Fort Towson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Former good articleSpaceX Starship was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 14, 2021Good article nomineeListed
September 24, 2021Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 11, 2021Peer reviewReviewed
October 12, 2021Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
October 21, 2021Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 21, 2021Good article reassessmentKept
December 2, 2021WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
January 24, 2022Peer reviewReviewed
March 12, 2022Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 17, 2022Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 6, 2022Peer reviewReviewed
June 16, 2022Good article nomineeNot listed
January 13, 2023Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 9, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that SpaceX's reusable Starship launch vehicle has twice as much thrust as the Apollo program's Saturn V?
Current status: Delisted good article

RfC on IFT-3

Should the SpaceX Starship IFT-3 launch be categorized as (in alphabetical order) a failure, partial failure, or success in the infobox?
Redraiderengineer (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Failure

  • Failure It failed as it blew up and it is designed to carry humans and be reusable.
Delta 3, Soyuz 11 or the two space shuttle disasters, all support this being another failure. Delta 3 is a partial failure and it really only failed 1 objective, which was how much it could carry. The other's are easy to see why.
Also the fact the other two articles for this one spacecraft have the same problem in their launch history after former consensus is more or less vandalism.
I still can't see how this could be such an issue. If true neutrality was apart of more reasoning it would be a failure. 120.22.204.137 (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This vehicle was not designed to carry humans, and the launch precluded any kind of reuse. It does not make sense to apply potential plans for future versions are that are not applicable to this launch.
The reasons stated on the Delta III third launch being marked as "partial failure" is that it didn't reach its intended trajectory, which would have had an impact on the (dummy) payload. That reason is not applicable here. Nor are the reasons applied to the first two launches.
The pages for Soyuz 7K-OKS, Soyuz (rocket family), and Soyuz (spacecraft) do not have counts of failures in the sidebar.
The reason for Soyuz 11 being considered a failure was a depressurization which killed the crew. As there was no crew, applying this reason doesn't make sense here.
Interestingly, Soyuz (rocket) shows 2 failures in the sidebar, despite the article saying "The first four test launches were all failures." This indicates that test launches are not counted as failures in that article. This potentially supports removal of the Integrated Flight Test launches.
Space Shuttle is the exception, not the rule. There is a note near "success" that notes "In this case, the number of successes is determined by the number of successful Space Shuttle missions." Only 2 failures are counted despite the shuttle having multiple significant individual failures of various types, some of which had some impact on the mission. For example, RS-25#Incidents lists 7 failures in the engines alone that affected the shuttle in various ways, 2 of which even affected the shuttle's ability to reach the intended initial orbit. Despite being notable equipment failures, neither are counted as failures on the main shuttle page. If not for the fact that STS missions are the exception to the launch standard, that would support the idea that there is some level of equipment failure does not lead to a "failure" designation for the vehicle. Foonix0 (talk) 08:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Failure - For obvious reasons. Both vehicles were destroyed, and a ton of failed experiments as well. DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 17:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Both vehicles were destroyed"
    Failed recovery (and failed recovery testing) has never been a factor in determining launch success.
    "ton of failed experiments as well"
    Only one confirmed failure (raptor relight), and that impacts mission success, not launch success. Redacted II (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partial failure

  • Partial failure: Both independent, reliable sources and previous criteria support "partial failure."
Foundation
  • IFT-3 intended to reach transatmospheric orbit, but the planned prograde burn did not occur.[1]
  • The launch was suborbital and did not reach a sustained orbit.[2]
  • Not all objectives were completed.[3] Additionally, there are questions regarding the outcome of the payload door test.[4] (This is excluding the outcome of the propellant transfer demonstration, which is pending review.)
Reliable sources
There are reliable and (importantly) independent sources that don't conclude the launch was a clear success or failure. These sources support both the success and failure of the launch (in other words, a partial failure).
  • Florida Today and The Independent both describe views of success and failure of the launch.[5][6]
  • Reuters explains most but not all of the flight objectives were achieved. Specifically, one of the "core objectives" of the relight.[7]
  • Science (journal): "This launch, the rocket’s third full test flight, wasn’t perfect..."[8]
Success/failure criteria
This table is a brief review of criteria from previous RfCs and the outcome of IFT-3 based on those criteria. I've included my response to the RfC on IFT-2 and responses from Redacted II – given that that they are often the most vocal participant in these discussions.
RfC Criteria IFT-3 Outcome
IFT-1 "Primary goal was achieved (clearing the tower). Most secondary goals were not (everything after separation). But the primary goal was completed. So labeling it at a plain "failure" is misleading."

"And the company set the goals of the flight. It passed some. It failed others. Therefore, partial failure. Labeling the flight as a "failure" would be misleading"
     — Redacted II 		Partial failure
Not all objectives were successfully completed.
IFT-2 "The infobox documentation has defined "partial failure" to allow for a consistent meaning across Wikipedia as per MoS guidelines. Unless the definition changes, the policy-based action is to determine if IFT-2 meets the current partial failure criteria predicated on reaching orbit.

IFT-2 failed to reach orbit, so it doesn't meet the "partial failure" definition or standard used across other launch vehicle articles."
     — Redraiderengineer

Failure
IFT-2 "There is a general criteria:

Is the crew killed/payload destroyed: if yes, failure, if no...
Is the final trajectory usable, if no, failure, if yes...
Is the final trajectory the intended one, if yes, success, if no, partial failure."
     — Redacted II

Partial failure
The final trajectory was not the intended transatmospheric orbit.
Redraiderengineer (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"IFT-3 intended to reach transatmospheric orbit, but the planned prograde burn did not occur.[1]"
Is there a source for this that isn't WP:SELFPUB? It would nice to see an RS that states this. I think McDowell qualifies as an SME, but I don't think his blog qualifies as an RS. Regardless, the blog post linked does not state that the launch was a failure.
"The launch was suborbital and did not reach a sustained orbit.[2]"
It was never meant to reach a sustained orbit. The relight test would have still resulted in an unsustainable orbit. Even if we take this source at face value, 50km perigee is definitely not a sustainable orbit. We saw heat and plasma buildup star below 100km, and large amounts of plasma at 85km before the vehicle was lost. This claim is implausible.
The argument presented from IFT-1 was rejected by consensus. "editors predominantly believe that describing a rocket launch as having succeeded or failed (or failed partially) should be done consistently across Wikipedia, and that when doing it consistently with respect to this article, the infobox should say 'failure'." That consensus also established that what sources say about "success" or "failure" is irrelevant, because "consistently across Wikipedia" is the standard.
Your argument presented from IFT-2 supports this launch was a success, as sources indicate the insertion burn reached the intended trajectory. According to SpaceX's engineer, it was "coming down no matter what." When it started re-entry, it was still on the trajectory intended if the relight test could not be performed.
Redacted's argument from IFT-2 is supported by reliable sources if applied to IFT-3. The intended trajectory was reached by the insertion burn. The relight test was intended to be an engine test and would not have significantly changed the trajectory or reentry location.
"Not all objectives were completed"
This is not material to launch success. See again the IFT-1 consensus. Foonix0 (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General response
In summary, both independent, reliable sources and previous criteria support "partial failure." The calls for "remove" are beyond the scope of this RfC (discussed in a reply below) and ignore consensus from the previous RfC.
  1. Prograde burn: This is referred to as an "optional burn" a couple of times in this discussion. However, SpaceX calls it a "planned" burn.[9] The burn was only optional in the sense that both successful and unsuccessful burn scenarios are covered in NOTAMs — an area that stretched across the Indian Ocean from nearly Madagascar to Australia.[10] The range of NOTAMs shouldn't be conflated with the intended trajectory. The final trajectory of IFT-3 was not the intended transatmospheric orbit because the planned prograde burn didn't occur.
  2. Jonathan McDowell: As stated by Foonix0, McDowell is an established SME, and Jonathan's Space Report qualifies as a "self-published expert source that may be considered reliable" per WP:SELFPUBLISH. McDowell categorized the launch as "marginal." He describes this category "as a way to pull out `interesting' launch failures that were really close to succeeding, as opposed to ones that blew up just above the pad."[2]
  3. Scott Manley, a degreed astrophysicist, called the launch "a partial success" (partial failure).[11] Manley covered the launch in a recent YouTube video, and the reliability of this source is consistent with the use of NASASpaceFlight.com and their YouTube videos and livestreams as reliable sources in SpaceX-related articles.
  4. Citation overkill: The goal of my previous reply wasn't that there are too many sources. It was in response to "stack[ing] citations that do not add additional facts or really improve article reliability, in an attempt to 'outweigh' an opposing view." Many of the sources didn't stand up to scrutiny, and the point of the nearly 50 sources wasn't to add to the conversation (it was a list of links) but to attempt to "outweigh an opposing view." This (along with many of the replies in this discussion) is the informal fallacy of proof by assertion and should be discarded in the manner stated below.
  5. Mission vs. launch: As other editors have suggested, there are similarities between Starship and the Space Shuttle. Both launch systems feature a stage that is also a reusable spacecraft. This is in contrast to a more traditional launch vehicle, such as the Falcon 9 or Vulcan Centaur. Both of these launch vehicles have two stages that launch a payload/spacecraft on top. The Space Shuttle precedent offers guidance to the use of editorial discretion.
  6. Iterative design/testing: Editors have argued that Starship (and/or SpaceX) should be evaluated by a different standard because of its iterative design. The engineering design process is highly iterative by nature. SpaceX is one of several launch service providers that use iterative and incremental development, and the accepted tradeoff is “failure in the development phase.”[12]
  7. There have been several accusations of tendentious editing (rehashing arguments, resisting the initiation of an RfC, righting great wrongs, etc.) in this and previous discussions on this article. The best way to achieve consensus is by making quality arguments with a basis in policies and guidelines.
  8. Determining consensus: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes, nor is it determined by the closer's own views about what action or outcome is most appropriate. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue."
Redraiderengineer (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Redraiderengineer, the topics you addressed match the ongoing discussion in a section below:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SpaceX_Starship&oldid=1217060507#c-187.46.134.26-20240403161500-Discussion
If you reply down there, the other participants may be more likely to see and engage with your response.
Regarding the citation of Jonathan McDowell, that is not what McDowell said. McDowell gave IFT-3 the 'U' designation not because he considered it a "marginal" failure but because the flight was "suborbital" and hence did receive an orbital designation. In his newsletter, he stated:
https://planet4589.org/space/jsr/back/news.831.txt

The Ship flight was not fully in orbit and so did not receive a US Space Force catalog number or an international launch designation. I have assigned it a 'U' launch designation 2024-U01 in my system, denoting a launch that was 'not quite orbital in an interesting way'. A full list of the 'U' designations is at https://planet4589.org/space/gcat/web/intro/u.html

— Jonathan McDowell
On the linked page, which you cited, he says "I assign U designations for several categories of launch that I consider interesting". The 'Marginal orbit' category is only one of those, and would not be applicable to IFT-3 since it was not meant to complete a full orbit.
The one that best matches the reason he cited in his newsletter ('not quite orbital in an interesting way') would be the category 'Suborbital with orbital energy', which includes "'interesting' suborbital launches that are in some sense close to being orbital", with the next closest being 'Reentry with orbital energy':
https://planet4589.org/space/gcat/web/intro/u.html

'Suborbital with orbital energy': Suborbital launches that have a high apogee (more than a few thousand kilometres) have a total energy (kinetic plus potential) that is greater than a low orbit satellite, in contrast to the vast majority of suborbital sounding rocket and missile flights which are well short of orbital energy. Thus, these are `interesting' suborbital launches than are in some sense close to being orbital.
'Reentry with orbital energy': suborbital launches with stages that fire their payload down fast into the atmosphere to test reentry behaviour. In some cases these even have escape velocity, but going in the `wrong' direction. They may only traverse a small segment of the indicated orbit; for example the orbital parameters of Meteor 4/5 have a large apogee but the vehicle didn't ever get to that apogee, flying on a small segment of the downward arc of the orbit with a maximum actual altitude of 110 km.

