Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests

IFT-3 launch outcome

Currently the launch outcome result diagram displays IFT-3 as a "loss after staging". However, the launch itself was completely successful, which is backed up by media coverage. Unless reentry qualifies as part of the launch, this should be changed to "success". ChekhovsGunman (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed this, but if anyone disagrees just tell me. ChekhovsGunman (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Static fires and wet dress rehearsals

Should we also add static fires and wet dress rehearsals in here as well? 24/7 live coverage at Starbase has guaranteed that nearly all static fires and wet dress rehearsals have been documented. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call them flight tests, and I don't think there will be much interest in them in 5 years from now. --mfb (talk) 07:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, because those are covered in the Super Heavy and Starship (Spacecraft) articles. Redacted II (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IFT-5 Catch

Can someone edit the IFT-5 part of the page to say there will be a catch attempt if Booster 11 has a successful splashdown during IFT-4. Thanks DarthMacOG (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already done Redacted II (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why "Suborbital/Orbital" campaign?

Why "Suborbital/Orbital" campaign and not simply name the things what they are, the "Single-stage tests" and "Full-stack tests" ? 2001:569:7C19:D900:F502:D043:34C1:E480 (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Single-vehicle flights were suborbital, and the full-vehicle testing has been either orbital or close to orbital Redacted II (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So basically that's what I am saying: the "suborbital/orbital" is vague and inaccurate. Much more accurate titling would be "single-stage" and "full-stack" tests rather than "suborbital" and "orbital, but not always orbital, sometimes close to orbital"? 2001:569:7C19:D900:81FD:C180:BECC:F403 (talk) 06:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Redacted II (talk) 11:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • upper stage flight tests
  • integrated flight tests
These two sound better than my proposal, win-win! 🚀
🚀🚀🚀 2001:569:7C19:D900:8463:F095:8F5B:8166 (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2024


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

Flight Date and time
(UTC) 		Vehicles Launch site[a] Orbit Duration Launch outcome Mission outcome Booster landing Spacecraft landing
IFT-1 20 April 2023, 13:33:09 Ship 24/Booster 7 Starbase Orbital Pad A Transatmospheric[1] (planned) 3 minutes, 59 seconds (until vehicle loss) Failure (SpaceX declared success) Failure (SpaceX declared success) Precluded Precluded
The first integrated flight test of Starship was the first flight test of the full launch vehicle with both the Super Heavy booster and the Starship upper stage integrated. If all early parts of the test were nominal on the test plan, the booster would ultimately make a powered splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico, and the ship would enter a transatmospheric Earth orbit before reentering and impacting the Pacific Ocean north of Hawaii. Three engines were shut down before the booster lifted off the launch mount, with at least three more engines shutting down during booster powered flight. The vehicle eventually entered an uncontrolled spin before stage separation due to loss of thrust vector control. The flight termination system detonated with the intent to destroy the vehicle immediately, but the vehicle remained intact until T+3:59, more than 40 seconds after activation of the flight termination system.[2] SpaceX declared this flight a success, as their primary goal was to only clear the pad.[3] The launch resulted in extensive damage to the orbital launch mount and the infrastructures around it, including the propellant tank farm.
IFT-2 18 November 2023, 13:02:50[4][5] Ship 25/Booster 9[6][7] Starbase Orbital Pad A Transatmospheric (planned) 8 minutes, 5 seconds (until vehicle loss) Failure (SpaceX declared success) Failure (SpaceX declared success) Failure Precluded
The second integrated flight test of Starship had a test flight profile similar to the first flight, with the addition of a new hot-staging technique and the introduction of a water deluge system as part of the ground support equipment at the launch pad. During the first stage ascent, all 33 engines fired to full duration. Starship and Super Heavy successfully accomplished a hot-staging separation. After initiating a flip maneuver and initiating boostback burn, several booster engines began shutting down. One failed energetically, which caused the destruction of the booster.[8] The root cause was filter blockage leading to inadequate inlet pressure in the engine oxidizer turbopumps.[8] The filter and filter operation were upgraded for the next flight.[8][9]

The upper stage ascended normally for six minutes.[10] A leak in the aft section developed while a planned liquid oxygen venting was underway, triggering a combustion event that interrupted communication between the craft’s flight computers, causing full engine shutdown.[8] The Autonomous Flight Safety System detected this mission rule violation and activated the flight termination system (FTS) as the ship reached an altitude of ~148 km and velocity of ~24,000 km/h.[8]

