Jump to content

Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of SpaceX Starships Launches Draft[edit]

Given that this article only covers Starship Flight Tests, and not the operational flights that will follow, there should be a List of Starship Launches article.

I've already made a draft here.

Note: the Draft covers flights of Starship, and not Starship, so Hopper, SN5, SN6, SN8, SN9, SN10, SN11, and SN15 are intentionally excluded. Redacted II (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add the orbital refueling demo flight and the HLS demo flight to one of these? Thistheyear2023 (talk) 05:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, the draft already has both of those flights (technically, all 18 of those flights).
I'm not sure if this falls under the scope of this article, as while it is a test flight, its of V2 vehicles. Redacted II (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that in the Draft. Any future flights that carry a payload should be considered operational and not a test. But will be interesting to see what happens. I think at some point they’ll take a bit of a hiatus here until Pad B is done Thistheyear2023 (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we just start a consensus to rename this article to List of Starship Launches instead of a new article and merge the contents of the draft here afterwards? We could start a consensus now (I'll add the topic of if agreed on), especially since they are still Starship launches, and when Starship goes operational this article will become obsolete if not changed The Page Maker 2.1 (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hopper-SN15 weren't Starship launches, they were Starship launches.
Merging the two articles would leave those flights with nowhere to go. Redacted II (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[comment deleted]
I do consider your opinion and now suggest that once your draft is accepted, we would rename this article to "List of Starship (spacecraft) Launches," then remove the orbital flights and not add any more flights to this article as they will be allocated to your now-approved draft The Page Maker 2.1 (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That works! (Also, just a recommendation, if you want to edit your message, directly edit it, instead of posting again) Redacted II (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To forward, I would start a consensus about this The Page Maker 2.1 (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If no one else comments in 2 weeks, then there is a 100% consensus.
But none of this matters if the Draft is rejected Redacted II (talk) 12:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of this talk page[edit]

I have the strong feeling that on this talk page there is an overdose, if not misuse, of certain tools to prevent discussion or hide unwanded topics. This includes using an archive where there are really not so many topics that there is a need for it, and closing/shifting even recent topics there to get them out of the way and out of further discussion. And even more extensive use of semi-protection. Note: P:PP" Talk pages are not usually protected, and are semi-protected only for a limited duration in the most severe cases of disruption." I don't see where this is the case. Please consider to limit this in future, or we will have to look for help preventing further misuse. 47.64.131.12 (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection is added by Admins when a page is being disrupted repeatedly (like this one has).
The closed edit requests were because they had moved on to a different topic on the talk page.
The closed RfC was settled. Thats how RfC's work
Archiving is a tool to reduce talk-page size, preventing a page from being clogged by dead discussions. Its not being misused.
This talk page isn't semi-protected (otherwise, you would have had to make an account to post that comment).
And who is "we"? Redacted II (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potential conflicts regarding my edits[edit]

I just made edits that may be proven high-risk, so I made this topic to see if anyone would like to discuss. My main concern is the classification for the flight 2 launch of PARTIAL FAILURE instead of FAILURE. I consider the launch to be up to the booster staging and starship burn cutoff, which is confusing since even after the booster jettisoned, starship is still going, which I still consider the launch. In flight 2, the booster was successfully jettisoned, meaning that it was already on it's landing phase, and thus that part of launch was a success, but the starship exploded during it's orbital insertion, which was still part of the launch sequence. Therefore I consider flight 2 to be a PARTIAL FAILURE.

I also removed the references for the orbital flight vehicles since there were already none for the suborbital ones, and neither or the list of Falcon launches.

All being said, I'd like to ask if anyone has concerns? The Page Maker 2.1 (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a strong consensus for IFT-2 to be regarded as a failure.
I have partially reverted that edit. Redacted II (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've only reverted the outcome to "loss during flight" and left the IFT-2 outcome to be partial failure? I guess that's a compromise? I guess I would thank you for that contribution which helped me to conclude as a compromise The Page Maker 2.1 (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No... I must have made a mistake. It should say failure for IFT-1 and IFT-2 Redacted II (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the transition to orbital and future operations[edit]

As SpaceX has been more than a year into the orbital campaign, which is the next step to Starship's operational campaign, I have considered the fact that we are about to abandon the test campaign. However, we still have a significance of Hopper to SN15 to the point that they may be somewhere in an article.