— Jonathan McDowell
Regarding the citation of Scott Manley, that is not an accurate account of what Manley said either. He did use the words "partial success" after discussing the reentry attempt, but later on in that video he explicitly stated that he would consider the launch a success overall during an explanation of how FAA rules would still require a mishap report to be submitted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiXyKnXIwJ0&t=801s

So yeah, let's see. So Starship, as we know, success-slash-failure, whatever you want to call it, I'm definitely saying successful. More successful, but at this point it still is officially an FAA mishap because things didn't go exactly as they laid out in their plans and therefore you're required to investigate, submit your report, and the FAA will say "Fine, that's great", you know, then we can launch again.

— Scott Manley
As you may have seen by now, a senior FAA official also stated on the record that despite the requirement for a mishap report they consider IFT-3 a success:
https://spacenews.com/spacex-planning-rapid-turnaround-for-next-starship-flight/

It ended in what we call a mishap, but at the end of the day we deem it a successful launch attempt.

— Kelvin Coleman, FAA associate administrator for commercial space transportation (via SpaceNews article by Jeff Foust)
NASA also evaluated the launch as a success, as was widely reported in news articles:
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.

— Bill Nelson, NASA Administrator
Regarding the comparison to the Space Shuttle, as I mentioned in the discussion section below, Starship is in fact a two-stage rocket, which is stated in the first sentence of the article, whereas the Shuttle is a single stage plus boosters or "1.5 stages".
There are plans to launch Starship without recovering the second stage. For example, Starship HLS, the lunar lander version that NASA chose for the Artemis program, will be launched to the moon without returning to Earth. Similarly, there have been proposals for other payloads that would not involve recovery of the second stage, such as a telescope that SpaceX and Professor Saul Perlmutter at UC Berkeley have discussed (as reported by CNBC journalist Michael Sheetz and other news articles).
Compare Falcon 9, whose launches are deemed successful even if the payload fairings on the second stage or the first stage booster are not recovered.
Since Starship does not require a crew, it can also be launched as a fully expendable rocket without being reused. This would be similar to most rockets and unlike the Space Shuttle, which needs a crew to fly.
The decision not to label Space Shuttle flights which killed astronauts as "successes" is an exception, as the article notes, and the reasons for that do not apply to these uncrewed Starship launches. --Mysterius (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: Looking into this more closely, the table on the linked page does list the 'U' category as 'Marginal', which supports Redraiderengineer's citation. However, the actual text in the newsletter's explanation fits the 'suborbital' category, and another suborbital test flight in the table is also listed as 'marginal', so this may be an error or technical limitation.
EDIT2: Here is a direct statement from McDowell where he says IFT-3 was a success:
https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1769072676188938614

That is not my argument. I agree that Flight 3 was successful. SpaceX are (for the most part) not claiming it was an orbital flight and I agree with them.

