Talk:SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 2

Success or Failure

Hear ye, hear ye brave people, the (hopefully not) overly long debate about whether or not the launch was a failure is about to start, have a seat. It's gonna be boring. Different sources are gonna say different things, and honestly my opinion is that we should not even take a side, or describe the fact that the result of the launch was differently regarded by different people/news articles. If more people/articles consider it a failure, also specify it. CodemWiki (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

We should probably just say that some stuff were successful (like the pad, hot staging and engines), while others (like SECO and boostback) were not. Stoplookin9 (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

"Partial failure" is probably fine. I wouldn't say its fully "successful" until its met every single objective. (even if it did achieve many) Clayel (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Partial failure seems like an appropriately concise answer, proportionately to the relative pointlessness of the debate. Fine with me, I'll add it. Was already added. CodemWiki (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with that as someone who participated in the previous discussion. It you know, didn't blow up the launchpad so that's progress. And it achieved most of it's objectives. "Partial success" is how it's listed, I'm changing that as we use the term failure not success generally? Chuckstablers (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Here: SpaceX Starship flight tests#Orbital_launch_statistics? IMO it should be Partial failure because Partial success should probably be reserved for something like everything worked but one of the stages failed re-entry. CodemWiki (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with partial failure: it didn't cause another rock tornado and SpaceX achieved what they really wanted, which was getting to hot staging. We can't make it a success obviously because it didn't make it to orbit (technically). Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

If notable entities (SpaceX, NASA, NASA personnel etc) describe it as a success or failure, wikipedia should note that they say so. But painting in too broad of a stroke is just going to invite more endless nonsensical edit warring.

Drop the labels entirely and just state what happened. Foonix0 (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

This is absolutely the wisest approach, but it's not applicable everywhere such as in charts or infoboxes. CodemWiki (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

If this mission is "partial failure" then the last mission was also "partial failure", if we're going to stay consistent. I'm a big fan of making that change. Ergzay (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Seconded Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Me too. First flight should be classified as partial failure such that total launches = 2, partial failures = 2. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The best consistency on here is to follow guidance of WP:INDEPENDENT sources about the event and to avoid original research. Sub31k (talk) 05:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

the previous discussion on the "success or failure" issue may be relevant. reading 50 pages of disagreement may be easier than writing it. please focus on the differences between IFT-1 and IFT-2. 135.180.103.131 (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Flight results speculation

Speculation warning! (until confirmed by SpaceX). I'm going to speculate stuff here, and anything that gets confirmed will be placed in the aftermath section (doesn't exist yet for obvious reasons)

From aerial shots by RGV aerial photography, it looks like the OLM sustained some charring (especially by booster QD hood). This might be from the "power slide", or more formally, the pad avoidance maneuver. Ship QD arm may have sustained some damage (probably a piston that got damaged/sheared off)

Water deluge plate looks intact though, also no rock tornado yay!

I'm pretty sure ship and booster were destroyed by fts due to engine problems. Booster probably due to some engines not relighting and hot staging damage (probably both). We need to wait for more info about ship (early SECO might have contributed to FTS, but that's not confirmed)

Now we just need to wait for official sources to disprove me. Reply when theories get proven/disproven Stoplookin9 (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Speculation: I think the engines on super heavy shut down due to the vehicle experiencing negative acceleration from the exhaust of Starship pushing on the hot staging ring. Theory put forward by Scott Manley [1].

Of course, requires confirmation Stoplookin9 (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

in addition to the booster engine problems due to propellant sloshing, there was a LOX leak on stage 2 late in flight, also courtesy scott manley 135.180.103.131 (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Upper stage failure

This is best placed here, so that more experience editors can add it in (or not) as is appropriate.

All times are flight times in minutes and seconds from launch as indicated by the flight clock in the video.

