Wikipedia

Talk:SpaceX Starship/Archive 3

< Talk:SpaceX Starship
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Cocobb8 in topic Success or Failure 20-Apr-2023
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

How much criticism, and how deep?

Latest comment: 2 years ago24 comments10 people in discussion

Per Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/SpaceX Starship/2, I think this article should have a consensus about how much and how deep the criticisms should be, or else this argument would erupt once again in FAC and GAR. Right now, there are a few sections for this, such as:

  • criticism of Starbase (Opponents of the plan said the company encourages ...),
  • environmental concerns (This would cause large greenhouse gas emissions ...), and
  • overpromises of Mars timeline (However, this goal is considered optimistic. In a 2019 report prepared ...)

What do you think? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Notifying User:Compassionate727, closer of the review, could you tell me in more detail what can I do further to improve the neutrality of this article? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Pinging everyone else involved in SpaceX Starship reassessment to solicit further feedback. User:Chidgk1, User:Urve, User:XFalcon2004x, User:StarshipSLS, User:Berrely, User:X-Editor, User:Theknightwho, User:Maxmmyron, User:Leijurv, User:Nigos, and User:Peacemaker67. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
For User:QRep2020 and User:Stonkaments, they are also getting a talkback template because they are the original ones that raised concerns about the article's NPOV and bias. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I would reference the Army Corps of Engineers' decline of SpaceX's plan to expand the launch site for one: https://www.tpr.org/environment/2022-04-07/army-corps-of-engineers-withdraws-spacex-expansion-application-citing-insufficient-conflicting-information . Likely belongs both here and on SpaceX Starbase. QRep2020 (talk) 08:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. I am thinking where to add the information though, whether at "Facilities" or "Planned orbital launches". CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
QRep2020, fyi, I've mentioned it at "Testing and manufacturing", at one payload processing facility, one seven-acre solar farm, and other facilities. As of April 2022, the expansion plan's permit has been withdrawn ... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you leave this for twelve months and come back to it. By my count it in less than a year it has had three unsuccessful runs at FA, one unsuccessful A-Class review and its status at GA remains unstable, with a delist three months ago and another recent unsuccessful run. In a year's time the sources available will have improved and we will know more about the starship, its successes and failures. There is far too much "may", "will", "intended", "predicts" and "likely". The reality is that with an article on a subject that is developing rapidly, getting it to a good standard and keeping it there as things change and progress is incredibly difficult. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with peacemaker. I hate to say it but after periodically checking in on this article (and sometimes doing in-depth reviews), I'm not convinced the constant churn and turnover of your editing is making it better. You're putting in a ton of effort, thousands of edits, but it's just treading water, it seems to me. Sorry. It's not all your fault of course - the subject matter is a massive question mark, a moving target and a hypothetical. The criticisms leveled against the project are therefore similarly slippery. Leijurv (talk) 07:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 and Leijurv, I do agree that the subject is prone to change by a lot, as you can see that most of the sources here only exist after the first half of 2021. However, I do think that it is unfair that article about recent topics must wait until they are able to be nominated at GA and FA. There is no criteria in both good and featured processes that says so, and most topic evolves over time anyways as our understanding or information about them grew (examples: Hubble Space Telescope, Renewable energy in Scotland, Buzz Aldrin, and Elon Musk). Since when I started developing this article in September 2021, I think now is the best time to bring them to FA status: early enough to inform a lot of readers, and late enough that the topic is just quite stable. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
A stable topic that could withstand changes would be SpaceX Starship development. Any changes to Starship's design would require that this article—and all of its myriad hypotheticals and predictions—be rewritten, except its historical section. There's quite a difference between overview subjects (renewable energy in Scotland), biographies (Buzz Aldrin, Elon Musk), and existing technologies (Hubble Space Telescope) to emerging tech, where the bulk of those articles is purely historical or scientific, and the bulk of this one is hypothetical and changing. Urve (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I think a good compromise here is to wait until a few months after Starship's first orbital flight test, i.e. doing something similar to the Falcon Heavy test flight. It would make rounds in news and we would have an ample of reliable sources to pick from. An alternative is when the Starship program is cancelled, though it is highly unlikely. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Of course it's possible for this article to get GA/FA, no need to cite WP:WIAGA/WP:WIAFA, I never said it was impossible. I stand by what I did say: I'm not convinced the constant churn and turnover of your editing is making it better Leijurv (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
You are right. I should have slowed down and get others to contribute. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I have not looked at this article for ages but if I remember right the controversy is local rather than national. In that people are complaining there are -ve local effects of the launches. So the controversy could be summarized in a short paragraph in this article with the details in an article about the launch site. Suggest nominate for GA immediately after orbital test launch whatever result of test. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Don’t promise anything (and definitely not getting involved in FA) but ping me if you or anyone puts in for GA. I may or may not be able to review. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
@CactiStaccingCrane: "stable" is one of the FA criteria. A review will be based on the current article state, if the article looks very different the next month then what did we actually feature? I have said that before - I think the subject changes too quickly for GA/FA. Not our fault. In a year the background/history section will be the only thing that still looks like today. --mfb (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the article is not eligible for GA and FA right now because of stability. However, it is useful to polish the article up to standard and nominate it once the topic becomes more stable. Right now, my concern is the article's neutrality, as it hasn't been written by many people with different viewpoints and is mostly written by an enthusiast (me). Ignoring recent developments, what do you think that article need improvement on, and why? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