— Jonathan McDowell
--Mysterius (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"McDowell categorized the launch as "marginal." He describes this category "as a way to pull out `interesting' launch failures that were really close to succeeding, as opposed to ones that blew up just above the pad.""
This seems to be a misunderstanding McDowell. The "U" designation in his system describes the orbit, not the launch, except to the extent that a launch problem might qualitatively change the orbit. The "marginal" subcategory of the "U" designation says "typically perigee between -500 km and +100 km." McDowell states that "A Raptor restart [...] would have been prograde and raised perigee to around +50 km." McDowell estimated the perigee without the test at -50km. Both +50km and -50km numbers are firmly in the "-500 km and +100" range stated for "marginal," and McDowell does not seem to state in the sources provided that it would have changed the categorization, so it is speculation to use the choice of "marginal" categorization as a basis for failure, because it would have likely been as such either way.
As an example from McDowell that supports that, he lists the AS-202 (Apollo 2) flight as "marginal" despite the fact that the test went entirely as planned. AS-202 had a perigee of +59km, comparable to his estimate of Starship's perigee (+50km) if the test had occurred. The Saturn IB article lists lists all 9 flights, including AS-202, as "success." Using McDowell's "marginal" designation as a basis for preventing a flight from being listed as "success" (by Wikipedia standards) thus does not follow.
Over all, McDowell's site does not say much about if the launch (or mission as a whole) was a success or a failure. He mainly states "what happened." (But see his tweet above, which describes it as a success.)
As @Mysterius points out, if the overall mission is the standard (as you seem to prefer), and Manley is an acceptable source, then Manley's statement on IFT-3 support "Success." But additionally, Manley described IFT-2 as a success. "You might have seen a bunch of news stories reporting this as a failure, I disagree. It was a vastly more successful mission than the previous flight, therefore it is a success." The argument that Manley's opinion should be considered here indirectly supports overturning the IFT-2 RFC, because we can't have it both ways. We can't have one set of criteria cherry-picked to declare one launch as a failure, and then cherry-pick another set of criteria to declare another as a failure, especially when both launches are basically the same rocket in exactly the same test campaign.
While I personally agree that preferring SME statements over news articles would be better, this is contrary to the prior RfCs, and regardless, the SMEs sited here support that the flight was a success regardless of which criteria are applied.
"The Space Shuttle precedent offers guidance to the use of editorial discretion." That's true, but that guidance does not apply here. This version of this vehicle had no plan for reuse, had no plan to carry humans, and had no plan to carry payloads. The similarities you mention are merely a subset of intended eventualities and do not yet exist. If this standard were applied, it would have been completely impossible for any of the IFT launches to have been a success even if they had completed their entire test plan with no problems whatsoever, because all of them would have killed this hypothetical future crew. The hypothetical future crew would have been killed by asphyxiation if they weren't wearing pressure suits, killed by terminal velocity impact into the ocean if they were, or possibly even killed on launch by a simple lack of seats in the vehicle.
"the calls for "remove" are beyond the scope of this RfC (discussed in a reply below) and ignore consensus from the previous RfC."
These calls are are not ignoring prior consensus. They are in fact directly addressing it as a mistake. WP:CCC "Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances." The unconsidered circumstance is the fact that this talk page has become a warzone. Nor are they beyond the scope of this RfC. To strictly limit the consensus to the options chosen by the RfC's creator would invite the creator to ask a Loaded question to bias the answers. The statement in the RfC's opening presumes that success or failure must be tallied, which is objectively false. Challenging the assumption is a valid response to the question. Foonix0 (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial failure, per your arguments above. Though the launch was definitely a full success, not all mission objectives were achieved.
Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox measures launch success, not mission success.
Therefore, the success of the mission is irrelevant to this discussion. Redacted II (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a documentation that says that? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see, the list of Falcon 9 launches matches the infobox, and that article makes it very clear that launch success does not mean mission success. Redacted II (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, there is a note on the Space Shuttle article that states using mission success is the exception:
"In this case, the number of successes is determined by the number of successful Space Shuttle missions." Redacted II (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cocobb8 Mission success is on mission pages (for example for spacecraft). Rocket pages all measure launches. Ergzay (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this has already been settled. See their post in success Redacted II (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial failure is most consistent with other vehicles on Wikipedia. I agree that Wikipedia always measures vehicle performance, not mission performance. Starship, unlike most rockets, is intended to successfully perform both orbital insertion and reentry. The only precedent in this case is the Space Shuttle, which accordingly, requires both successful ascent and reentry. It would therefore follow that Starship, being the only other vehicle intended to both perform orbital insertion and reentry, would be judged by the same standard.
Moreover, I am not convinced of the argument of "if it had a payload, it would've deployed it successfully." There are two problems here.
First: launch statistics have always judged on rocket based on whether or not it accomplished intended objectives on a given flight. Launch outcomes don't care about "ifs," what matters is what objectives it had for a particular flight, and whether it accomplished those objectives. Crucially, it reached the final intended phase of flight, distinguishing partial failure from a full failure. In my view, this provides the strongest case for partial failure, as the rocket accomplished most, but not all, objectives.
Second: The payload door did not open properly, and the vehicle lost attitude control. So even ignoring the above point, Starship would not have successfully deployed a payload due to the door failure. In reality, if this rocket had a payload, it would've been a full failure, not a partial one.
One last note: the overwhelming majority of media outlets also deemed IFT-1 to be a "success" but the consensus on Wikipedia disagreed. Gojet-64 (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gojet-64 Orbital insertion was not an intention of this launch. It was not attempted and there was no plan to do so. Your criteria seems to imply that even if it had successfully reentered the vehicle would still be considered a partial failure given it was designed to hit the ocean at terminal velocity. As to your mention of "intended objectives" then we should mark the Falcon 9 launch of Zuma as a "partial failure", but it is not marked as such. Your final line is pretty damning of Wikipedia "consensus" though. This will eventually be re-visted however and history will be righted. IFT-1 and IFT-2 were also both successes. Ergzay (talk) 09:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IFT-1, IFT-2, and IFT-3 were all flights that SpaceX was required to file mishap reports with the FAA. I don't know a single flight on Wikipedia where the regulator has stepped in to say there was a mishap that we have subsequently classified as an unmitigated success. Furthermore, stating your intention to overturn the prior consensus on IFT-1 and IFT-2 makes your objection to my characterizing of your motives as WP:RGW elsewhere on this page ring extremely hollow. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't know a single flight on Wikipedia where the regulator has stepped in to say there was a mishap that we have subsequently classified as an unmitigated success."
IIRC, all of the Falcon 9 failed landings had mishap investigations. And, AFAIK, the IFT-3 mishap was solely the failed landing and the failed entry (both of which are irrelevant due to Falcon 9 precedent)
"Furthermore, stating your intention to overturn the prior consensus on IFT-1 and IFT-2 makes your objection to my characterizing of your motives as WP:RGW elsewhere on this page ring extremely hollow"
Again, stop with the personal attacks, and assume good faith. Redacted II (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't a personal attack, Redacted. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"history will be righted" is definitely NOT the kind of thing I would expect an unbiased mind to say. Please be sure to maintain a neutral point of view. As Jadebenn mentioned, attempting to "right great wrongs" goes directly against Wikipedia policy (WP:RGW). Gojet-64 (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I side with Partial Failure, and maybe with full failure. While those on the side of success say WP should show IFT-3 succeeded in order to show consistency with WP launch lists for other rockets, it is important to note that Starship/Superheavy isn't exactly a traditional rocket, like (for example) Vulcan or Falcon 9, where there are multiple stages delivering a payload (be it cargo or a crewerd orbiter). Rather, Starship is more like the Space Shuttle, where the upper stage is the orbiter, and any payload launched is carried by that orbiter. The Space Shuttle pages show that vehicle loss means at least partial failure (though without the color boxes we have here), giving us sufficient precedent to follow the same approach with Starship flights. 187.46.134.26 (talk) 08:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with Partial Failure. During the webcast, SpaceX literally stated they were not able to complete a planned burn. You cannot list a mission as a complete success when consequential testing goals had to be skipped. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 04:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC is explicitly about the launch, not the full mission. --mfb (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since when? I distinctly recall that there are many spaceflight pages marked failure or partial failure due to an inability to place a payload in a desired orbit or to deploy a payload at all who nonetheless had a successful "launch." How do we even classify a "launch" versus a mission success? It seems like there is a consistent effort to lower the bar of success such that no caveats arw required to be displayed on the summary to this page. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 14:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I distinctly recall that there are many spaceflight pages marked failure or partial failure due to an inability to place a payload in a desired orbit or to deploy a payload at all who nonetheless had a successful "launch"
Yes, but the vehicle reached the intended trajectory (as they proceeded to attempt a stable reentry). IFT-3 didn't have a payload at all, so your examples of payload deploy don't even apply at all.
"How do we even classify a "launch" versus a mission success?"
Simple:
Step 1: Did the vehicle explode: If yes, Failure, if no, proceed to step 2.
Step 2: Did the vehicle reach a trajectory that was usable for the mission: if yes, proceed to step 3, if no, Failure.
Step 3: Was the payload was unable to deploy due to a failure of the launch vehicle: if yes, Failure, if no, proceed to step 4.
Step 4: Did the vehicle enter the desired trajectory: If yes, Success, if no, Partial Failure.
IFT-1 and IFT-2 don't make it past step 1.
IFT-3 didn't explode, reached a usable trajectory, and at SECO was in the desired trajectory. So, Success.
"It seems like there is a consistent effort to lower the bar of success such that no caveats arw required to be displayed on the summary to this page"
No, this is consistent with every single launch vehicle but one: the Space Shuttle. Redacted II (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you personally feel obligated to respond to every single comment that states an opinion opposing your own is a prime example of why you cannot be objective on this issue. And your claim that "only the Shuttle" was categorized differently is incorrect. Just off the top of my head, Delta III flights are categorized the way I stated as well. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 16:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The fact that you personally feel obligated to respond to every single comment that states an opinion opposing your own is a prime example of why you cannot be objective on this issue"
If you have an accusation to make, make it.
"And your claim that "only the Shuttle" was categorized differently is incorrect. Just off the top of my head, Delta III flights are categorized the way I stated as well"
I didn't have the Delta III article memorized, so I checked.
Failure 1: "Maiden flight of Delta 3 8930, Destroyed by range safety after control problems and depletion of hydraulic fluid, Communications satellite." Sounds like a launch failure to me.
Failure 2: "Second stage engine failure. Payload placed in too low a LEO, Loral declared satellite lost." Look at step 2 in my above comment
Partial failure: "Reached lower than planned orbit, final flight of Delta 3 8930, Demosat." Step 4: usable trajectory, but lower than expected. Redacted II (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are making my point for me. Look at the Delta III final mission categorization. Successful launch, successful orbit, partial failure as mission objectives were not fully carried out. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Successful launch" yes
"successful orbit" no, so partial failure. Redacted II (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jadebenn, @Redacted II Folks, let's keep to the point here. This is a RfC, so please keep your comments targeted at other people to yourself or to their respective talk pages. We're trying to reach consensus here. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if it came off like a personal attack. I very much can see that reading, but it wasn't really my intention. It's just hard to overstate my exasperation at certain editors' behaviors given that I have seen these same patterns every time this discussion comes up. The fact that Redacted II replies to nearly every single user with a contrary opinion comes off to me as domineering and contrary to good discussion, particularly when they were not part of the specific conversation prior to that point. It gives me the impression they are very much WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and I `do` think that is relevant to the topic being discussed. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 16:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. Let's just let everyone come up with their opinions and not pester each other about our own thoughts here (unless some did a mistake, like I did thinking we were doing mission success, not launch success). Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I accept your apology, and I understand your concerns. No hard feelings.
@Cocobb8 The only reason I responded at all to JadeBenn is to correct that same mistake. Redacted II (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are misusing WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. That section is a warning against users trying to correct pages on wikipedia against what sources represent. The people here are arguing about accurately actually correctly representing what reliable expert sources on the topic are saying about the situation. Ergzay (talk) 09:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend checking the (IIRC 36) sources I've linked below. Redacted II (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"IFT-3 didn't explode, reached a usable trajectory, and at SECO was in the desired trajectory. So, Success."
Key word here is "at SECO". The desired trajectory was trans-atmospheric which required the in orbit burn to happen. Instead it was in a suborbital trajectory. By all normal accounts of orbital launches, this would be considered a partial failure. Tokemich (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Key word here is "at SECO". The desired trajectory was trans-atmospheric which required the in orbit burn to happen. Instead it was in a suborbital trajectory."
That was an optional burn. It not occurring doesn't make it a partial failure.
"By all normal accounts of orbital launches, this would be considered a partial failure"
Incorrect: if a deorbit burn fails, the launch is still a success. Redacted II (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a deorbit burn. The burn was in prograde and was necessary to achieve the desired orbit.
The burn was a part of the mission profile and it wasn't achieved, thus the mission wasn't a full success - meaning it was a partial failure. Tokemich (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It wasn't a deorbit burn. The burn was in prograde and was necessary to achieve the desired orbit."
Except, SpaceX had multiple (IIRC at least 3) potential orbits that allowed them to proceed to reentry. So, the relight wasn't needed for them to reach the desired trajectory, since it was already on one of the desired trajectories.
(Sorry for forgetting to explain why the raptor-relight was closer to a deorbit burn than a needed burn: The burn isn't needed to continue the mission, just like a deorbit burn. And since a failed deorbit burn doesn't change the status of a launch, then the relight shouldn't either.).
"mission profile and it wasn't achieved, thus the mission wasn't a full success"
Yes, the mission was not a complete success. But the infobox only tracks success (with the Space Shuttle being the only exception). Redacted II (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree a lot with this, and I think it moves the goalpost of what you can consider a success. If a rocket doesn't reach its pre-planned flight trajectory it has (to my knowledge) never before been considered successful in these info-boxes. Tokemich (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except, it DID reach the pre-planned flight trajectory.
Again, IIRC, they had three potential trajectories. One of them didn't involve the raptor-relight, and that is the one that they ended up using.
To the best of my knowledge, a flight with an optional engine burn failing has never been called anything but a success. Redacted II (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't. The burn (and by that also the trans-atmospheric trajectory) was clearly an objective in the flight. Having prepared a trajectory for what would happen if the burn did not occur as planned doesn't make it part of that objective.
But this is clearly going nowhere so I'll leave it at that. Tokemich (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide source for your claim that trans-atmospheric trajectory was the plan. 2A00:79E1:ABD:A001:9010:D7F6:6BAA:8957 (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That editor has clearly indicated that they don't want to discuss their position.
But thanks for the effort. Redacted II (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"First: launch statistics have always judged on rocket based on whether or not it accomplished intended objectives on a given flight."
Incorrect. Launch statistic judge whether it inserted the payload into the correct orbit.
"Crucially, it reached the final intended phase of flight, distinguishing partial failure from a full failure."
Success v.s partial failure, not partial failures v.s success.
"In my view, this provides the strongest case for partial failure, as the rocket accomplished most, but not all, objectives."
No, it provides an argument for success. Redacted II (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jadebenn Here's even the FAA calling it a success. https://spacenews.com/spacex-planning-rapid-turnaround-for-next-starship-flight/ Ergzay (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The same FAA that SpaceX has to file a mishap report with after this flight? – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Even they have said it was "a successful launch".
Filing a mishap doesn't always mean the launch was a failure. Redacted II (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Find me a single piece of documentation that the infobox measures merely launch successes. You will not be able to, and your assertion that it does so is counteracted by several pages, such as the Space Shuttle and Delta III. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Space Shuttle specifically lists that it is the exception: "In this case, the number of successes is determined by the number of successful Space Shuttle missions."
And Delta III measures launch success. As does every single other launch vehicle. Redacted II (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the supposed problem with the door is confirmed. It did appear open. SpaceX stated: "While coasting, Starship accomplished several of the flight test’s additional objectives, including the opening and closing of its payload door ..." I did not see closing on the stream, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Is there any indication that the slow rotation would have prevented deployment? Foonix0 (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jadebenn
The fact that they couldn't complete the raptor relight doesn't matter. If a Falcon 9 second stage fails to complete a deorbit burn, the launch is still a success.
Additionally, the entire mission doesn't matter at all for launch success. It's like calling the Mars Observer launch a failure because the probe failed on its way to Mars.
The infobox only measures launch success. Redacted II (talk) 11:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The infobox only measures launch success."
It does not. There is long-standing precedence otherwise, or we would not have missions by LVs where payloads failed to deploy or second stages failed to ignite marked otherwise. You are attempting to redefine the term to something it isn't. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 14:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It does not. There is long-standing precedence otherwise, or we would not have missions by LVs where payloads failed to deploy or second stages failed to ignite marked otherwise"
This is partially correct. But the infobox does only measure launch success. In fact, the only launch vehicle in which it doesn't is the Space Shuttle, which even has a note dedicated to mentioning this difference.
The only failure this flight (other than the Super Heavy landing explosion and starship disintegration during entry, but Falcon 9 precedent makes this irrelevant to Launch Success) was the failed in-space relight. And saying that makes a launch a partial failure is saying every single second stage whose deorbit burn failed was a partial failure.
I think we can agree that calling all of those launches partial failure's would make very little sense. Redacted II (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Success