Observations: At 7:06, a plume appears heading off to the left side of the spacecraft. Up until then, the view had been of a tight spec from the rockets firing. At 7:40, there is a flash and a puff going off in all directions. I see the engines getting brighter and then duller after that. At 7:47, the engine appear to be to the right of the main plume, where they had been behind it before. At 7:53, I last seeing the engines burning. At 8:04, there is a flash and a plume expanding in all directions. At 8:07, there is a bigger flash and plume. After that, nothing more is visible.

Interpretation/Speculations: There was a failure of some sort in Starship at or before 7:06. Certainly at 7:06 material starts spewing out of Starship in an anomalous fashion. This is evidence of either an engine breach or a hull breach. As the plume is ongoing, it is most likely being formed by combustion products. The 7:40 event is appears to be an explosion. The changes in the engine brightness afterwards and the 7:47 position of the engines indicate that Starship has started to tumble. SECO appears to have occurred by 7:53, but this may not have been a controlled cutoff. The 8:04 event is another explosion, which may be the beginning of the FTS sequence. The 8:07 event is certainly the FTS doing its job.

EMS | Talk 19:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Fluctuating brightness usually indicates a dying engine/leak/fire.

Also did a bit of rough math here. Assuming SpaceX webcast GUI is accurate, the vehicle was moving at about 24000 km/h. This is about 4000 km/h short of orbit, or about 1100 m/s. Assuming 4gs of acceleration (based off of Falcon 9 second stage and the fact this is planned to carry humans in the future), SECO is about 28 to 30 seconds early.

Considering this is the first time an RVac has flown in a vacuum, I wouldn't be too surprised if one of the RVacs is burning engine rich exhaust. Stoplookin9 (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Stovenour (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Update: We don't need to speculate any more as Elon Musk described the reason for the Starship failure on Jan 12, 2024.

Watch @elonmusk deliver a company update (Video). SpaceX. Jan 12, 2024. 49 minutes in.

"… the reason that it actually didn't quite make it to orbit was we vented the liquid oxygen and liquid oxygen ultimately lead to a fire and an explosion … we wanted to vent the liquid oxygen because we normally wouldn't have that liquid oxygen if we had a payload … Ironically if it had a payload it would have reached orbit."

table

should include the previous flight for comparrison. 86.120.129.22 (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

NOAA images

Can someone add the NOAA images of the debris clouds, both of the first and second stages? Those should also be able to be plotted onto maps, for maps of where the debris should be at. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Will do Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 12:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced milestone achievements

@Cammurray0420 Please stop restoring the list of milestones achieved without citing sources. There is no way to tell where or not this is original research, and in general content must be verifiable by cited sources. Sub31k (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Cammurray0420 Please do not continue to perform unexplained reverts restoring uncited content. Sub31k (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:SpaceX Starship integrated flight test which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit war - mission timeline

Cammurray0420, you have reverted the edits of multiple editors regarding the same content. Instead of edit warring, please use the talk page to discuss the content and reach consensus. Redraiderengineer (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

no. Cammurray0420 (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

That kind of behaviour won't do you any favors. We would really prefer that we can cooperate, and not have to resort to blocking you from editing. Gojet-64 (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Flight name

The name “Integrated Flight Test 2” is not an official flight name. It was used just once in a tweet by Musk and adopted by the media as if it was the official name. But in official documents the names “Starship Flight Test 2” (SFT-2) and “Orbital Flight Test 2” (OFT-2) were used. Sidebart (talk) 14:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

That's also what I was thinking a fortiori, the "integrated" part of the title isn't useful. CodemWiki (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Mission success

Mission success means meeting all the flight objectives. The flight objectives are even listed in this article. They were not all met. Period. The mission was not a success, it was a successful test. They learned alot, but all the mission objectives were not met. The mission objective was not to just get to stage seperation - read the article. Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The current text in question reads like a WP:SYNTH attack on SpaceX's opinion and isn't supported by the related citation. CNN doesn't say that SpaceX was somehow "wrong," but the text implies that. Foonix0 (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Dr.gregory.retzlaff The proposed modification still ignores the difference between what your opinion of the objectives are and what SpaceX's opinions are. It creates an accusation that those opinions are "wrong". See WP:NPOV "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." If there are well-sourced objections to SpaceX's opinions, that can potentially be added. But please get consensus before adding this. Foonix0 (talk) 07:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Not an opinion. By definition, a successful mission accomplishes it's objectives. If it does not, it is not successful. Look in a dictionary and read the definition and think about it. I concur it was a successful test, but that does not make it a successful flight. It's basic English applied to aerospace and common understanding of what words mean. I don't need to source the meaning of the concept of success. You don't source the meaning of the word success as spacex seems to define it. Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