To add, a user has made a draft of Starship's (not the spacecraft but the entire vehicle) launches, which I find consistent with the Falcon launches list, so I very strongly agree with. See the draft here.

When that draft becomes approved, I propose two things for this article.

  1. Rename this article to "List of Starship (spacecraft) Test Launches
  2. Remove the flights after SN15
  3. Not add further flights, as they will be added to the now-approved draft

Therefore, I request everyone's opinions on this action.

Support[edit]

Strongly Support: I strongly support this because this proposed draft will not only be in consistency with the Falcon launches list, but also the fact that we will end up archiving this article (of course not for editing purposes, but in the manner that no more flights are added). If we don't, this article will become misnamed when Starship goes commercial, but renaming this entire article to "List of Starship Launches" will create internal conflict because Hopper to SN15 were just the upper stage, but when we mention "Starship" as in "Starship goes commercial," we mean the entire rocket. Therefore, I find that the best way to deal with this is to move all the orbital launches to the draft article once it is approved and rename this article to "List of Starship (spacecraft) Test Launches" The Page Maker 2.1 (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support: This article is only supposed to cover Flight Tests. While I'd prefer to leave IFT-1 through IFT-6 here (and there, there is some overlap), transferring them completely makes sense.
However, this entire discussion is meaningless if the Draft is not approved. Redacted II (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think adding all the flights until the end of the "Test Flight" campaign here may be appropriate, unsure of how many more IFTs, but regardless all orbital flights to be added to the Draft (and hopefully, article) The Page Maker 2.1 (talk) 03:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There will be 2 more Integrated Flight Tests (Then SpaceX moves on to V1.5, which is a V2 ship on a V1 booster). Redacted II (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
just note that a) still everything is testing and b) everything is still suborbital, although the ships could have gone orbital with just a little more speed. You can postpone all this discussion until the first orbital and/or regular payload starship start is announced, sure not in 2024. 47.69.69.199 (talk) 08:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remark: The "a user" who did this draft is Redacted II again, who arguably posted the first anonymous post as well. This is no doubt once more one a dubious action to push opinions. Rethinking my previous arguments, I now add an oppose comment. 47.69.69.199 (talk) 08:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then use ~~~ (followed by a fourth ~) to sign your post in oppose. Its ridiculous that you accuse me (and you can check who started this thread using the difs in the talk page. It was The Page Maker 2.1) of doing exactly what you just did. Redacted II (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've fallen back to the original proposal of transferring all the Ifts to the draft once it becomes an article. There wasn't an article dedicated to the Falcon test flights, but Starship is special since it tested it's upper stages. So yes, keep the upper stage only flights and any full vehicle flights to the draft when it becomes an article. Also makes sense because this article is mostly the Upper Stage flights, so why not reserve it for that? Again, this only really matters if and when the draft becomes approved. The Page Maker 2.1 (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

strong no As said above: All that Starship has done and will do well into V2, as far as we know by now, will be testing, suborbital and non-operational. Thus, all this should stay here in this article, and a new article about operational non-test flights may emerge when time is there, and then retireing this one. Thus, a strong no especially to not causing even more confusion with more overlapping articles that cannot be updated accordingly anyway. 47.69.69.199 (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your concerns over overlapping which I reconsidered and decided to fall back on my original proposal to transfer all the IFTs to the draft (when it becomes an article), keeping this article for the upper stage tests (Hopper to SN15). The Page Maker 2.1 (talk) 01:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also generate the logic similar to the Falcon stuff, where there were test flights but they were not specified in an article. But we can leave that for the Upper stage test flights, which is why I consider keeping the Upper Stage test flights and transferring the IFT flights to the draft (and hopefully article) because the upper stage only flights were unique The Page Maker 2.1 (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable. agreed. 47.69.67.250 (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Dubious statements with even more dubious sources[edit]