  • Success or RemoveThe desired trajectory was reached: a slightly suborbital trajectory. We don't declare a launch failed if the deorbit burn failed. The only reason an engine burn post-seco can cause a flight to fail is if it prevents the mission from being achieved. That was not the case for IFT-3
Failed recovery is also irrelevant for success v.s failure. Falcon 9 is an excellent example of this: none of the failed landings changed the classification of the launch in the infobox. It would violate that precedent if it changed IFT-3s classification.
The Infobox measures LAUNCH SUCCESS. And since the launch was 100% successful, it would violate NPOV to classify it as anything but a success.
While reliability of a few sources backing success are dubious, but the vast majority of reliable sources back this opinion. If anyone else wants to add some to (or if needed, remove entries to) this list, feel free. Just make sure to create a new collapsible list once the number of parts exceed 10.
1-10
11-20
21-30
31-40
41-49
However, in previous discussions, I have repeatedly pushed for IFT-1 and IFT-2 to not be counted in the Infobox. While that isn't my primary position for IFT-3 (given that they can be labeled v1 launches in the future), if success is not the designation for IFT-3, then it shouldn't be included at all.
Finally, why are we doing an RFC? The vast majority of editors believe it was a success, mainly for the reasons listed above. This feels like a last attempt to get IFT-3 incorrectly classified.Redacted II (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We distinguish between launch and overall mission in all our tables and infoboxes. The first Falcon 9 launch was a success even though the booster recovery failed. Apollo 13 was a successful Saturn V launch. IFT-3 was a successful Starship launch, even though the overall mission was not fully successful. --mfb (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, the launch was a success, and all extra activities on a test flight are important, but shouldn't change the launch outcome. Artem.G (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like an attempt at citation overkill and proof by assertion. However, the list of articles does a good job demonstrating the range of conclusions found in reliable sources.
Some of these articles rely on headlines to support "success" or are editorials/analysis. These are not reliable for statements of fact, as stated in the guideline.
Overall, there are sources pointing to both success (AmericaSpace, Ars Technica, Business Insider, CBS News, EarthSky, NASASpaceflight.com, Ynetnews) and some degree of failure (Ars Technica, The Indian Express, ITC, Los Angeles Times, Scientific American, Smithsonian Magazine, TechCrunch, USA Today, The Washington Post).
  1. NASASpaceFlight.com - Overview of the flight and called the flight an overall success
  2. Business Insider - Article covers Starship in general but called the flight "Thursday's success"
  3. SpaceNews - Quotes by Gwynne Shotwell and Kelvin Coleman support success
  4. Ars Technica - Article states "successful launch"
  5. Ars Technica - Editorial by Eric Berger (who does acknowledge some degree of failure - "The flight 'failed' only because SpaceX is pushing Starship for full reusability.")
  6. Houston Chronicle - Editorial
  7. The Washington Post - "its most successful yet" but not a successful launch
  8. NBC News - Overview of the mission but doesn't reach a conclusion of success
  9. CNBC - Quote by Bill Nelson on "a successful test flight" but article doesn't reach a conclusion
  10. CBS News - The rocket "successfully boost[ed]" the upper stage
  11. Bloomberg News - Article is about Starlink and doesn't address IFT-3
  12. Quartz - Article is about Flight 4 but includes the Gwynne Shotwell quote
  13. The Hill - Editorial
  14. USA Today - General coverage that says IFT-3 was "more successful" compared to the previous launches
  15. NASA - Doesn't reach a conclusion of success or failure. It's general information and details on HLS
  16. Reuters - This is the same article from my "partial failure" response that doesn't call the launch a success
  17. Al Jazeera - "According to experts, despite hiccups, SpaceX is making remarkable progress towards its goals." Article includes Bill Nelson quote but doesn't reach a conclusion on success
  18. CNN - This was a live blog that calls the FAA mishap a "setback"
  19. Waco Tribune-Herald - Editorial
  20. Scientific American - Not a success but the "most successful flight to date" and mentions "Super Heavy's engines did not relight as planned"
  21. CBS News - This is the same article as #10
  22. Payload - Editorial
  23. USA Today - The "company still lauded the roughly one-hour flight as a massive success."
  24. Twitter/X - The Bill Nelson quote used in multiple articles
  25. SciTechDaily - This is the NASA article from #15
  26. The Motley Fool - Editorial
  27. Los Angeles Times - Article called it the "third and most successful test flight" and "'It was not a 100% success' said Laura Forczyk, executive director of space industry consultancy Astralytical"
  28. The Space Review - Editorial that didn't call the launch a success. "Flight 3 did not achieve all its stated objectives, but clearly went further than the previous two flights."
  29. WMFE-FM - "While the third test flight was a win for SpaceX, there were some technical issues."
  30. Austin American-Statesman - "Despite the eventual outcome, the SpaceX team still deemed the test flight a success as it surpassed the achievements of previous tests."
  31. KVEO-TV - Article about Flight 4 and does not mention success
  32. TechCrunch - Doesn't mention outright success but "more than the previous two tests"
  33. The Indian Express - Not success "but it would be wrong to think of the third test flight as a complete failure."
  34. The Brownsville Herald - Covers the mission but doesn't reach a conclusion of success
  35. Smithsonian (magazine) - No conclusion of success but "progressed further than it did on any previous test"
  36. Mauldin Economics - Editorial
  37. The Times of India - Picture gallery in the entertainment section (ETimes)
  38. Ynetnews - "successful launch of its massive spacecraft on its third attempt, following partial successes in the preceding trials"
  39. NASASpaceFlight.com - YouTube video
  40. KVEO-TV - General coverage of the launch but doesn't reach a conclusion of success
  41. Aviation Week & Space Technology - Article covers the mission including the Gwynne Shotwell quote but also acknowledges failures of the flight
  42. AmericaSpace - "successfully launched"
  43. Earth & Sky - "rocketed successfully into space"
  44. NASASpaceFlight.com - "successful launch"
  45. NASASpaceFlight.com - Overview of the mission including failures but doesn't reach a conclusion of success
  46. Interesting Engineering - "successful launch for SpaceX"
  47. ITC - "partial success (more than the previous ones)"
  48. YouTube - Link broken
  49. San Antonio Express-News - Article on space tourism and economic development
Redraiderengineer (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reread a few of the sources, because some of the ones you claim don't support success explicitly called it a success. But even with your judgement, the majority support success.
If you think the number of sources is overkill, feel free to remove ten or twenty. Redacted II (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When someone has twisted his mind in a certain direction, he makes an effort to look only for what has escaped him and usually sees it even where it is not there. Flat Earther! 87.252.175.140 (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of making personal attacks (and calling me a Flat Earther qualifies), try "I disagree with what you think the sources you mentioned were trying to say". Redacted II (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been written enough times here by other commenters. You had already been tipped off by a higher-up on the Wikipedia team, and even that didn't help ease the strain of your obsession. That's why I decided that something is needed that can affect you. 87.252.175.140 (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A personal attack is a personal attack. I don't care what your intent was, and I don't think the admins will either.
So, please, stop. Redacted II (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@87.252.175.140, there is no place for personal attacks here (or anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter).
Please show some civility towards other users. If you believe a user may have made a mistake in their judgement, please bring it to their attention on their talk page. Again, this is an RfC, not a personal attack forum. If this continues, I will be bringing administrator attention.
Thank you, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Success. I was just about to post a list of sources that call IFT-3 a success, but Redacted II already posted it above. Unlike the first two IFTs, most reliable sources call this a success. Given the definitions of success vs. failure based on past consensus, although the IFT-3 mission was not fully successful, it was a successful launch of Starship. Our Infoboxes count the latter. User3749 (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please, if you have sources to add, add them!
Just make sure to create a new collapsible list: 21-30 is now full. Redacted II (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have sources that aren't on that list already, but I will add them if find some in the future. User3749 (talk) 09:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Success, per above arguments. I did not fully understand that we were going with mission success vs launch success, launch was definitely successful. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Success (invited randomly by a bot) Launch success is clearly the case. Citing RSs that confuse launch and mission are unhelpful. (OP: Please read up on posting an RFC. This one is a poster-boy for how not to.) Jojalozzo (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Success or Remove The prior consensus on IFT-1 and IFT-2 was largely that the infobox information should be based on criteria consistent across all wikipedia articles that use that infobox. What sources say is thus irrelevant to what goes in the infobox, except for the extent to which they support or refute editors' consensus chosen infobox criteria. As discussed above, the consensus is that the infobox indicates launch success, and launch success correlates to the ability to deliver the (ostensible) payload to its required trajectory. The information presented in reliable sources strongly indicate that the criteria for are met. (Consider User:Redacted II's source list incorporated by reference here.) Attempts here to redefine the success criteria from "launch success" to "mission success" are moving the goalposts.
Even if the goalpost is moved to "mission success", there is still an argument that the mission was successful. The mission is an iterative design test indented to safely execute a shakedown of the vehicle, collect data, and find faults. The RSs absolutely say that they did that. SME statements support this point of view. I am against moving this goalpost. My point here is that if we do then that opens the door to re-evaluate the prior consensus.
But the problem with the prior RfCs and this one is that they put editors in the positions of rule maker, judge, jury, and executioner. We are doomed to endlessly bicker about and re-litigate success criteria any time there is any kind of problem with Starship if we keep this up. This will keep happening as long as people insist on using wikipedia as a "scoreboard." It is a terrible idea, and removal would at least cut down on the WP:OR and borderline WP:LAWYERING that goes on in these discussions.
Given that the discussion above and prior consensus ware already strongly in favor of "success," this RfC comes across as "asking the other parent" to me. The prior RfCs were essentially treated as votes. ("... that was not sufficient to sway the large majority of those responding." "... it became apparent that a preponderance of editors do not really think that said assumption holds.", etc) The discussion here was already overwhelmingly settled, and given that history shows that these RfCs are de facto votes, this RfC amounts to recruiting new electors to get a different result. This problem again suggests to "remove," because we need to stop doing this to ourselves. If bystanders once again come by to cast their votes, then I beg the closer to option for "remove." At the very least, please base the closing on some kind of rational argument rather than "preponderance of editors."
In short: if we're not overturning prior consensus, then success. Otherwise, remove. Foonix0 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Success Can't believe we're doing this yet again. Really sick and tired of this. People need to put away their biases. As to the actual situation, even the FAA has stated that it was a success (see article I linked perviously). Remember this is about launch success not every single minor goal of the mission. If that's the qualifying factor then every flight of Starship that's pushing the envelope will become marked as "partial failure" which is a rather ridiculous criteria different than how we treat other space launches.Ergzay (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Remember this is about launch success not every single minor goal of the mission."
    Incorrect. If we take this as the criterion here, that would be treating Starship differently from every other rocket on Wikipedia. See the Space Shuttle page, or the Delta III page. The stats in the infobox are about mission success and always have been. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the comment I posted a few seconds ago. Redacted II (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did. My point still stands. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Success or Remove per Foonix0. The consensus is clear as established in previous discussions of launches. As always I would suggest to just remove the flight result from the infobox until Starship reaches design maturity end exists the prototype phase to avoid this useless discussion for every launch. It is clear that the infobox does not provide sufficient context for the flight result to be correctly interpreted by all. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 18:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a great option. Once they move out of prototype testing, we'll be able to determine success, partial failure or failure as we do for Falcon 9 and other launch vehicles. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Success or Remove as Foonix0 laid out above. As far as Wikipedia precedent goes, this is a 'success' based on information from reliable sources. Both NASA and FAA officials have spoken on the record calling IFT-3 a success:
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.

— Bill Nelson, NASA Administrator
https://spacenews.com/spacex-planning-rapid-turnaround-for-next-starship-flight/

It ended in what we call a mishap, but at the end of the day we deem it a successful launch attempt.

— Kelvin Coleman, FAA associate administrator for commercial space transportation (via SpaceNews article by Jeff Foust)
Alternatively, removing this sort of scorekeeping for test flights would also make sense, since people can't seem to come to a consensus on whether a successful test is supposed to be a learning experience or when nothing unexpected happens.
I also agree that the pattern with this and previous launches of calling for new RfC votes until one side receives the desired result is getting tiresome. --Mysterius (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Success or Inapplicable. Given that the whole purpose of the launch/flight/mission was to find potential points of failure in the vehicle/system any outcome that doesn't cause collateral damage is either a successful search for failures or not quantifiable as a success or failure. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. If it needs to be characterized separately in terms of launch, booster, payload, orbit or some other mission criteria, then it is too complicated for the infobox. Vacosea (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Success and enhance. 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. (The "SpaceX declared this a success" notes can also go in that column. Their minimal goals for success were achieved, but the full mission profile was not executed.) (by ems57fcva, not logged in) 57.140.16.18 (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

It's been one week since the launch, and the dust has settled. Given the need for RfCs on both previous launches, this RfC will initiate a more formal process to achieving consensus. Please try to keep the comments and discussion in this section to keep the discussion organized for the closer, if needed.