For disclosure and prevent canvassing, I've also notified User:Ixtal who is the reviewer of SpaceX's GA. She has commented on the topic both on-wiki and off-wiki via Discord chat service. I think her feedback would help a lot on the article's NPOV. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't know exactly what is needed from me here. I'm unable to dig through the article and topic now due to irl issues but good luck to you all :) — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 08:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I think that you can provide a viewpoint to the article's NPOV, given that I don't have the best judgement to do so. Feel free to decline my request if you don't feel like doing it though. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Besides maybe a sentence of clause here and there, I don't think much criticism is due. RS haven't put out a lot of criticism on Starship. And much of what criticism has been published is tangential, aimed at Musk or Starbase rather than Starship. ~ HAL333 12:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Concur with User:HAL333 and their rationale. Criticism of a large 24x7 busy/noisy/active rocket manufacturing facility (and only occasional launch facility) doesn't really belong in the article on Starship. More properly, all these details would go in the Starbase (SpaceX) article, with perhaps a summary sentence or two in this article, if at all. N2e (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it is clear what you meant. Do you mean that the Reception section should either be eliminated, shortened to a paragraph, or integrated throughout the article? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Source stuff

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Source assessment table: prepared by User:CactiStaccingCrane
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Sesnic, Trevor (11 August 2021). "Starbase Tour and Interview with Elon Musk". The Everyday Astronaut (Interview). Archived from the original on 12 August 2021. Retrieved 12 October 2021. ~ This article is made by an YouTube channel, which is somehwat biased toward SpaceX. However, there is no endorsement or sponsorship that the channel takes. ~ This is a primary source, which can get outdated over time and prone to PR. However, the interview do provide solid information which are conflicting, such as the rocket's stage dry mass.   This is an interview with Musk specifically about Starship. ~ Partial
"Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the SpaceX Starship/Super Heavy Launch Vehicle Program at the SpaceX Boca Chica Launch Site in Cameron County, Texas" (PDF). Federal Aviation Administration and SpaceX. June 2022. Archived (PDF) from the original on 14 June 2022. Retrieved 14 June 2022.   Portions of the document is made by SpaceX. However, it is subjected to thorough vetting by the FAA to provide accurate information. ~ Most of the document is made by subject experts, though information are known to be outdated (37 Raptors for Super Heavy).   This is an environmental assessment about the Starship and its development activities. ~ Partial
Weber, Ryan (31 October 2021). "Major elements of Starship Orbital Launch Pad in place as launch readiness draws nearer". NASASpaceFlight.com. Archived from the original on 5 December 2021. Retrieved 19 December 2021. ~ Though this is a website that has parts dedicated and somewhat biased to the Starship program, it has taken no endorsement from SpaceX. ~ Many of the information provided by NASASpaceFlight is speculation as lots of Starship activities are not announced by SpaceX. However, this is an article made in retrospective and synthesized from other sources written by established subject-matter experts.   This is a chronology of Starship program's events and prototypes. ~ Partial
Wattles, Jackie (10 December 2020). "Space X's Mars prototype rocket exploded yesterday. Here's what happened on the flight". CNN. Archived from the original on 10 December 2020. Retrieved 10 December 2020.   This is CNN, a national news channel. The author has little affiliation with SpaceX, though covers the spaceflight industry in general.   This is not an op-ed, nor it was written way too early. The author like I said above is a subject-matter expert, and the publisher is known for their reliability.   This is a description about Starship SN8's flight test. ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I've made this {{source assess table}} to keep track of sources easier, which I think would help other editors as well. Ignore the "Count source toward GNG?", all assumed to be yes. The main thing here is to keep track of is the prior three columns: "Independent?", "Reliable?", and "Significant coverage?". CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