IFT-3 14 March 2024, 13:25:00[11] Ship 28/Booster 10[11] Starbase Orbital Pad A[12] Suborbital
 49 minutes, 35 seconds (until vehicle loss) Success
[disputed – discuss] 		Partial Failure (SpaceX declared success) Failure Failure
The third integrated flight test of Starship involved an internal propellant transfer demonstration, a deorbit burn, and a test of the Starlink dispenser.[13] A hard splashdown of the ship was planned to occur in the Indian Ocean, approximately 1 hour 4 minutes after launch.[14][15]

The booster successfully propelled the spacecraft to staging and relit its engines for the boostback burn, however, during the burn preceding a soft splashdown, only three engines ignited, and successive engine failures resulted in the destruction of the booster 462 meters above the ocean.[16]

The apogee and perigee of the spacecraft was 234 km (145 mi) and −50 km (−31 mi), respectively, on a suborbital trajectory[11] (though one that did reach orbital speed[17]). A scheduled restart of a raptor engine for a prograde burn did not occur, which would have resulted in a 50 km (31 mi) perigee and transatmospheric Earth orbit.[11] Minutes into atmospheric re-entry, Ship 28's telemetry cut off, leading SpaceX to conclude it had disintegrated prior to its planned splashdown.

After the launch had concluded, SpaceX confirmed that the booster failed to reignite properly and was destroyed at 462 m above sea level over the Gulf of Mexico.[15] The FAA declared that a mishap had occurred involving both the upper stage and booster, triggering the start of a SpaceX-led investigation overseen by the FAA.[18]

  1. ^ All launches are from the same Boca Chica site. SpaceX started calling this Starbase from March 2021 after discussions called a "casual inquiry". See Boca Chica (Texas) § Starbase
  1. ^ Starship Flight Test, archived from the original on 20 April 2023, retrieved 2023-04-20
  2. ^ O'Callaghan, Jonathan (2023-10-01). "Termination shock". Aerospace America. Archived from the original on 22 October 2023. Retrieved 2023-11-19.
  3. ^ Kelly, Emre (2023-04-20). "SpaceX Starship launches from Texas, then explodes over Gulf of Mexico". USA Today. Archived from the original on 18 November 2023. Retrieved 18 November 2023.
  4. ^ @SpaceX (November 11, 2023). "Watch Starship's Second Flight Test" (Tweet). Archived from the original on 17 November 2023. Retrieved 2023-11-16 – via Twitter.
  5. ^ "Starship's second flight test". SpaceX. Archived from the original on 21 November 2023. Retrieved 2023-11-11.
  6. ^ @SpaceX (May 27, 2023). "Another step closer to Mars — the first flight test of a fully integrated Starship and Super Heavy rocket" (Tweet). Archived from the original on 3 June 2023. Retrieved 2023-05-27 – via Twitter.
  7. ^ "Starship - First Integrated Flight Test - Recap". YouTube. Archived from the original on 28 May 2023. Retrieved 2023-05-28.
  8. ^ a b c d e "SpaceX Updates". SpaceX. February 26, 2024. Archived from the original on 7 March 2011. Retrieved 2024-02-28.
  9. ^ SpaceX. "Starship's second flight test". Archived from the original on 21 November 2023. Retrieved 30 November 2023.
  10. ^ Weber, Ryan (2023-11-17). "After upgrades, Starship achieves numerous successes during second test flight". NASASpaceFlight.com. Archived from the original on 11 December 2023. Retrieved 2024-03-18.
  11. ^ a b c d McDowell, Jonathan (March 14, 2024). "Jonathan's Space Report No. 831". Jonathan's Space Report. Archived from the original on 29 March 2019. Retrieved March 14, 2024.
  12. ^ "Starship-Super Heavy (Prototype) | Starship Flight 3". Next Spaceflight. Retrieved 2024-03-07.
  13. ^ Sheetz, Michael (2023-12-05). "SpaceX plans key NASA demonstration for next Starship launch". CNBC. Archived from the original on 5 December 2023. Retrieved 2023-12-05.
  14. ^ "SpaceX". SpaceX. Archived from the original on 6 March 2024. Retrieved 2024-03-06.
  15. ^ a b "Starship's Third Flight Test". SpaceX. Archived from the original on 6 March 2024. Retrieved 2024-03-14.
  16. ^ "STARSHIP'S THIRD FLIGHT TEST". SpaceX.com. Mar 14, 2024. Retrieved Apr 4, 2024.
  17. ^ Strickland, Ashley (2024-03-16). "Starship's monumental third flight ends unexpectedly". CNN. Archived from the original on 16 March 2024. Retrieved 2024-03-16.
  18. ^ "FAA Statements on Aviation Accidents and Incidents". Federal Aviation Administration. 14 March 2024. Archived from the original on 14 March 2024. Retrieved 15 March 2024.