I'm ping editors that participated in earlier discussions. Please add anyone I may have missed. Arch dude, Bugsiesegal, C9po, Cocobb8, CtrlDPredator, DASL51984, Elk Salmon, Ems57fcva, Ergzay, Fehér Zsigmond-03, Finlaymorrison0, Fnlayson, Foonix0, Frosty126, Full Shunyata, Fyunck(click), Galactic Penguin SST, Gojet-64, Gtoffoletto, Idontno2, IlkkaP, Jadebenn, Jrcraft Yt, JudaPoor, LordDainIronfoot, mfb, Mysterius, North8000, Redacted II, Sadko, Silviyssa, Stoplookin9, Sub31k, Tarl N., User3749, WellThisIsTheReaper, Yasslaywikia
Redraiderengineer (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think that this is a bad RfC as we just had a discussion on this and came to the rough consensus that this launch was a success. This topic is stale and further discussion should ideally take place in the discussion that existed before this RfC was opened. There is no need for further discussion to take place outside of that thread while it's still open. Yasslaywikia (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retracted comment and neutral on how successful the flight was per the concerns raised by Jadebenn. Yasslaywikia (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This RfC serves no purpose other than "asking the other parent". Redacted II (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to do an RfC... the discussion has already happened and there is already consensus. Ergzay (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should I contact an admin to close the RfC? Redacted II (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'm going to go ahead and remove the dubious tag. Ergzay (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meant to say "disputed" tag. Ergzay (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your removal of that tag. You may disagree with me doing this. That is the very definition of a dispute. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 14:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the tag was removed is because their was already a consensus.
This RfC was started to drag out the process. That isn't the role of an RfC, so the tag should be removed.
I implore you: please self-revert. Redacted II (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still shows the tag on SpaceX Starship Flight Tests.
I'd remove it myself, but I can't. Redacted II (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need an admin to close it, if we agree to close it (which I do for success) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I literally JUST sent the request. Redacted II (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with closure. I'll admit even my own comment doesn't add much that hasn't already been discussed besides criticizing the RfC process. Even that wasn't necessary until another RfC was opened... Foonix0 (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:RfCL, since consensus is clear, we should close it ourselves. Redacted II (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, lets close it. This has no point other then to relight the endless argumentation. Consensus was clear, and another RfC wont fix anything, since people have very strong opinions (not meant negatively). Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree this is a big waste of time. No need to have another endless discussion. The consensus is clear. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 18:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't even been a day and you all are trying to close the RfC? I just saw the ping now!
By God, this page has been subject to some of the most tendentious POV pushing I've ever seen... – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 03:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was opened on the day of the launch. We agreed to leave a disputed tag to encourage discussion. That happened, and consensus was already forming. The proposal is to close the RfC about 7 days after the start of the discussion. The RfC kicks the can down the road and forces us to restate the same discussion we just had.
"By God, this page has been subject to some of the most tendentious POV pushing I've ever seen..."
If that's the case, then please consider supporting my suggestion to remove the scoreboard. That would help with this issue. Foonix0 (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"If that's the case, then please consider supporting my suggestion to remove the scoreboard."
Yes, surrendering to the POV pushing of removing any and all negativity around Starship would indeed stop further POV pushing. That does not make it the correct course of action. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 14:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I also believe that it’d be beneficial to close the RfC, It definitely doesn’t help when editors significantly escalate the dispute when it’s completely counter-intuitive to dispute resolution. If you believe that POV pushing is a serious concern, then take it to ANI or contact an admin - similar concerns have been raised in the past and were inconclusive. Yasslaywikia (talk) 08:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to ban Redraiderengineer, I was trying to get an uninvolved editor to close the dispute. Redacted II (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Chuckstablers Redacted II (talk) 12:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Redacted II, could you please stop bludgeoning the discussion by replying to every single editor who holds a contrary viewpoint to you? You do not own this article. Yasslaywikia (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it has been that severe, but point taken. I'll back off.
(Just, in the future, place the message here instead) Redacted II (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure about the way the whole discussion around this point is being handled, or whether an RfC was appropriate. However, I also believe that claims of having reached consensus are premature, given the substantial points being made in favour of different classification outcomes.
A reading of the mission as a mixed outcome could be appropriate as argued for by Jadebenn. It seems like there needs to be a decision on whether or not to treat these test flights as tests of a launch capability, or of a space vehicle capability. Given that test items last week included various functions of Starship as a space vehicle, the latter might be relevant. Sub31k (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could perhaps note launch succes and mission partial succes then? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the infobox measures launch success. Not mission success.
Mission success can be listed on the IFT-3 article. Redacted II (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you say, with no evidence, again and again. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 15:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have given you evidence: the Shuttle article states that using Mission Success is the exception. Redacted II (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still am not of the mind that "success" is an accurate judgment of IFT-3's launch, and it remains inconsistent with that of other launch vehicles ("intended trajectory" has not been the only criteria for success for other vehicles. Payload fairing/door failures or loss of attitude control have been grounds for partial failure, both of which occurred on IFT-3).
Setting that aside however, it does seem both sides are of the mind to remove success/failure counts from the infobox. I do think this is an acceptable compromise/consensus that can be reached on the matter. When Starship starts flying payloads, then success/failure will be much more clear cut. Gojet-64 (talk) 04:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we go with that option, we should clarify what we are calling them in the infobox, if not partial failure/failure/success. Maybe Prototype Launches? Or Test Flights?
Additionally, we'll have to make a note explaining the difference from the infoboxs of other launch vehicles. Redacted II (talk) 11:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In various forms, this has been the subject of previous discussions (including an RfC). If editors wish to revisit this consensus, the best practice is to resolve this point of contention (failure/partial failure/success) in the current RFC then consider an RfC to address any unresolved issues. This approach is consistent with the IFT-1 RfCs.
With that said, removing the infobox count for test/demonstration flights is inconsistent with other launch vehicles including Falcon 1 and Falcon 9. Redraiderengineer (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partial agree: this RfC should be Success v.s Failure v.s Partial failure.
But, given that there is a clear consensus for Success, a new RfC should be started for Keep v.s Remove Redacted II (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's not an obvious consensus, and it's best to let an uninvolved closer determine the outcome.
Previous RfCs on this article had (at minimum) a roughly two-week duration, and it appears that may work for this RfC. There's still some discussion occuring, and I plan to add a response this weekend.
Multiple simultaneous RfCs are fine but "should not overlap significantly in their subject matter." Redraiderengineer (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree. Redacted II has been trying to scrub any mention of Starship failure from the page for months, or to get them reclassified as "prototype failures" since the very first RfC. They have maintained this position the entire time, after multiple editors burnt out, replying to any person who disagrees with their opinion. Giving into their demands is not a "compromise." – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 15:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lost neutrality is obvious. I agree with you. If the criteria continue to decrease, the next success criterion could be liftoff from the launch pad to an altitude higher than the top of the launch tower.
To be honest, problems started even before he joined Wikipedia as member and got any privileges. Even with the erasing of the "Criticism" section from the article in 2022. Criticism is not just from the residents of Boca Chica, towards Starbase, but towards the project as a whole, including, if I remember correctly, against the enormous intensity of the impact on the upper atmosphere(ozone layer) and even the climate of the planet as a whole, if hundreds and thousands of flights per year are ever allowed with this massive rocket system, as much as would be needed to maintain services under Starlink+point to point business flights+military contract flights+Mars colonization plan. 87.252.175.140 (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"but towards the project as a whole, including, if I remember correctly, against the enormous intensity of the impact on the upper atmosphere(ozone layer) and even the climate of the planet as a whole, if hundreds and thousands of flights per year are ever allowed with this massive rocket system, as much as would be needed to maintain services under Starlink+point to point business flights+military contract flights+Mars colonization plan"
IIRC, that wasn't included in the criticism section, which was entirely against the launch site. Redacted II (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have recollections that this section was of decent length and variety of criticism. As a result of various edits, it was reduced to just a few sentences with the written critique of Starbase. So, if its long variants in question were not completely removed from the edit history, they could be seen in retrospect. I don't care to conduct such a review. After all, whatever I do, it will clearly not lead to changes in the imposed status quo to glorify and propagate SpaceX, because for many years the USA has nothing else to brag about in space affairs. 87.252.181.251 (talk) 05:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While you are bordering on NPOV, I'll take a look, and see if the criticism section had anything targeting Starship, and not Starbase.
And if not, adding in a section dedicated to criticism of Starship should still be done.
(It would help if you can provide a date for when the criticism of starship section was present, though) Redacted II (talk) 11:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any dif with a criticism section, so I'll create a new topic here for discussing its creation. Redacted II (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember a specific date, but it was back when there were no separate articles for the ship, for the base, for the booster, etc., and everything was part of this article. 87.252.175.140 (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remember it existing too, but again, I can't find it.
Further discussion should go here. Redacted II (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Due to disruptive editing, I've requested that this page be protected. Redacted II (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Veredict/Result and Request to Close RfC: With this RfC mostly quieted down, i believe sufficient comments have been made, and i move to close it. As for the veredict/result, while there are more votes in favor of showing IFT-3 Success, there are valid points made by those who voted in favor of Failure and Partial Failure. Therefore, i move for the result to count IFT-3 as a Partial Failure. While the mission's primary (scaled back) objectives were accomplished, the secondary objectives (e.g. Raptor re-light) were partially or not accomplished, and both Starship and Superheavy were lost during flight, precluding booster splashdown and all post-reentry mission events for Starship. Not to mention Starship failed to reach the planned transatmospheric orbit (or TAO), and instead made a suborbital flight until atmospheric entry and loss of vehicle. These reasons mean IFT-3 did not fully succeed, and thus should not be listed as a success.

While those arguing in favor of success say this is to show consistency with other WP launch lists and launch vehicle infoboxes, please note that Starship/Superheavy is not like a traditional launch vehicle, which has two or more stages carrying a payload (be it a crewed orbiter or cargo) to space. Rather, Starship (the upper stage) is an orbiter, and any launched payload is carried within it. The only comparable vehicle is the STS/Space Shuttle, and Wikipedia lists Space Shuttle losses (Columbia and Challenger) as mission failures, regardless of what stage they were on in their flights. This should give sufficient precedent for Partial Failure.

If this turns out to be the final result, and you wish to dispute it, 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.