N2e's reverts

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I disagree with a lot of User:N2e reverts, though I do agree that I've made his job a lot harder by making a lot of excessive edit saves. Here's the rationale of my now-reverted edits: CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  • I changed from {{cite news}} to {{cite web}} partly because they are essentially the same. In Choosing between {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}}, the only two difference are: Cite news can be used for offline sources (we don't use any offline news sources here); Cite news allows for |issue= and |volume= (which we may never need because it is only used in offline sources). We can either choose to spend time changing news citations from {{cite web}} to {{cite news}}, or we can convert all the news citations from {{cite news}} to {{cite web}}. Since the {{cite web}} is considered to be the default citation template, I chose the latter.
  • the development program has achieved important milestones feels a bit redundant, but I do agree with your revert
  • Information about Raptor Boost and Super Heavy's cluster of engines should NOT be removed. They were good info. In the long term, SpaceX plans to make three variants of Raptor; sea-level-optimized engine with gimbaled thrust, sea-level-optimized engine without gimbaled thrust, and vacuum-optimized engine without gimbaled thrust is essentially in production now. It's called sea level-optimized Raptor 2, Raptor Boost, and vacuum-optimized Raptor 2. Therefore it's redundant, and there isn't a need for a source to explicitly say so.
  • In the edit that has the summary "citations were good", they weren't. SpaceX's homepage does not mention about two forward flaps and two aft flaps, and the NYT source are paywalled, so they should be marked as such.
  • I am strongly disagree with this revert. What do you mean by "explicating a complex and dynamic technology development effort for a global general readership", when you revert good links to Starship HLS and the Artemis program?
  • I agree with your addition of the CNBC source about the orbital flight. It was my fault, and I should've been more careful with my edits.
  • I don't think that this copyedit is a good addition, as "and in the longer term, will carry humans" and "elsewhere beyond-Earth orbit" is fairly redundant. The sentences are already implying that Starship will carry humans deep in the Solar System, and landing will take place outside of the Earth, so no need to say that explicitly.
  • In the same copyedit, you've also replaced the Ars Technica source with the NYT source. The NYT source does not mention SpaceX being iterative and incremental with its development, while the Ars Technica very explicitly says so.
CactiStaccingCrane, the section title you put on this is not correct. I did not merely revert your edits. You made 29 consecutive edits to the article on 3-6 July. It was quite challenging to review those edits, and to use wiki tools to do so given the widely-all-over-the-article extent of your edits. I reverted some of them, always with comments. I left many of your edits as they were. I also, in my 7 edits on 6 July, edited to make other changes to the article.
Thus, your revert of 100% of my edits on 7 July (diff), and then leaving the article that way for a day and a half, was not a very helpful move for collegial editing. Taking the article back to the state it was in immediately after your string 29 edits was essentially an WP:IDONTLIKEIT move, and smacks of WP:OWNERSHIP of the article.
Looking in to this article tonight (8 July, UTC), I see you have reverted your own edits of 7 July, to subsequently take the article back to where it was after my edits of 6 July. I sincerely appreciate that move. Moreover, I think it makes discussion of any and all content issues back where they can happen without getting into formal issues of editor behavior.
There may be some co-editing matters of process and helpful behavior to discuss later, but I'm happy to address each of your article content comments, as you made them. I'll get to the first one tonight, within an hour or so. N2e (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I think that I've become emotionally attached to the article after working on it for nearly a year, and as such become more and more possessive of the content. I should do something else for some time, so that everyone else would be able to contribute and you to do the necessary fix-ups. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Citation format