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

Listing Mission Success is unneeded, as the events of the mission are described in the text. Also, would we define mission success with the FAA filings (Failure/Failure/Partial Failure), or SpaceX's stated goals (Success/Success/Success)? Redacted II (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Failure/Failure/Partial Failure is definitely more accurate than Success/Success/Success. Goes without saying, we should take what SpaceX and Elon say with a grain of salt. 179.54.222.182 (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second example is judging stated goals, and is a potential option (and btw, I'd probably go with failure, partial failure, success for mission outcomes of IFT-1, 2, and 3).
But either way, there is no reason to add the mission results to the table: no other vehicle has mission outcome in the launch table, except maybe the shuttle. Redacted II (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Half of the arguments about IFT-3's outcome are about "launch success v.s. mission success". This would at least ameliorate those arguments.
Still, i believe we should go with Failure, Failure, Partial Failure. If IFT-3 didn't go to plan, and there is a mishap being investigated, then chances are it wasn't a full success, regardless of launch outcome.
So, can we do it? Can we accept the edit request? This doesn't really seem to be a contentious topic, and there is specificity (the modified table) in the request. For any edit request, this should be enough.
Cheers, 179.54.222.182 (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Can we accept the edit request?"
No, as I do not think mission results should be added. It creates more problems than it solves. Redacted II (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Shadow311 (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Can we get a WP:3O in here? That should be enough. Or do we need to open an RfC? 179.54.222.182 (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for your information: People don't read, they scan. They will see the green box and think the whole mission succeeded, not bothering to read the rest of it.
Listing both launch and mission outcomes should clear up the confusion. We may need to open an RfC, though, if we have to.
I'm reopening the request. 179.251.80.181 (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The request has already been answered, and rejected. Redacted II (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

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

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

  • I think the existing columns (launch, booster landing, ship landing) are sufficient. I also think we have too many RfCs. Keep the status quo, revisit it in a year. --mfb (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree about too many RFCs. How many is too many? How would you ration the number to get just the right number? You no like RFCs? Opt out or ignore them. JonRichfield (talk) 04:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We keep getting RFCs with very similar questions, they generally get rejected with an overwhelming majority. It's time for WP:STICK. mfb (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vehement Oppose. There is no reason to list mission success, unless the failure of the mission results in the death of an astronaut. The outcome of the launch is already described in the entry.
The encyclopedia is for the uninformed user, which is exactly why the outcome of the launch is described in the table, and not just as "success/partial failure/failure". Because if we just did that, 95% of our editors would be confused.
Having both the descript and the "success/partial failure/failure" seems good at first glance, but it has two major issues. The first is that the average reader will just see "Launch Success, Mission Partial Failure", and just stop reading, thus decreasing their understanding. The second is "How do we define mission success?". Do we go with "SpaceX achieved their goals", or "SpaceX succeeded at every part of the mission, as described on their descript of the launch". Too many debates have been had on this, and none of these debates have ended satisfactorily for either side. In at least one case, users have been temporarily banned for their behavior. As someone who has been in every single one of these debates since IFT-1, lets not have another.
Finally, editors on Starship pages have recently gone to RfC's when they don't get their way. Look at the IFT-3 RfC, for example. There was a clear consensus for success, and then an RfC was started at the last minute. RfC's aren't always the answer, sometimes you have to just accept Redacted II (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, no other list of launches for any other vehicle lists mission success. So why do that for Starship? Redacted II (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—these are not at all "missions" in the ordinary sense that word is sometimes used for launch vehicles: where a specific payload is contracted to be delivered to a particular orbital trajectory or final orbit. These are simply, flights—specifically, test flights—they are integrated tests of an entire launch vehicle stack to test quite a number of things that cannot be tested on the ground, and are not tested when the myriad different subsystems are tested (on the ground) both before and after they are assembled into the rocket or the ground support equipment. We Wikipedia editors should not be tying to play handicap golf and rate every particular subtest, i.e., the ones sufficiently notable to be discussed publically, as to whether they succeeded or failed. N2e (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  • Is success/failure a judgement call on the part of editors, or is this scoring based on a cited reference? For example, I don't see any of the refs for IFT-2 declaring the launch a failure; the only non-SpaceX ref [1] states, "Unlike the maiden flight, Starship stuck to the plan, with a clean liftoff and all 33 Raptor 2s running without issue as the vehicle flew out of South Texas."
More directly relevant to this RfC, do any reliable sources clearly state success/failure outcomes for mission as distinct from launch? If not, it would appear to be a violation of e.g. WP:SYNTH (as may existing columns). Carleas (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: Agree with Carleas; we should be guided by sources, and sources explicitly calling it one thing or another; and of course, not just on headlines inserted by editors to get clicks. N2e (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Success v.s failure for launches is determined by insertion into the correct orbit, and condition of payload post-launch.
The arrangement of how mission success will be determined (if it is added) is unknown. All previous discussions on the topic have not ended well, and usually resulted in multiple edit wars. Redacted II (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