Cheers, 187.46.134.26 (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with closing it, but I disagree with your opinion that it should be Partial Failure.
Before I continue, I do think there are valid points for Partial Failure.
First, as has been proven multiple times, the infobox keeps track of launch success/failure, not mission success v.s failure. Thus, anything after SECO should be ignored. But, for the sake of argument, I'll continue.
You made the claim that while the primary objectives were completed, the secondary were not. However, of all the "secondary" objectives, the only one that wasn't completed, according to the RS we currently have, was the Raptor Relight. And that wasn't a mission critical burn: as was demonstrated, it was capable of attempting reentry without it.
I agree with your point that Starship is not a traditional launch vehicle, but it is closer to Falcon 9 that the Space Shuttle. There are several reasons for this, but perhaps the most important is the lack of crew. A loss of a shuttle orbiter is the loss of seven astronauts. The loss of a starship spacecraft is maybe $30 million dollars of steel and ceramic.
Additionally, Starships primary role is that of an upper stage: at launch, the vehicle is ~80% propellant (the remaining 20% includes payload). The shuttle was merely 9% propellant during launch, excluding the External tank, as that was a separate component.
Falcon 9 serves as established precedent for the loss of a stage (and SLS, Delta II, ect, ect, serve as established precedent for the loss of stages not meant to be recovered. Neither S28 nor B10 were planned to be recovered). I believe this is more than enough to say precedent points to success.
Finally, I would be remiss to ignore the remove option, as proposed by Foonix0. As every single flight has been of a test vehicle, with immense changes between versions, it isn't accurate to judge them as we would an operational vehicle. While I think this is a good secondary option, should success not be viable, I believe success to be the better descriptor, as the flights can be noted as "v1" in the future.
To the closure, I hope that this post, and the one by 187.46.134.26, are sufficient summaries of the arguments presented by the two "major sides" of this dispute. Redacted II (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@anonymous, as the first line of the article itself states, Starship is indeed a two-staged rocket.
Unlike the Space Shuttle orbiter and launch system, Starship can and will launch payloads without attempting to recover the second stage. Starship HLS is one example, where the lunar lander launched by the Super Heavy booster will not return to Earth. Similarly, there have been proposals for other payloads that would not involve recovering the second stage, such as a space telescope that SpaceX and Professor Saul Perlmutter at UC Berkeley have discussed (see CNBC reporter Michael Sheetz and article on Yahoo News).
As an unmanned vehicle, unlike the Space Shuttle, Starship can also be launched as a fully expendable rocket for very large payloads. In such a scenario neither the first stage nor the second would be recovered, but the launch would still be a success.
The Space Shuttle is an exception because it required a crew for every launch. Presumably the editors felt it would be crass to label a flight that resulted in the crew's death as a success, even though Colombia launched successfully.
Compare Falcon 9, whose launches are deemed successful even if the fairings on the second stage or the booster are not recovered.
Regarding the trajectory, according to the flight plan filed before launch Starship IFT-3 was always meant to reenter the atmosphere over the Indian Ocean. There was an in-space engine relight test that was cancelled, but it had already reached its intended trajectory and later reentered within the target zone.
Finally, it bears reiterating that senior government officials at both NASA and the FAA have stated on the record that IFT-3 was a success:
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.

— Bill Nelson, NASA Administrator
https://spacenews.com/spacex-planning-rapid-turnaround-for-next-starship-flight/

It ended in what we call a mishap, but at the end of the day we deem it a successful launch attempt.

— Kelvin Coleman, FAA associate administrator for commercial space transportation (via SpaceNews article by Jeff Foust)
These statements have been reported in the press. Information from authoritative and reliable sources should be given greater credence than arguments and original research by unknown Wikipedia editors.
As for editor opinions, for what they're worth, on this talk page a large majority of editors agree with NASA's evaluation. Not because they are ignorant of the skeptical arguments, but rather even after accounting for criticism the consensus is that IFT-3 meets the criteria for "success" under existing precedent. Being able to articulate some objections is not reason to overturn the weight of evidence. --Mysterius (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, sorry for fun but wwcftech article with author mister Ramish Zafar wrote: "In the wake of a partially successful third Starship test flight..." ГеоргиУики (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of sources support success. Redacted II (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you mean by that, but if you are saying the use of the term "partial success" by that author means IFT-3 should not be labeled a success, then I would say that the statements from NASA and the FAA should carry more weight.
Even news articles which use qualifiers in describing the outcome tend to lean much more toward success than failure. No one denies that not every objective was completed, but the mission overall was a solid success. Moreover, for the purposes of the wiki article the launch was certainly a success.
Also, WCCFTech is considered an unreliable source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Unreliable_sources
--Mysterius (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soooo, consensus clear? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 06:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Response to statements from Redacted II and Mysterius/Reasons for Partial Failure: I understand their grievances, but still side with Partial Failure.
While Mysterius cites statements from two individuals in key positions, there are two secondary sources that back the Partial Failure veredict:
ABC News (Australia): https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-15/spacex-starship-disintegrates-after-completing-most-of-test/103591556
PBS Newshour: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/spacex-loses-contact-with-starship-after-nearly-completing-3rd-test-flight
These sources relay the statements from both SpaceX and NASA, but add that the flight did not go fully to plan (ABC: "SpaceX's Starship rocket has completed nearly an entire test flight."), implying partial failure. WP:PRIMARY and WP:RSPTWITTER, among others. gives precedent to trust these secondary sources over statements made by certain people.
In regards to Starship being more similar to the Falcon 9 than the Space Shuttle (as stated by Redacted II), this logic would only really apply to Booster 10, since both are Stage 1 of a rocket, and both are meant for reusability. Applying this logic to Ship 28 does not make sense, Falcon 9's second stage is not meant to be reused, and unless we want to write completely new rules specifically for Starship/Superheavy (which would probably be going outside the scope of this RfC), we should stick with STS rules, at least for the time being.
Also, i would say that if orbiters like Starship or X-37 have no payload on board, then Ship 28 was the payload for this flight, and there is some precedent for loss of payload and lower-than-intended orbit meaning Partial Failure, for example, Firefly Alpha's second and fourth launches, both of which sent payloads into unintended orbits, and these payloads were eventually lost.
Further, many of the planned mission events were either not done, have failed, or do not have conclusive results published. The booster did not fully relight, and actually lost two engines before being destroyed. It was meant to splash down in the Gulf of Mexico, but according to SpaceX, it was destroyed mid-air before it could hit the water. Starship was also planned to splash down in the ocean, but it was destroyed in reentry, meaning full success certainly did not occur, at least as according to plan. Furthermore, planned events such as Payload Door Open/Close and the Propellant Transfer Demo, have ambiguous results, apparently pending data review. Without definitve results as to success/failure of these secondary objectives, Wikipedia cannot reasonably confirm the full success of this section of the flight.
Additionally, there are problems regarding the planned orbital parameters of the ship (Transatmospheric, Periapsis 50km, Apoapsis 235km), which were not the orbital parameters acheved during flight (Suborbital, Periapsis about 50km, Apoapsis 234km), further meaning this was not a full success.
In short, despite the adittedly scaled-back objectives being completed, it is clear that IFT-3 did not go fully to plan. Therefore, i believe Wikipedia should count IFT-3 as Partial Failure, maybe adding that SpaceX declared IFT-3 a success, like the other two flights.
I also wish to add that, despite the launch itself going mostly flawlessly, Falcon 9's fourth launch (CRS-1/Orbcomm-OG2) is still counted as a partial failure, as the loss of an engine in the first stage placed the seconday payload in an abnormal orbit, and the payload was soon lost. While the ISS resupply mission, which was the primary objective, was completed without issue, and the capsule was recovered, the secondary objective, delivery of a communications satellite to orbit, was not, thus the flight was a partial failure.
Cheers, 179.54.223.237 (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@anonymous, there is no such thing as "STS rules". The precedent is that success or failure for a rocket is based on whether the launch was successful. The Space Shuttle is an exception that proves the rule, not a rule in itself.
The exception for the Space Shuttle applies to missions where astronauts died. These uncrewed test launches do not fall in that category, and it would arguably be disrespectful to group them together.
Launch success is not the same thing as mission success. Apollo 13 is counted as a successful Saturn V launch on Wikipedia, as mentioned in previous discussions, even though Apollo 13 definitely did not complete its mission.
WP:RSPTWITTER specifically states that a valid reason to cite tweets is if "the author is a subject-matter expert", as NASA officials and other aerospace experts that have been cited are. It is not a blanket prohibition on tweets.
Here are a couple more subject-matter experts, astronomer/astrophysicist Jonathan McDowell and educator/astrophysicist Scott Manley:
https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1769072676188938614

That is not my argument. I agree that Flight 3 was successful. SpaceX are (for the most part) not claiming it was an orbital flight and I agree with them.

— Jonathan McDowell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiXyKnXIwJ0&t=801s

So yeah, let's see. So Starship, as we know, success-slash-failure, whatever you want to call it, I'm definitely saying successful.

— Scott Manley
Furthermore, even without linking to the primary source there are many secondary sources that confirm NASA Administrator Bill Nelson's statement, including the sources you cited. The article from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation states:

SpaceX Starship disintegrates in third test flight but is still labelled a success
. . .
SpaceX's Starship rocket has successfully made it to space for the first time but disintegrated on its return to Earth.
. . .
NASA chief Bill Nelson congratulated SpaceX on what he called "a successful test flight" in a statement posted on social media platform X.

— ABC News
And the PBS NewsHour article states:

NASA Administrator Bill Nelson quickly congratulated SpaceX on what he called a successful test flight as part of the space agency’s Artemis moon-landing program.

— PBS NewsHour (Marcia Dunn, Associated Press)
And the FAA statement was already sourced to SpaceNews, a well-respected publication.
Here is another article that explicitly calls the launch a success:
https://www.npr.org/2024/03/14/1238532760/spacex-starship-launch-test-flight-elon-musk

Third time's the charm: SpaceX's massive Starship reaches space
SpaceX has successfully conducted a test launch of its massive Starship rocket.

— Geoff Brumfiel, NPR
These and other secondary sources clearly state that the launch was a success. Furthermore, not only would it go against precedent to label the launch a failure on the basis that not all mission objectives were completed, but claiming that there is an unspoken conclusion in the articles "implying partial failure" arguably goes against WP:SYNTH:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.