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

CactiStaccingCrane changed "all cite news to cite web for consistency, remove ISSN as the sources are online" in an edit on diff

I changed them back, so as not to lose the benefits of the 'cite news' format citations, and the work of previous editors who took the time to add full citations to many of those 'cite news' full citations.

Cacti asked (above) to discuss here on the talk page:

"changed from {{cite news}} to {{cite web}} partly because they are essentially the same. In Choosing between {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}}, the only two difference are: Cite news can be used for offline sources (we don't use any offline news sources here); Cite news allows for |issue= and |volume= (which we may never need because it is only used in offline sources). We can either choose to spend time changing news citations from {{cite web}} to {{cite news}}, or we can convert all the news citations from {{cite news}} to {{cite web}}. Since the {{cite web}} is considered to be the default citation template, I chose the latter."

I don't think it is a good idea to treat news sources, the kinds of sources the 'cite news' template was made for, as if they are mere websites, the sort of online sources that the 'cite web' template was made for. Also, I do not think it is a good idea to remove ISSN information in a citation; that essentially loses information that some other editor thought worthwhile when creating a source citation. We should not remove ISSNs sans wikipolicy to do it differently, or without a consensus to do so here on this talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, though it doesn't matter much. Help talk:Citation Style 1 § RfC: Should Citation bot use cite web, or cite magazine, or cite news? is an open discussion about this kind of change, FWIW. WP:CITEVAR counsels us against arbitrarily changing the citation style, which includes the choice of templates imo, without consensus or a strong reason; I don't see an actual reason to switch from {{cite news}} to {{cite web}}, especially because {{cite news}} is semantically useful when editing the page. {{cite web}} is not the default for anything. The rendered output should be identical, though - hence why I say it doesn't matter much - sans ISSN, which I see no utility in for most publishers. Urve (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Prose stuff

Latest comment: 2 years ago18 comments4 people in discussion

Reception of Starship by local communities

N2e, why did you move two of these paragraphs (Reception to Starship development among local communities... and Opponents of the plan said the company encourages...) from Development to Facilities? I don't think that that place is suitable because they also talk more about Starship development as a whole. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Answer: The reception of a community to a launch (and landing) facility in their region of the US is not about the "Development" of the technology and product (SpaceX Starship) which is the focus of the article. It is related to the facilities being built there, and operated there 24x7, with less frequent, but impactful, launches. So it properly would situate in the "Facilities" section. It might be about the "development" of the real estate, in the sense that unimproved property becomes "developed property", but that is not what development means in the usual course of articles on aerospace technology. Also, to be clear, I didn't edit the content of those paragraphs; left 'em as is. Just put them in the section that more deals with the facilities side of things. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. Thanks for the explanation. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Lead

N2e, although I think that most of your edits on the lead is an improvement, I feel that a few isn't as good as I've hoped. The first paragraph is fine, though I would like make a couple of minor adjustments to avoid repetition. It would look like this:

Starship is a fully-reusable, super-heavy-lift launch vehicle that is currently being developed by SpaceX, an American aerospace manufacturer. It is the tallest and most powerful launch vehicle ever built.[1] The launch vehicle is a two-stage-to-orbit rocket, consisting of the Super Heavy booster stage and the Starship second stage or spacecraft.
I'm not seeing the difference in what you are proposing. Seems to nearly match the current article prose as of now. Except 1) there is no need to link launch vehicle twice, 2) since BOTH stages are rockets, we avoid confusion with the reader of the encyclopedia by referring to the entire two-stage stack as a launch vehicle. However, if "launch vehicle" is previously used once or twice in a paragraph, it'd probably be okay to just refer to it as a "vehicle" a third time, but I'm not sure how much better that is. If I missed anything, maybe restate your changes. N2e (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
The first launch vehicle's link is unintentional (instead of the wikitext being [[super-heavy-lift launch vehicle|super-heavy-lift]] [[launch vehicle]], it should be linked more simply as [[super-heavy-lift launch vehicle]]). I do agree that it would be wrong to say "two-stage-to-orbit rocket" as you just said earlier, and it would be better to say "vehicle" instead. The final result would be:
Starship is a fully-reusable, super-heavy-lift launch vehicle that is currently being developed by SpaceX, an American aerospace manufacturer. It is the tallest and most powerful launch vehicle ever built.[1] The vehicle is a two-stage-to-orbit, consisting of the Super Heavy booster stage and the Starship second stage or spacecraft. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
No, it should not be: [[super-heavy-lift launch vehicle]] because the hides the MAIN THING that the article is about. Starship, as explicated in this article, is indeed a "launch vehicle", a particular type of item of human technology common in orbital spaceflight. "super-heavy-lift" is simply a compound adjective saying the thing is big. So, [[super-heavy-lift launch vehicle|super-heavy-lift]] [[launch vehicle]] helps the reader of the encyclopedia, cause it let's them see in the first sentence the term, and link, to just exactly what Starship is. N2e (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
MOS:SOB advises against that, perhaps a different phrasing would have the links not directly next to each other? Leijurv (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I think that if they want to find out about launch vehicle in general, they can take a look at the second link at "powerful launch vehicle ever built". Otherwise it's a bit misleading when a single block of colored text can lead to different places, depending on where you click on it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The second paragraph is great in my opinion; it's just right. However, the third paragraph has an awkward sentence "Design characteristics and construction techniques were refined over the next dozen years, specifying methane fuel in 2012 and stainless-steel construction in 2019." You've said in the edit summary that the name changes does not need to be mentioned at the lead, but I think that it should be, because the MCT, ITS, and BFR is ultimately related to Starship. At the last paragraph, it is good enough, though I would like to mention the offshore platforms' names Phobos and Deimos. So, what do you think of my proposal? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

That sentence, that includes the name as being "refined" is just not correct. SpaceX is refining a design for a vehicle, and for the complex manufacturing processes to build the thing cost-effectively and efficiently. They didn't "refine" the name. They did change the name of the vehicle a few times. Musk is on record the second time they changed the public name to the internal short moniker (BFR) that (I'm paraphrasing from memory here; but the quote is easy to find.) "[We are still searching for the right name. ... ]" So it wasn't some sort of process of continual refinement; it was just a few name changes. So in my view, your proposed sentence doesn't quite work. Also, beyond that, I really don't believe the various name changes are a very lede-worthy topic. So to me, it's okay if it is just explicated in the article body. N2e (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree, we should just gonna keep these paragraph as it is then. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Actually, not yet, I think that this phrase "Both Starship stages use liquid oxygen ... Both stages are designed for rapid reuse after a vertical landing." is a bit repetitive. I think that this Both Starship stages use liquid oxygen ... The rocket stages are designed for rapid recovery and reuse after a vertical landing. sounds better and still holds the same meaning. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
No, I don't think underplaying that BOTH stages are fully-reusable is a good idea. That fact about this technology development project should not be anything less than encyclopedically correct and crystal clear. THat is exactly what no other company, and no other government, has ever even attempted to do previously. It is the most unique and encyclopedically important thing about Starship. ... The article takes up a lot of prose space with mundane stuff that is not very important: like what happened with this or that particular prototype test vehicle, or on this or that particular test (all good for the other Starship Development article, of course). But that both stages are reusable is absolutely key to what we should say, and say clearly. N2e (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
N2e, agreed, so how about this: "Both Starship stages are designed for rapid reuse after a vertical landing. They use liquid oxygen plus liquid methane for propellant, and are powered by Raptor engines." I switch the order around a bit to emphasize what you've said. However, about the "Development" section, what do you think it should be improved on now? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
I made an edit to include 90% of what you suggested, but also cleaned up some odd phrasing. N2e (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! The lead looks really good now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
@CactiStaccingCrane why is the lead all written in present tense? It very much undermines or de-emphasizes the beyond ambitious and aspirational nature of an "under development" launch vehicle. The lead mentions everything it's yet to demonstrate and even goes as far as to mention its 4 non-existent variants as such. Nandofan (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
The same can be said with the Space Launch System. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Lead Section