Agreed on moving this to discussion. I'll do that soon.
But every other Wikipedia is designed to be read, not scanned. So, if you want to change that, this single article isn't the place for that (I don't know where such a discussion would even go).
As for why having the mission counter and descript will not improve the Wikipedia, the average reader will stop reading. After all, they have all the information they want. Redacted II (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. However, the objective here is to prevent confusion among WP editors and readers. Confused readers will misinterpret facts and spread the misinteprtetations, while confused editors will make poor judgements and poor decisions, which hinders the objective of every WP contributor: To build a free encyclopedia. When the rules say no, when the precedent says no, heck, when they say nothing at all, sometimes, the best answer, if it means improving Wikipedia, is to ignore them. 187.46.139.138 (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"However, the objective here is to prevent confusion among WP editors and readers" But the change proposed by the creator of the RfC (after I rejected their edit request twice) would increase confusion. Redacted II (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"But the change proposed by the creator of the RfC (after I rejected their edit request twice) would increase confusion."
How would it do that? Please, explain. 187.46.139.138 (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To quote myself:
"The encyclopedia is for the uninformed user, which is exactly why the outcome of the launch is described in the table, and not just as "success/partial failure/failure". Because if we just did that, 95% of our editors would be confused.
Having both the descript and the "success/partial failure/failure" seems good at first glance, but it has two major issues. The first is that the average reader will just see "Launch Success, Mission Partial Failure", and just stop reading, thus decreasing their understanding. The second is "How do we define mission success?". Do we go with "SpaceX achieved their goals", or "SpaceX succeeded at every part of the mission, as described on their descript of the launch". Too many debates have been had on this, and none of these debates have ended satisfactorily for either side. In at least one case, users have been temporarily banned for their behavior. As someone who has been in every single one of these debates since IFT-1, lets not have another." Redacted II (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: Exactly. There is no "mission" on these test flights, and to date (and announced for IFT4, there is no payload whatsover. It is original research for editors to be doing all this handicapping and success/failure calling on various parts of a test flight. Engineers run tests; they want to collect data on the integrated article being tested for as much of a flight as possible; but that is not at all the same thing as an operational mission with an objective and orbital destination or trajectory.
Yeah, there's nothing clearly defined, but IFT-1 and IFT-2 failed to launch (pretty clear Mission Failure), and the reentry failure (they were going for splashdown), no raptor relight, and uncertain payload door test results (among other stuff), as well as the mishap investigation makes me lean towards partial failure for IFT-3, regardless of what SpaceX said on this and the other two flights.
If you wanna discuss mission outcome, you might wanna use the "Discussion" section below. 179.251.80.181 (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: without sources for your statement " IFT-1 and IFT-2 failed to launch (pretty clear Mission Failure)", that is merely an editor opinion. Wikipedia should not be doling out original research to our readers. N2e (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"that is merely an editor opinion."
What? How is this editor opinion? This is just simple logic: If the launch fails, then the mission fails. Simple as that.
I want you to explain everything. Explain how this is "doling out original research", how launch failure doesn't equate to mission failure, and what sources do i need to cite to "prove my point". 187.46.139.138 (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"What? How is this editor opinion?" Because you don't have any sources
"how launch failure doesn't equate to mission failure" Because the mission for IFT-1 was to clear the tower. IFT-2 was stage separation. The mission was successful for both of those flights, but both launches were failures.
"what sources do i need to cite to "prove my point"" That's your job Redacted II (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So... IFT-1 and -2 are partial failures, then? Those weren't full successes, there were mishap investigations and all of that.
Besides, SpaceX is known to scale back its objectives when it comes to Starship. Remember when IFT-1 was called an Orbital Flight Test? We should take what SpaceX says with a grain of salt, especially in regards to Starship, you know WP:SECONDARY and all that. 187.46.139.138 (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moving this to discussion.
"Besides, SpaceX is known to scale back its objectives when it comes to Starship" Iterative development, only applied to hardware instead of software. They aren't "scaling back" the objectives.
Also, if the launch was 100% nominal, it would have reached Orbit, so Orbital Flight Test was an accurate descript. But that's irrelevant. Redacted II (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Included FAA Mishap

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

Mishap investigations have been the case for all previous flight tests but none of the previous ones are mentioned in this article. We do have the mishap mentioned in the articles about the test flights themselves but I don't think it would be necessary to mention it in that section, especially given that none of the previous flights mentioned it. User3749 (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, self-reverting Redacted II (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SpaceX_Starship_flight_tests&oldid=1221041890"