I am really worried about the amount of dubious claims. E.g. which boosters and ships will perform the next IFTs. In the table, there are two sources cited. One is an X post than ONLY shows the interior of the booster factory without any desciption of the boosters nor their future use! No reference at all! The second is a Nasa Spaceflight video where I don't find that as well (for video sources, give timestamps!), but even if, that source is a private youtube channel known for boisterous unfunded statements, nothing official nor trustworthy. Thus, both claims for ship and booster for IFT 5 + 6 are not proved by any reliable source. All crystal balling. WP is an encyclopedia with clear guidelines, not a link collection for dubious claims. 47.69.67.250 (talk) 10:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, the video is 5 months old way before even IFT 3... 47.69.67.250 (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"One is an X post than ONLY shows the interior of the booster factory without any desciption of the boosters nor their future use! No reference at all!"
Leaving out that it also says "Super Heavy boosters for the next three flights, with a fourth ready to stack, in the Starbase Megabay"
Of the "next three flights", two have flown. The other is B12 (which has been confirmed as the Flight 5 booster. S30 has also been confirmed by SpaceX)
The fourth is B13.
"The second is a Nasa Spaceflight video where I don't find that as well (for video sources, give timestamps!), but even if, that source is a private youtube channel known for boisterous unfunded statements"
NasaSpaceflight is a WP:RS (Check the FAQ). So those statements are sourced. Redacted II (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once more, you try to fool me and others with deviating from the main problems.
1) this outdated X post nowhere states which boosters we see, nor in which order they will be used. Educated guessing, mnaybe, but no (!) source for WP articles.
2) If spaceX really has confirmed it, why hide that info instead of using it as a reliable source?
3) Still no timestamp where your claims can be seen in the video. Even if:
4) FAQ, ha! Those were written by yourself and one other user! First excluding "YouTube videos, Musk's tweets", but then making an sole exception for another youtuber? Where is it veryfiable? Who says so?
So you are now dictating others which sources to use by inventing FAQs that nicely serve your private ideas of editing? You are namedropping "rules" and "facts" in the hope they will impress on their own and nobody will care to look behind. Did not work. 47.69.67.250 (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Personal Attack. Do it again and I'll take this to ANI
EDIT. First, check the FAQ. You will find that bit was written over a year before I started editing.
As for the timestamp, 8 minutes 52 seconds (Approx, use subtitles).
The tweet doesn't have to state what boosters are listed. Look at the history of those vehicles: Only B10, B11, and B12 were in the mega bay at the time, B10 being the only one with an HSR, and B13 was under assembly.
How have I "hid" that SpaceX confirmed B12s and S30s status for flight 5? Its sourced directly in the article (Static fire of Flight 5 Starship's raptor engines).Redacted II (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These concerns have been raised by multiple editors. If you add or restore material, you have the burden to demonstrate verifiability, and the source must directly support ("present explicitly in the source") the material.
The current sources do not meet the standard of explicitly supporting the statements. If you are aware of sources that explicitly provide support, please update the citation for verifiability. Redraiderengineer (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying this! Maybe, then you could add a WP:TC or wp:cleanup message or similar to the article? Usually, IP-set messages get ignored or deleted, but a registered user can do. 47.69.67.250 (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The status of flight for these vehicle has been sourced. NASASpaceflight is a WP:RS (check the FAQ), as is SpaceX.
But, I'll explain it again.
The boosters in the tweet are B10, B11, and B12. "for the next three flights". Two of them have flown. That leaves B12. This was confirmed in a later tweet.
"with a fourth ready to stack" Which was B13. Redacted II (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still fooling us. The tweet does not say which boosters. The rest is your conclusion, thus not in the source but TF. And where is that "later tweet" that you rumor about but still fail to give it an a source? The nonsense with the non-official "FAQ" that you wrote yourself on still is no argument at all for "RS". 47.69.67.250 (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The timestamp of the tweet is sufficient. At that point, only three boosters were in the mega bay: B10, B11, and B12 (and B13 under construction).
