)	SpaceX Starship
Launch vehicle(s)	Starship launch stack (SpaceX Starship + SpaceX Super Heavy)

Changes:

-Removed suborbital infobox (not notable enough)

-Added bulleted list to make the purpose section easier to read

-Corrected uncrewed/launch vehicle

This should be enough to address most of Redacted II's objections.

187.46.129.213 (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Objection remains.

The Launch vehicle stack issue is still unresolved: you don't need to list both stages as part of it.

Additionally, there is still the risk of misleading viewers with the "partial failure" for IFT-3. Listing mission outcome is unneeded as well: look at the RfC on this page above.

Finally, I recommend in the future modifying the initial edit request, instead of creating a new topic (it's an easy mistake to make: I know I've made similar mistakes before (with this page too!)). Redacted II (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

IFT-5 launch date

The current IFT-5 date is late June (it will probably be delayed, but that is what sources indicate).

August, while somewhat more likely, is unsourced. Redacted II (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)