And now I see someone has found a good reference to the mission being a failure. It's sourced, you go fight with the person that put that in, I'm happy with that referenced change, you go scrap it out with him, I'm outta here.

Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Dr.gregory.retzlaff The edit summary here admits you are trying to convince the reader that SpaceX is "gaslighting." Please stop. The reader can make up their own mind.

The FCC is not talking about SpaceX's own criteria for success. Regardless, it's tangential to the launch and thus doesn't belong in the lede. Foonix0 (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

All I'm asking is that someone either remove the inaccurate spacex claim of success, or qualify it that it really was only a successful test. or, if you want, a failure or partial success. Wikipedia is about accuracy and truth. It is not accurate or true to reference the lie spacex put out there without counterbalancing it, or removing it. The mission was NOT a success. Look at the other parts of the article that show that. You cannot in good faith claim success, based on what space says. Answer me this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk • contribs) 05:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Success "is the state or condition of meeting a defined range of expectations. The criteria for success depend on context, and may be relative to a particular observer or belief system" (emphasis added). SpaceX's (the observer's) conditions and expectations may differ from other viewers' expectations. That is the key here. Having a different viewpoint does not constitute a "lie".

It is accurate that SpaceX viewed the launch as a success. There is no source that claims SpaceX didn't view it that way success. WP:UNDUE notes that "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" SpaceX's viewpoint has been publish in reliable secondary sources, which lends "significance," thus meriting inclusion. The current wording avoids endorsing it, which is appropriate to fairly represent it. In order to continue fairly representing it, we should avoid WP:SYNTH or other statements that would negate it, unless there is a good source that specifically addresses SpaceX's viewpoint. Foonix0 (talk) 06:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Dr.gregory.retzlaff and Foonix0, please work toward a policy-based solution instead of edit warring. WP:SYNTH implies a new conclusion not stated by either source, and WP:NPOV does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view. Here are a couple of reliable sources that could be a starting point. (The second CNN quote is similar to the first but with more detail. See the complete quote at the link to avoid any risk of a copyright violation.)

SpaceX judged the second launch of its Starship a success after the craft's two launch stages separated and one made it into space, but neither finished their mission.

Though the flight did not reach completion, company employees on the livestream called it “an incredibly successful day” that would yield data for future improvements.

SpaceX had already said it would consider the mission a success if Starship made it past hot staging. But after hot staging, the Super Heavy booster began tumbling out of control and exploded over the Gulf of Mexico just moments later. SpaceX had hoped to reignite the Super Heavy’s engines and guide it to a controlled landing.

SpaceX did not finish the entire mission, and both the Starship spacecraft and Super Heavy booster exploded over the ocean.

...

SpaceX had already said it would consider the mission a success if Starship made it past that point. And it did.

Redraiderengineer (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

"WP:SYNTH implies a new conclusion not stated by either source" Agreed. The FCC's statements don't address SpaceX's viewpoint. SpaceX's statements don't address the FCC's viewpoint. My main goal here is just to avoid implying that one contradicts the other.