With regards to Falcon 9, I will repeat that the payload fairings are part of the upper stage of the rocket and are meant to be recovered, but a launch may still be a success even if neither the fairings nor the booster are recovered. Again, there is no "STS rules" that apply only to recovereable parts of the second stage.
If you want to change the site-wide criteria for launch success, or remove the metric as some have suggested, I would suggest starting a separate discussion.
With all due respect, Mysterius (talk) 09:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the indicator box at the beginning of the article has been removed, this discussion no longer applies to the data in it. But it might be useful for the startups section. I don't think it makes much sense to start a new thread for this purpose. Even too much shredding is rather harmful.
Regarding so-called success. In my opinion, the official media and other sources have no choice. This is propaganda to glorify the USA. So, they have to adjust and adapt, as a result they play the music that was ordered. ГеоргиУики (talk) 10:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Until you have reliable sources backing your "propaganda" claims, stop making them. Redacted II (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mysterius, nice arguments, but they have some flaws:
Firstly, i agree that there are no real "STS rules" (it's more of an informal WP precedent, really), but most other precedent is for more traditional rockets, like SLS or Vulcan, rather than the completely unique rocket design that is Starship. Comparing F9's payload fairings to a relatively giant orbiter vehicle is an inadequate comparison, these are two completely different things.
Second, both articles i have cited leave ambiguity on launch/flight outcome. The quotes you have cited here use terms such as "disintegrates [...] but is still labelled a success" and "[Administrator] Nelson congratulated SpaceX on what he called "a successful test flight" in a statement [...]". Arguably, to say both articles support full success of IFT-3 is also somewhat of a WP:SYNTH violation, as well as arguably a WP:STICKTOSOURCE problem.
With that being said, i am willing to propose a compromise to this argument:
Infobox: Partial Failure. Again, Starship is not a traditional rocket, therefore comparisons to other rockets is unfair. Aside from the Shuttle, the most applicable precedent is CRS-1, which the Falcon 9 infobox counts as Partial Failure due to the abnormal orbit and eventual loss of the secondary payload, despite the ISS resupply mission being successful and the Dragon capsule being recovered.
Flight Test list: "Launch Outcome" column should show as follows: "Launch Success (Partial mission failure, SpaceX declared success)". A bit wordy, but can be improved.
As an alternative to the latter, perhaps we may add a "Flight Outcome" column to the table, as well as an associated chart above it. That way, Launch and Mission results can be distinguished from each other in that page, as the difference between these two outcomes is a main point of contention here.
What do you think?
Thank you, 179.54.223.237 (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Infobox: Partial Failure."
Again, Infobox tracks launch success, not mission success. There would have to be a reason to not follow that.
"Again, Starship is not a traditional rocket, therefore comparisons to other rockets is unfair."
This isn't a reason to categorize it differently, for two reasons. Starship is, fundamentally, a traditional chemical rocket. Additionally, as much as you compare it to the Shuttle, both S28 and B10 weren't planned to be recovered at all. The plan was to let them sink. Saying they were attempting to recover S28 is like saying they try to recover the F9 second stages they deorbit, because entry interface is controlled.
"most applicable precedent is CRS-1, which the Falcon 9 infobox counts as Partial Failure due to the abnormal orbit and eventual loss of the secondary payload, despite the ISS resupply mission being successful and the Dragon capsule being recovered."
Incorrect. The CRS-1 mission did not reach the desired trajectory, while IFT-3 did.
"As an alternative to the latter, perhaps we may add a "Flight Outcome" column to the table, as well as an associated chart above it. That way, Launch and Mission results can be distinguished from each other in that page, as the difference between these two outcomes is a main point of contention here."
Mission Outcome is described in the article, and not in terms of "success v.s failure". Launch Outcome is what is listed in the infobox, unless a part of the launch vehicle gets someone flying on it killed. Redacted II (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. But, i have a few issues with it:
"Starship is, fundamentally, a traditional chemical rocket."
That's true, albeit one with a very different design compared to what other companies and space agencies are launching. It's not like NASA was planinng to put an orbiter larger than the Space Shuttle on top of the Saturn V, or like China will put a Starship rip-off on top of the Long March 10.
"[It's] like saying they try to recover the F9 second stages they deorbit, because entry interface is controlled."
Not really, you're kinda comparing apples to oranges. SpaceX doesn't put heat shields on F9's second stage, which they put on Ship 28, as they were planning a splashdown. A (slightly) fairer comparison would've been Dragon 1/2/XL being lost during reentry, which so far hasn't happened (The only Dragon capsules that were lost are C109, which was destroyed in the CRS-7 disaster, and C204, which blew up during a static test fire of its SuperDraco thrusters).
"The CRS-1 mission did not reach the desired trajectory, while IFT-3 did."
Not exactly. While i agree they were going for the Indian Ocean, Ship 28's planned trajectory was for transatmospheric orbit (like the previous two flights), not suborbital. From what i understand, had the Raptor Relight (which the ABC News article i cited gives importance to, saying it was a "core objective" and that it was "considered key to its future success") been successfully attempted, it would've reached the intended trajectory. (Also, CRS-1 also didn't relight the faulty first-stage engine, though it was due to ISS rendezvous safety protocols. Interesting fact for you.)
Regarding the "Flight/Mission Outcome column and chart" stuff, i believe there was some confusion here. I was not referring to this exact article, i was referring to the orbital test list in another page, which this discussion also plays into. Apologies if there was any misunderstanding.
Do let me know if there is anything you wish to point out, i hope i answered your criticisms.
Thanks, 179.54.223.237 (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"That's true, albeit one with a very different design compared to what other companies and space agencies are launching"
Not really. Long March 9 (which hasn't flown yet) is planned to be very similar. Furthermore, multi-engine 100% methalox rockets have been flown before (Terran 1, Zhuque-2), and more will fly in the future (Terran R, Neutron). I've probably missed several other rockets, but I hope you get my point: Starship, fundamentally, is very similar to what has been flown before. There is more in common between the Atlas V and Starship than there is between Starship and the Space Shuttle.
"It's not like NASA was planinng to put an orbiter larger than the Space Shuttle on top of the Saturn V"
Enjoy reading this: Saturn Shuttle (Shuttle orbiter+external tank mounted on a S-IC)
"or like China will put a Starship rip-off on top of the Long March 10."
Long March 9 (yes, the booster isn't a Long March 10)
"While i agree they were going for the Indian Ocean, Ship 28's planned trajectory was for transatmospheric orbit (like the previous two flights), not suborbital. From what i understand, had the Raptor Relight (which the ABC News article i cited gives importance to, saying it was a "core objective" and that it was "considered key to its future success") been successfully attempted, it would've reached the intended trajectory."
The planned trajectory was suborbital, with the option of entering transatmospheric orbit. The tranatmospheric orbit wasn't mission-critical, given that they attempted to reenter.
"Regarding the "Flight/Mission Outcome column and chart" stuff, i believe there was some confusion here. I was not referring to this exact article, i was referring to the orbital test list in another page, which this discussion also plays into. Apologies if there was any misunderstanding.
Thanks for the clarification, but that also tracks launch. Redacted II (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply.
"Long March 9 is planned to be very similar"
Agreed. I wasn't aware of LM9 before. I have a feeling ultra-heavies like Starship will be a headache for us Wikipedians, but that's a discussion for another time.
"Multi-engine 100% Methalox rockets have been flown before [Some rocket article links], and more will fly in the future [More rocket articles]."
Understood, although these are lighter rockets, rather than Ultra-Heavy-Lift rockets like Starship.
"Saturn Shuttle (Shuttle orbiter+external tank mounted on a S-IC)"
I actually already knew about this concept. Regardless, the Shuttle can't actually reach the Moon. Or Mars. But thanks for pointing it out.
"Long March 9"
Again, i wasn't aware of it before. but thanks for the info.
"The planned trajectory was suborbital"
Are you sure? Because what i've read so far says the plan was for IFT-3 to enter TAO, as was the plan for IFT-1 and IFT-2.
"The transatmospheric orbit wasn't mission critical"
I agree, but it was part of the plan, and SpaceX is known to scale back the mission objectives when testing Starship.
Anyway, i hope you're satisfied with my responses, but let me know if i missed anything.
Signed, 179.54.223.237 (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Apologies in advance: this is being typed on my phone)
TAO was a potential trajectory, but, IIRC, SpaceX had at least 3 different potential entry paths. So, even if the Raptor Relight had occurred, they may not have reached TAO. Redacted II (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks anyway.
(P.S.: Apology accepted.) 179.54.223.237 (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@anon, that would be re-interpreting the sources in a way that goes against what they say, which is exactly what WP policies warn against.
Subject matter experts ranging from NASA and the FAA to astrophysicists and astronomers have stated quite clearly that IFT-3 was a success. Reliable secondary sources such as NPR and the Washington Post have said the same.
Even the articles you cited said that experts considered the launch a success. Words such as "statement" and "called" are not detrimental; information from experts reported by reliable sources is precisely what we are looking for, after all.
I do not feel that your arguments have adequately addressed what subject matter experts and reliable secondary sources have said. Not only are your interpretations not what the sources explicitly state, but they actively contradict what the sources do explicitly state. To stick to the sources we must acknowledge what the sources say.
Falcon 9 provides ample precedent that recovery of potentially reusable parts, ranging from the booster to upper stage fairings, is not necessary for a launch to be a success. It is a far closer comparison than the exception made for Space Shuttle flights that killed astronauts, which is a completely different thing.
Launch success, which is what we are counting here, is not the same as mission success. (And in any case the mission could also be considered a success; it does not have to be perfect to be successful overall.)
Calling the launch a failure when subject matter experts and reliable sources have said it was a success does not make sense. Calling it a partial failure simply because some editors disagree would be a false compromise (aka argument to moderation or the golden mean fallacy).
--Mysterius (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply.
I acknowledge what you said, and am aware of our potential policy violations, but you're a bit late to the talk. Redacted II responded first, so my debate ended up being with him.
I don't have the energy to debate you right now. Note that i did also propose placing a "Mission Outcome" column and chart to the orbital test list, see above.
Though, i haven't said where on the Wikitable to put it, so i'll say we should put it right next to the "Launch outcome" column, either to the left or to the right of it. Hopefully, this will clear up the confusion as to both outcomes.
Cheers, 179.54.223.237 (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we really still confusing launch succes with mission succes? Lets just close this discussion, there isnt much opposition anyway… Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This RfC was added to the closure requests noticeboard. Redraiderengineer (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And now its called partial failure again, couldnt find where it was edited to revert it (as consensus says succes), can someone help? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 09:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted, it was an IP. Redacted II (talk) 11:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss instead of edit warring. "Edit warring to maintain a 'status quo version' is still edit warring." Redraiderengineer (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1 revert isn't edit warring. Redacted II (talk) 12:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is currently a request for close open for this RFC. This RFC should be closed by an uninvolved, experienced editor. Please stop edit warring over this and let the closer address this discussion. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor, in my opinion, is both uninvolved and sufficiently experienced to close the RfC.
    Please self-revert Redacted II (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So to summarize: SpaceX's flight plan was for Superheavy to launch from Boca Chica, stage over the Gulf of Mexico and simulate a landing over water, flinging Starship to coast halfway around the Earth, crashing starship into the Indian Ocean at either Point A if an inflight engine test succeeded or Point B if the inflight engine test failed. All sources seem to agree that starship *checks notes* crashed into the Indian Ocean. By my understanding this adds up to: Launch: Full Success Mission: Partial Success Booster Landing: Failure Starship Landing: No Attempt. Am I missing anything? Largely Legible Layman (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Starship Entry: Failure.
    Other than that, excellent summary Redacted II (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The launch can only be considered a success if you accept that the intention of the launch was a suborbital trajectory. Which is fine - but then that should maybe be mentioned in the infobox. Lomicto (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How does this sound for an amendment to the note?
    "While S28 burned up during reentry, IFT-3 was a successful suborbital launch" Redacted II (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good to me. Lomicto (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Sources

  1. ^ McDowell, Jonathan (March 14, 2024). "Jonathan's Space Report No. 831". Jonathan's Space Report. Archived from the original on March 29, 2019. Retrieved March 21, 2024.
  2. ^ a b McDowell, Jonathan (March 14, 2024). "Uncataloged ('U') Launches". Jonathan's Space Report. Retrieved March 21, 2024. 'Marginal orbit': Attempted orbital launches which failed to reach a sustained orbit, but fell just short; typically perigee between -500 km and +100 km. Since the exact orbit attained is often uncertain, I have tended to be inclusive when deciding whether to assign such launches a 'U' rather than an 'F' designation. You can think of this category as a way to pull out `interesting' launch failures that were really close to succeeding, as opposed to ones that blew up just above the pad.
  3. ^ Foust, Jeff (March 14, 2024). "Starship lifts off on third test flight". SpaceNews. Retrieved March 21, 2024.
  4. ^ Jax (March 15, 2024). "The First Test: Starship's Payload Door on the Third Flight". Ringwatchers. Retrieved March 21, 2024.
  5. ^ Edwards, Brooke (March 14, 2024). "SpaceX's third test flight of Starship achieves many, but not all, flight goals". Florida Today. Retrieved March 21, 2024.
  6. ^ Griffin, Andrew (March 16, 2024). "Blazing success and dramatic destruction: How SpaceX's Starship succeeded and failed in pioneering test launch". The Independent. Retrieved March 21, 2024.
  7. ^ Skipper, Joe; Gorman, Steve; Roulette, Joey (March 15, 2024). "SpaceX Starship disintegrates after completing most of third test flight". Reuters. Retrieved March 21, 2024.
  8. ^ Greshko, Michael (March 14, 2024). "On its third try, Starship rocket flies through space but fails during re-entry". Science. Retrieved March 21, 2024.
  9. ^ "Starship's Third Flight Test". SpaceX. Archived from the original on March 6, 2024. Retrieved March 7, 2024.
  10. ^ SpaceX Launches Third Starship Flight Test (video). NASASpaceflight. March 13, 2024. Event occurs at 7 hours, 19 minutes, and 40 seconds. Retrieved April 3, 2024 – via YouTube.
  11. ^ Two Spacecraft Failed on The 13th! What Are The Odds? Deep Space Updates (video). Scott Manley. March 26, 2024. Retrieved April 3, 2024 – via YouTube.
  12. ^ Davenport, Christian (May 16, 2020). "SpaceX faces its toughest test". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 3, 2024.