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

The lead section of this article is too long. A lead section should be a short summary of the article. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 23:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@StarshipSLS I'd add from elsewhere:
Why is the lead all written in present tense? It very much undermines or de-emphasizes the beyond ambitious and aspirational nature of an "under development" launch vehicle. The lead mentions everything it's yet to demonstrate and even goes as far as to mention its 4 non-existent variants as such. Nandofan (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC) Nandofan (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree with this. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Nandofan I rewrite the lead a bit to use future tenses (will, going to, etc.) Some sentences I kept it as-is for obvious reasons. What do you think about it now? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Looks really good. I made an edit that SpaceX intends for Starship to carry 100 t. @CactiStaccingCrane StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 22:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Just a little note from myself, that depending on the person that number can fluctuate. I've heard 100t (which seems to be the most common) but I've also heard the occasional rumble that it may actually be higher than that--per se, maybe around 125t or even 150t--especially if you're not using a reusable model, such as a long-term storage depot!
Not really too on topic, just a curious little tidbit that I thought I'd share to y'all on the severely small chance any of y'all are interested :)
XFalcon2004x (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
"Over 100 tonnes" is a consistent statement from the company, sometimes Musk drops various target numbers above that. The system is still in development and we can expect the payload to change over time as they improve the design. --mfb (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 1 year ago62 comments5 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:SpaceX Starship/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Timothytyy (talk · contribs) 05:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


Thank you for your nomination. After reviewing the article, I believe that the article is almost ready to be a good article. However, some places in the article are quite wordy and not reader-friendly. My suggestion is to shorten the lead section a little bit and remove unnecessary information in the background section. If you finished shortening the article, please ping me and I will review it as soon as possible. Thank you!