"WP:NPOV "does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view". Also agreed. The FCC's mention of Starship is something that went under my radar, and my thanks go to @Zae8 for finding that. It absolutely should be in the article. My proposed change removed it from the lede while keeping it in the body; The background to that is tangential to the launch (which I'm not sure is appropriate for the lede) and at the same time was the most straightforward way to resolve my SYNTH concerns. (The exact text in the body could be improved, and I had attempted to improve it, but I'm putting that aside for now.) Foonix0 (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

For the lead:

The SpaceX statement is not a neutral source, and SpaceX is, well, well-known for let's say quite overly optimistic perspectives regarding their own actions. So I suggest to remove the SpaceX statement, because Wikipedia is not the marketing department of SpaceX. And instead replace it by the more objective and neutral FCC assessment https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship_integrated_flight_test_2&diff=prev&oldid=1190548406 as added by User:CodemWiki. As far as I know the FCC judgement is the most solid judment which is not just from SpaceX itself or reporting on or repeating what SpaceX is saying.

Any objections? Zae8 (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Leaving both FCC's and SpaceX's statement and not take party should be the default on Wikipedia, and avoid pointless debates. CodemWiki (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Also fine for me. My intention was simply to address User:Foonix0 concern that Wikipedia may suggest that the FFC statements contradict the SpaceX statements. But yes, your version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship_integrated_flight_test_2&diff=prev&oldid=1190548406 looked good to me. To address User:Foonix0 we could swap the order? Any objects to that solution? User:Foonix0 what do you think about this?

The FCC has considered the launch as a failure. SpaceX described the test as a success.

Zae8 (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC) Zae8 (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes a single sentence for both that doesn't attempt to compare them is all that's needed. CodemWiki (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Removing connecting words is a step forward. Reversing the order is a slight improvement as well. I'd prefer that version over the current one.

Rocket launches are not in the FCC's domain, beyond the communications required to support it. The statement cited is a small part of a larger document that is primarily addressing Starlink. One among various stated concerns is about satellite capacity potentially not meeting deadlines due to lack of launch capacity, which is arguably valid, but isn't much of an analysis of this launch in particular.

In an effort to find grounds for a compromise, I reviewed WP:LEAD. It notes "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should [...] summarize the most important points". I'm not sure that either view meets those criteria, so how about moving both to Aftermath section? The cadence of that section supports separating them, which I think addresses my other concern. Foonix0 (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

As long as the lead only talked about "success" nobody was ever questioning whether that statement should be in the lead. But now, since there are solid reports declaring it as a "failure", suddenly such a judgement does not belong into the lead anymore? This makes no sense to me.

In my view it is obvious that the lead section of a Wikipedia page about a rocket launch should contain at least one or two sentences about whether the launch was a success or failure. Trying to move such key information into an aftermath section seems to be whitewashing to me to please SpaceX and SpaceX fans who want to keep the word "failure" far away from "their" space vehicle. Wikipedia should withstand such pressure.

And I think the FCC analysis is by far the most objective neutral assessment. From the FCC analysis it is quite clear that SpaceX assured them contractually at least one successful Starship launch this year, but failed to deliver. That's a simple fact which all technically detailed dicussions and distractions cannot take away. That's more solid than more abstract academic discussion about people consider as "success" or "failure", and even more solid that SpaceX own statements, which obviously are not objective in any way.

In summary, having the FCC statement in the lead is important information. Zae8 (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

"the lead section of a Wikipedia page about a rocket launch should contain at least one or two sentences about whether the launch was a success or failure. " That's fine. I don't see my suggested compromise as precluding a summary of reactions, which is what WP:LEAD suggests.

"And I think the FCC analysis is by far the most objective neutral assessment." I disagree. The FCC decision was split 3-2 along political party lines. The minority has been publicly vocal about the lack of objectivity in the decision. "If this is what passes for due process and the rule of law at the FCC, then this agency ought not to be trusted with the adjudicatory powers Congress has granted it".

That might be a moot point though, because it's still tangential to the launch. To answer the question "What are the most significant aspects of the IFT-2 launch", I don't think "the FCC declared it a failure" would be high on the list. This weighs in favor of removing from the lead, regardless of SpaceX's viewpoint.