Two have flown, leaving B12 as Flight 5 (which has been confirmed by SpaceX).
SpaceX confirmation: https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1812922275035029887, https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1810775604205342819
The "later tweet" is in the article.
Source 80: https://x.com/spacex/status/1788310386846179345
The ""non-official "FAQ"" is official (see the Starship Talk page), and the section I'm mentioning was written in October 2021 (which was only a month after I even learned of Starships existence, BTW). This account was made on April 11, 2023.
DIF: [1]
PS: Last Warning. Say I'm "fooling us" again (or similar comments) and I'll report you and your other IP accounts to ANI for violations of WP:Personal Attack and violating WP:AGF. Redacted II (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again you did IT. Now you are even editing older posts to change the discussion in your favour. And you are still repeating all the things again, but still not reacting to the base criticism. And accusing me using several IPs at a time is personal attack as well and a lie. You still think you own this page. Time to report you as well including quality check request of this page and your edits. 47.69.67.250 (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You admitted to using multiple IPs earlier.
I'll make a report soon. Redacted II (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did nothing like that. When accusing, you should read up on up more carefully.
Same is true for your consistently deviating "answers" that repeat secondary arguments over and over without adressing the real problems, like stating guesses in the article and giving wrong or infifficient references.
When you see my "accusations" of you not working up to WP requirements as a personal attack, then try to report me for that. The facts are speaking for themselves.
Btw, you might know that "to fool" also means "to mislead", and in this and only in this meaning I used it. 47.69.67.250 (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redacted II, the concern is the cited tweet doesn't contain any of that information. While it may make sense to a person closely following Starship's development, a reader without that knowledge may not make those connections.
The picture doesn't directly support the material, and if combining multiple sources is required to reach that conclusion, it gives the impression of original research. Based on your response to the verifiability challenge, I've removed these statements. Please add them back with a source that directly supports the material. (While the tweet for Ship 31 mentioned flight 6, it was sent before the anomaly, and tweets should generally be avoided.)
Also, these are relatively minor incidents of incivility where confrontation can escalate the situation.
47.69.67.250, avoiding uncivility helps editors focus on your arguments. While not required for unprotected pages, I would encourage you to create an account and contribute to the article. Redraiderengineer (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please self-revert. The statements are sourced (and once you self-revert, I'll be able to add a better source)
I'll expand on this later today, but I'm using a mobile device right now, so I can't do much. Redacted II (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Redraiderengineer, you very clearly explained the problem again even for the most stubborn with WP vocabulary I am missing. I apologize for any rudeness but clearly have been provoked. Threatening me with reports and other punishments makes me less likely to create an account. I had one years ago but got intensively stalked and pummeled so I gave it up. I just hope nobody will accuse you having me as a socketpuppet... 47.69.67.250 (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the sentence "Musk stated that SpaceX would attempt to catch B12 with the tower on Flight 5" is just not true as well. Musk wrote "next landing will be caught by the tower arms", nothing about any booster number, not even flight 5. Again, some guesswork is misgiven as good reference. And that goes on and on in the article if one looks closer...! IMHO, Redacted II consistently puts his own theories into the arcticle as facts, violating multiple WP rules. 47.69.67.250 (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4+1=5. Basic math doesn't need to be sourced.
Though there are other sources that specify Flight 5 and B12. I'll add one when I get the chance. Redacted II (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Flight 5 Source: https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/07/with-falcon-9-grounded-spacex-test-fires-booster-for-next-starship-flight/ (Also mentions Flight 5 catch).
Flight 6 Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxlV8tNBSSs
Both sources are WP:RS, so there is no reason to not re-add the information. Redacted II (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SpaceX_Starship_flight_tests&oldid=1234939341"