Timothytyy, I've shorten the lead to make it more accessible for readers, but I'm not sure what to cut in the background section. It's been a while since I've edited the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
@CactiStaccingCrane Thank you for your cleanup in the lead section! For the background, I meant that there are already "Further information" articles, so the history need not be too long and detailed. For example, "To deliver such payload, the Falcon XX would have been as tall as the Saturn V and used six Merlin 2 engines." Although this piece of information is useful, it is not quite helpful for readers to understand the background of Starship. You should think about, "What do readers hope to learn about the background of Starship?" So, you can remove useless/not quite useful information and try to make the background sound more generic. This works too for the lead and other sections too. After all, this is not an article about the evolution of Starship. Thank you! Timothytyy (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Hard agree with this. I'm going to cut the cruft now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Timothytyy, I've trimmed some sections and making sure that the content is evergreen. I also added new information about Booster 7's static fire while making sure the content does not run afoul at WP:RECENTISM. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
@CactiStaccingCrane Thank you for your cleanup of the article! I will mark this GAN as ✓ Pass. Keep up your good work! Timothytyy (talk) 07:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Timothytyy Wait what? No, you cannot just pass a GAN like that. We need to review all of the criteria for good article before doing so. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
@CactiStaccingCrane As I said before ("I believe that the article is almost ready to be a good article"), I believe that all the other criteria are met. If you believe that some criteria is not met, you can inform me. Anyways, please inform me if you want me to review it again. Thank you. Timothytyy (talk) 08:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Timothytyy The article is certainly not perfect, and I have a feeling that the article's prose is not up to standard. But you - as an outsider - can spot a lot more flaws than I can. By rushing GA review, you've lost an opportunity to make the article better and make it well-prepared for featured article candidacy. As a person that has waited 4 months for a review and yearned more than a year for the article to become a featured article, please make the GAN count by actually reviewing the article to the best of our abilities. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
@CactiStaccingCrane I don't know if the reason you didn't reply is because I forgot to ping you or other reasons, but I am here to seek your comments. I have listed every guideline below. Sorry for rushing to assess it, but you should keep in mind that nomination discussions do not always need to be super long. If you compare SpaceX Starship to other GAs, you would find out that this article is much better than them. Please don't think that I reviewed this without any close inspection or guideline-reviewing. Therefore, I would still like to nominate this as GA as soon as possible. I would even dare to say it is not far from reaching FA if a little bit more things are improved (although I find nothing in the current revision that needs significant improvement).
Anyway, please reply me within 36 hours, or else I will review this GA nomination. If you insist that there are problems, you can list them out. I repeat: In my opinion, after your fixes, I believe that the article can definitely pass the GA guidelines. Thank you for your cooperation! Timothytyy (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm really sorry that I've thought you haven't actually look at the article in great detail. I think that I've worried that FAC reviewers will point to this GA and say that this review is not adequate enough and I should've make another GAN for this. Lots of my previous FAC has gone this way. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
@Timothytyy courtesy ping CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
If you are not satisfied, then I will say
1.Well-written after your cleanup; I am a Starship fan and I have always been reading the page, why wouldn't I know the prose? It is one of the most important launch vehicle-related article, so lots of editors are helping out in the page. No articles are flawless, but I can't spot anything not well-written, as I would have corrected that myself before.
2.Verifiable: I believe there are not much problems with sources as I checked them before I reviewed the nomination.
3.Broad in its coverage:
a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; no problem at all
b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail; you corrected it already
4.Neutral: Well done in whole article.
5.Stable: Are there an edit wars or vandalism?
6.Media: Quite a lot and adequate.
Sorry for making you unsatisfied, but I really believe that it is ready. I am not an editor who came across this article just today! Timothytyy (talk) 08:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
I think that we should have a second opinion about this GA. Pinging @Berrely as the GAR initiator and @Urve as the second GAN reviewer. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I can't give this a close read-over, too many articles to write about biblical apocrypha ;) This is the version I'm reading.
  • Criterion 2 (verifiable, with no OR): Unless I'm missing something, "In January 2020, the company bought two drilling rigs for $3.5 million from Valaris plc each during Valaris's bankruptcy proceedings, with plans to repurpose them as offshore spaceports" is still wrong (pointed this out before?) - source says "sold ... in August 2020 when Valaris filed for bankruptcy ... buyer was SpaceX." similarly, this source (June 2022) can't support an "as of 9 December 2022" statement. I trust that you have gone through and the source-text integrity issues from before, aside from a couple of these minor points that deal with dates.
  • Criterion 1 (well-written): "potential abuse for eviction" - could just say the potential threat of eviction, abuse is an odd word. do we have a source for Starship being a super heavy-life launch vehicle? it probably is, but note e saying it meets the definition is uncomfortably close to synthesis, and we could avoid the awkward citation to an encyclopedia. note d is unnecessary. "each during Valaris's bankruptcy proceedings" is ambiguous, since they were sold together(?), could just say "both sold together".
  • regarding FAC (not GAN), will mention that there is a mix of {{rp}} (eg, The End of Astronauts: Why Robots Are the Future of Exploration) and in-{{cite book}} pages (eg, Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future). source otherwise seem fairly consistent and reliable but didn't check all. Criterion 6 (illustration): alt text for images seems well-written and descriptive; can videos carry alt text? if so, suggest adding.
  • Criterion 3–5 seem OK at a glance. There's always the possibility of non-neutral wording, but can't see any immediately; suggest going over once more and seeing whether any words you use have any promotional or positive connotation, and see whether that connotation is reflected in the source.
  • I imagine, but can't promise, that this article meets the GA criteria. The criteria are not exceptionally high. (That's not an insult to the article, to be clear! - the GA criteria are just not highly restrictive.) Unless there's something major I'm missing, I would not support this going to GAR, and think its promotion would be within the range of reasonable editor discretion. That's my way of saying that I would promote (modulo major errors or omissions).
  • I understand you would also like an in-depth review for a future featured article candidacy, but I think FAC is a horrible, demoralizing fiefdom with inconsistent desires, impossible demands, and made-up precedents nowhere reflected in the criteria; I have no desire to play into that game, so won't further comment beyond the GA criteria. Best of luck, good work, and congratulations on getting the article in much better shape. Urve (talk) 12:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
    I've addressed all of your concerns. Though I've check all of the article sources, it was a few months ago, so I think it is worth it to have at least a spot-check on sources before passing the GAN. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
    Timothytyy would you like to do a spot-check with me as part of GAN review? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
    @CactiStaccingCrane So what do you want me to do? I'd be happy to help. Timothytyy (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
    @Timothytyy, a spot check means checking a sample of sources and making sure that the text really does reflect what the sources said. Usually, people will do about 5-15 sources to spot check an article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
    @CactiStaccingCrane OK, I'll check it now. Timothytyy (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
    @CactiStaccingCrane I checked 15 of the sources. Most were good, but I don't think source 91 is useful for the info in the paragraph. Timothytyy (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
    @Timothytyy,   Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
    @Timothytyy and @Ovinus, do you feel comfortable passing the review now? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
    Perhaps once I finish my copyedit, which I hope has been helpful. In the process, I've also done a dozen spotchecks or so, which have all checked out. That said, I think I'm a bit too involved to pass it myself. Timothytyy's opinion (or even a third opinion) would be helpful. Ovinus (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Ovinus