Criticism Section

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

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

I think it's enough, or almost enough, to warrant Criticism of SpaceX Starship being its own article instead of just redirecting to the main article. DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 19:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is enough to warrant its own article, unlike the Shuttle. But if you want to start hammering out a draft, please post a link here so others can work on it. Redacted II (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should be a section in the main article, not a separate article. There are enough reasons for a critique section to exist. Example: Here. 149.62.206.5 (talk) 05:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that means we greatly expand the Page again, and we have been working on making it smaller, no? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can reduce the History section? Redacted II (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Took a look, exellent idea, I belive its the longest by a mile anyway. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"But that means we greatly expand the Page again"
Expand: Yes
Greatly: No
Yes problem.
"Maybe we can reduce the History section?"
Yes solution.
Also in section "Responses to Starship development" has few sentences which are criticism and will be moved in new section "Criticism". ГеоргиУики (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discussion for shrinking/removing the history section below. Redacted II (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know, this is answer to Fehér Zsigmond-03 to assuage concerns of bloat. By the way, the reduction of the "History" section, which is a solution to the colleague's concerns, may have been accompanied by the opening of a project history article. Unlike the restored "Criticism" section, the history section deserves a separate article, and the "History" section here in this article, is rather summarized (with a link to the project history article, where, as in a specialized article with a certain focus, all the facts will be described in detail.). ГеоргиУики (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the long delay in responding.
The History section already has its own article. Redacted II (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Support The launch vehicle design hasn't been finalized yet. I think it'd also help avoid all the debates every time there's a launch. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary Oppose. The IFT launches can be labeled as v1, like Falcon 9.
However, should the IFT-3 RfC be declared for partial failure or failure, despite the overwhelming consensus, then I will change this to Strong Support. Redacted II (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. iT would help alleviate the conflicts between editors and reduce vandalism IMO. Norovern, bro! (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support such a move based on the same grounds as my comment for IFT-2 - in summary, these aren't actual production launches, but rather test flights for development phases. This is also different from most other test flights that do get counted into the Infobox because those test flights are for the final vehicle, not for development. It would also solve this issue where we would have an entire debate each time there is a test flight, considering most of the comments and !votes I've seen aren't that policy/previous consensus-based. User3749 (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my comment above. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support enough editor time has been wasted on this trivial point. Those are development flights and it is clear that this topic requires more nuance than a "success/failure" binary option. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 17:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. Other aerospace companies spend a lot of time making sure that everything is done right the first time around, before they put together and launch a complete vehicle. Rockets failing on the first try is the exception, not the norm, and there's no logical reason why SpaceX should be treated as "special" in some way. DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 17:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I came to close the above RfC, took a brief look at the complex arguments and analyses, and immediately thought: "This is why we normally only include simple details in infoboxes!" —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since all but two editors here (me and DASL51984) have supported the motion, I believe this topic should transition to what we are going to call the launches, if anything at all.
My proposal is this: Under other outcomes, list: V1 Test Flights: 3 (and a note to explain why they are excluded from success vs failure, similar to what exists on the Space Shuttle article) Redacted II (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. I think doing this will finally enable us to work on more productive things rather than writing kilobytes over kilobytes of debates. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should we add it in now, or wait until the RfC is closed? Redacted II (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait until the RfC is closed :) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — these were test flights, with the goal for the company to flight test on an integrated vehicle things they could not completely test in ground tests, or under conditions that exist on the surface of Earth. No one, and no engineer on the SpaceX development team, knows how far one of these test flights will go, where thousands of sequential events have to go right to even get to the later parts of a flight test. There was no commercial objective for these test flights: e.g., like "place the xyz payload into orbit". It is just wiki-original research to try to simplify into "Success" or "Failure" when many tens of major test objectives are in play. N2e (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — as SpaceX itself publishes only informal launch objectives and post-launch summaries we end up in endless and needless discussions after every IFT launch. IlkkaP (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrited lead

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

Looks good to me Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Redacted II (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need the History section?

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

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

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

Keep and rewrite - That way, readers still get an overview of the history of the launch vehicle, but it needs to be shortened. Let's not delete full sections merely because the information there exists somewhere else in more detail (for example, in the SLS article, the core stage section also has its own article, though a summary of it is present in the SLS article). Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bold suggestion to shorten it:
November 2005,[1]
CEO Elon Musk first mentioned a high-capacity rocket concept dubbed the BFR.[1]
2012
SpaceX called it the Mars Colonial Transporter.[2]
2016
the name was changed to Interplanetary Transport System.[3]
2017
the concept was temporarily re-dubbed the BFR.[4]
December 2018,
the structural material was changed from carbon composites[5][6] to stainless steel[7][8].[7][9][10]
2019
SpaceX began to refer to the entire vehicle as Starship, with the second stage being called Starship and the booster Super Heavy.[11][12][13]
March 2020
SpaceX stated the payload of Starship to LEO would be in excess of 100 t (220,000 lb), with a payload to GTO of 21 t (46,000 lb).[14]
References

  1. ^ a b Foust, Jeff (14 November 2005). "Big plans for SpaceX". The Space Review. Archived from the original on 24 November 2005. Retrieved 16 September 2018.
  2. ^ Belluscio, Alejandro G. (7 March 2014). "SpaceX advances drive for Mars rocket via Raptor power". NASASpaceFlight.com. Archived from the original on 11 September 2015. Retrieved 25 September 2016.
  3. ^ Berger, Eric (18 September 2016). "Elon Musk scales up his ambitions, considering going "well beyond" Mars". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on 20 September 2016. Retrieved 19 September 2016.
  4. ^ Making Life Multiplanetary. SpaceX. 29 September 2017. Archived from the original on 19 August 2021. Retrieved 22 August 2021 – via YouTube.
  5. ^ Richardson, Derek (27 September 2016). "Elon Musk Shows Off Interplanetary Transport System". Spaceflight Insider. Archived from the original on 1 October 2016. Retrieved 3 October 2016.
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference nsf20160927a was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ a b Foust, Jeff (2018-12-24). "Musk teases new details about redesigned next-generation launch system". SpaceNews. Archived from the original on 25 December 2018. Retrieved 2023-12-10.
  8. ^ Coldewey, Devin (2018-12-26). "SpaceX's Starship goes sci-fi shiny with stainless steel skin". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2023-02-02. Retrieved 2023-12-10.
  9. ^ Chang, Kenneth (29 September 2019). "SpaceX Unveils Silvery Vision to Mars: 'It's an I.C.B.M. That Lands'". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 30 October 2021. Retrieved 16 December 2021.
  10. ^ Cotton, Ethan (2020-08-02). "Starship SN-5 | 150 meter hop". Everyday Astronaut. Archived from the original on 10 December 2023. Retrieved 2023-12-10.
  11. ^ "Starship". SpaceX. Archived from the original on 30 September 2019. Retrieved 30 September 2019.
  12. ^ "Starship Users Guide, Revision 1.0, March 2020" (PDF). SpaceX. March 2020. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2 April 2020. Retrieved 18 May 2020. SpaceX's Starship system represents a fully reusable transportation system designed to service Earth orbit needs as well as missions to the Moon and Mars. This two-stage vehicle – composed of the Super Heavy rocket (booster) and Starship (spacecraft)
  13. ^ Berger, Eric (29 September 2019). "Elon Musk, Man of Steel, reveals his stainless Starship". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on 28 December 2019. Retrieved 30 September 2019.
  14. ^ Cite error: The named reference SpaceX-2020b was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

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

It seems good to me.
Just expand it to include 2021-now Redacted II (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Uwappa I would make each section you have here 4-6 sentences, and as Redacted II said, expand to include 2021-now. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The example above is a bold alternative for current text in SpaceX_Starship#Early_design_concepts_(2012–2019). The history chapters for 2021 and beyond can be similar. Uwappa (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this could serve as a balance? (Citations would be included in the final version)
In November 2005, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk first mentioned a high-capacity rocket concept dubbed the BFR. It was then renamed in 2012 to the Mars Colonial Transporter. In 2016, the vehicle was revealed to be a 550 t launch vehicle, now called the Interplanetary Transport System. However, in 2017, the concept was scaled back to a 100-150 t vehicle, once again called the BFR. In December 2018, after a test tank had been tested, the structural material was changed from carbon fiber to stainless steel, due to ease of manufacturability. In 2019, the vehicle was named Starship, with the second stage also being called Starship. The booster was named Super Heavy. Redacted II (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know this will be a shock to many, but people do not read online, they scan, see Nielsen, 1997, How users read on the Web. Proze is hard to scan. Eye and brain have to work hard to find the start of each sentence. In fact, it is undoable. What scanning people will do: read the first few words of a paragraph and move on to the next paragraph if those first few words do not spark their interest. They'll probably not find what they were scanning for and give up. Too bad...
Scanning is just too easy in a scannable list. Eye and brain can quickly find the part of interest and move on to the right main page for more details. See Nielsen's test results: 47% improvement for same text, scannable layout.
My recommendation: Convert your text to a scannable list. It will be a weird experience to move away from proze, yet I hope you will see how much easier it will be for eye and brain. Uwappa (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, we should write a bit longer and more connected text, altough not by much Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox launch failure/succes

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

User:CactiStaccingCrane removed them here, probably on accident. --mfb (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 09:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Super Heavy animation

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

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

Super Heavy landing

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

Mass Revert

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

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

Things that need work

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

Added notes to V3, improved existing work on V1 and V2.
Working on removing repetitive info.
Any descript on the Water Deluge/Flame Diverter belongs in the SpaceX Starbase article. Redacted II (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

confusing language in IFT-3 orbital demonstrations

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


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

The prop-transfer test was successful, according to NASA.
https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1783876985401299002 Tweet from Chris Bergin
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1783874894918193472 Tweet from Jeff Foust.
Sources less susceptible to link rot will probably exist in a few days. Redacted II (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SpaceX_Starship