Talk:SpaceX Starship

Misspelled name

I have no idea how to successfully edit, so I'll throw this out there - the name "Michael" is misspelled "Micheal" throughout the references parts of the page 131.137.5.113 (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Stoplookin9 :) Send me a message! 15:33, 29 February 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." [1] 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)

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)

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)

Starship orbital launch statistics

I've been working on a template that will contain Starship launch statistics, sort of similar to Template:Falcon rocket statistics. In the future (like 1 year from now), when Starship might be flying often for Artemis, it might be useful to be able to update launch counts across all the pages that need them.

The template is located here: User:Stoplookin9/SpaceX Starship Statistics

Please let me know on the template talk page if anything needs improvement or changes, or if you think the template is ready for implementation! Stoplookin9 :) Send me a message! 15:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Sounds nice! Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Awesome! As Starship develops, it could also be helpful to categorize which flights were orbital, lunar, Martian, etc, as well as how many flights of each version (crew, cargo, Starship HLS, tanker starships, etc.) 184.181.39.72 (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, things like mission counts for various missions like tanker, hls, crew, ect. will be added when they actually start flying. I don't want to be a bit too WP:CRYSTAL, so I'm keeping the template as trim down as possible. Stoplookin9 :) Send me a message! 15:18, 15 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. [2], [3] & [4] 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)

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)

SpaceX Starship test flights and SpaceX Starship operational flights will need separate sections

SpaceX Starship test flights and SpaceX Starship operational flights will need separate sections for their failure/success statistics. They aren't the same vehicle as they're not capable of carrying payload. I've mentioned this before but I'll mention it here again as this will need accounting for. People previously shot down the idea given that there haven't been any operational flights, but it will be a undeniable fact that these vehicles were different. Ergzay (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

This isn't necessary at the moment and I don't quite agree with the premises. ITF-2 did simulate carrying a payload in LO2 and many other test flights with payload simulators don't have their launches separated. If in the future there is a major revisional change that warrants a different categorisation, like with Falcon 9, then we can deal with it. CtrlDPredator (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@CtrlDPredator IFT2 did not simulate carrying a payload anymore than any rocket with too much fuel is "simulating" carrying a payload. And there is no "if" given that this rocket as currently built is incapable of carrying a payload. It didn't have any location to mount them, in any of the vehicle launches. Ergzay (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

This has been brought up before, and I don't see the consensus changing. No other vehicle has been classified separately for its test launches. Other vehicles also go through changes throughout their operational life, even going as far as using totally different engines (e.g. Antares). That said (like with Antares), these prototype launches could be considered a different configuration of the same vehicle, with a breakdown of each configuration given (granted, this is difficult given that SpaceX hasn't laid out defined configurations of the vehicle) Gojet-64 (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

> No other vehicle has been classified separately for its test launches.

Because no other vehicle has done this style of development in the history of rocket development. This has even been extensively reported on by the likes of Eric Berger. Ergzay (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Other vehicles have done destructive/iterative testing. One comparable example being the N1. That vehicle also underwent substantial changes between each launch. Blowing up unfinished products is not exactly a new thing in rocket science. In fact, it's how the earliest vehicles were all developed, dating back to the 50s. Gojet-64 (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

PLEASE WAIT UNTIL V2 FLIES.

I cannot emphasis this enough.

Once v2 is flying, there is no reason to not separate the v1 and v2 launches in the infobox. But until then, the majority of editors will be against this. Redacted II (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:TOOSOON Time will fix this on its own. Let's avoid more useless discussions. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I can settle for that. I still maintain that the page is incorrect as it is now because it misrepresents the early development vehicle as the actual launch vehicle and it's been incorrect ever since the first launch. Correcting this and correctly labeling them development launches would solve a lot of the haggling that goes on every launch and will continue to go on every launch. This is not the same type of thing that has gone on with any previous rocket in history. Ergzay (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)