"more solid that SpaceX own statements, which obviously are not objective in any way." Again, the concept of "success" and "failure" are inherently subjective, because they depend on which criteria are chosen by viewer. I'm not saying that SpaceX didn't fail according to the FCC's chosen criteria. Foonix0 (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Do I understand you correctly: you had no problem with quoting SpaceX in the lead declared their own launch as success? But you oppose putting into the lead quoting a different reliable source considering it as failure? Zae8 (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe WP:LEAD suggests that SpaceX's statement shouldn't be in the lead. (It's currently not in the body at all, which seems contrary to lede guidelines, and should be fixed)

The FCC also shouldn't be for the reasons stated previously.

I agree with "Yes a single sentence for both that doesn't attempt to compare them is all that's needed." Foonix0 (talk) 06:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but you didn't have a problem with any of these statements being quoted in the lead, right?

It's also worth pointing out that SpaceX didn't say the test was a success. And the current lead refers to an CNN article which doesn't say it either. The official SpaceX statement on https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-2 says: "With a test like this, success comes from what we learn". Note the term "comes". Therefore, they avoid calling the test itself an success, but success will only come in the future after the test from "what we learn". Zae8 (talk) 07:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I think the latest version should resolve all concerns of all of you. In case you disagree, please discuss here before modifying. Zae8 (talk) 08:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The CNN source says "SpaceX had already said it would consider the mission a success if Starship made it past that point. And it did." [...] "The company is already emphasizing that, in its view, this test was a success." These are CNN's words, not SpaceX's. This information should be included in the article because it provides insight into SpaceX's views.

"Ok, but you didn't have a problem with any of these statements being quoted in the lead, right?" I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion from my previous comment. Foonix0 (talk) 11:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

If you look in the CNN article, the text you are quoting is attempting to summarize the SpaceX statements "We got so much data and that will all help us to improve for our next flight" and "With a test like this, success comes from what we learn". So if Wikipedia refers to a statement by SpaceX, then it should use the real statement of SpaceX, not a misleading summary attributed to CNN. Zae8 (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:SECONDARY "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." That seems to be what is happening here. CNN is performing a secondary analysis on SpaceX's statements. I don't see why we need a verbatim quote to include it in the article. "SpaceX considered the test as a success" is enough to summarize the secondary source.

WP:PRIMARY "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."

The idea about interpreting the phrasing from SpaceX's web page does not seem work within the confines of wikipedia policy. As I understand the policy, we could potentially quote SpaceX, but we can't state an analysis.

If you are aware of any other policies or guidelines that might apply, I'll be happy to read them. Foonix0 (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's my point, simply quoting SpaceX.👍 Zae8 (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The FCC deciding what is a success or failure in Engineering is as reliable as asking Joe Rogan for medical advice.

The FCC is not qualified, nor are its analysts or keaders, in the field of Aerospsce engineering.

As a matter of fact, on articles like this one shpuldnt even be able to make edits without proof of an Aerospace Engineering education or industry certification.

I know that burns the Critical Theory folks that run thing here at wiki in current year, but apparent sociologosts shouldnt comment or edit in issues of hard science here.

Is there a way to lock out non credentialed from edits? 2602:FE43:1:EC25:64D9:8E01:D179:3EDC (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other about if the quote is significant to include (maybe a slight preference to "no"?), but if you do then I have no objections. It's not a replacement for secondary source reference you removed, however. Please consider self-reverting that. Foonix0 (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The secondary quote reference was broken previously.

You may consider adding a fixed one, but I would recommend against it, because it would make the lead unnecessarily long. Why adding a redundant secondary quote when already having a good quote of SpaceX itself? Zae8 (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright, yes, it's too much for the lead that way. Mulling it over again, your quote selection is good, but I suspect some well-meaning editor will later remove it just because it's primary sourced.

Would you object to adding the previous one back to the body? I'll put it after Nelson and Hadfield. There is a lot of good background information in the source, so I'd like to keep that callout somewhere to make that available to the reader. Foonix0 (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

No objections, nice that you ask. But I want to note that this source is still already referenced in the second paragraph of the lead as [8], so referencing it twice does not seem necessary to me. Zae8 (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

It's more about knowing which sources contain which information. [8] is referenced twice but those references don't indicate it contains that information. Foonix0 (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

References