Some content comments as I've gone through. Ovinus (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

That's it for now. Ovinus (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane I agree with Ovinus' (minor) wording corrections, which don't seem disrupting the content flow. Anyway, I would like to pass this, but also as per Ovinus, I think I'm a bit too involved to pass it myself. It would be excellent if a third person can spend some time to review this. Timothytyy (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Timothytyy the whole situation is kinda awkward; on the one hand I want this article to pass the GAN quickly for it to be grilled at the FAC, but on the other hand, they can just point to the poor GAN review and not reviewing the article itself. I don't know what to do now... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
CactiStaccingCrane the best thing to do now is find a third person to review it (thoroughly), then there is no way that anyone will object this review, because I believe this article is already ready for being a GA. Timothytyy (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

In-depth review

I'm willing to conduct a more in-depth review. So, some points on content rather than just wording. But I disagree with Timothytyy that the article should be passed at this point. Ovinus (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

  • More critiques are needed, in particular about the feasibility and cost. The best place for that would probably be the "Reception" section, but it should also be integrated when possible. How much do space experts, particularly NASA authorities, believe this thing is gonna work? How much do they agree with SpaceX's figures on the ultimate cost? We can't just parrot what the company says.
    Hard agree. @CactiStaccingCrane Timothytyy (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Also add some inline quoted opinions for the "Some are skeptical of the date" part.
  • In the "Space colonization" section, we need a sentence or two about criticisms of the "colonization of Mars" shtick.
    • I do agree, though the criticism should be about SpaceX's plan and not about colonization of Mars in general. A good criticism is that the plan is pretty unrealistic due to XYZ tech that hasn't been worked on yet. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)`
    Agree. Timothytyy (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  • We need more criticism of SpaceX's encroachment on Boca Chica. The WSJ piece is nice, but also see ones like [1], which criticize the environmental impact. This should go in Reception and/or integrated with the rest of the article.
  • "the Federal Aviation Administration performed a two-month investigation of the incident" What was the upshot of the investigation?
  • Given the Raptor engine has its own article, what do you think about trimming that section to two paragraphs? Much of the content can be moved to the subarticle.
    • I disagree, as the rocket engines are usually designed specifically for one rocket, unlike airplane engines. Similar articles such as the Space Shuttle, N1 (rocket) and Long March 5 and explains its engine in great detail. I also want to keep the explanation of the full-flow staged combustion cycle as the Raptor engine is the only rocket engine in production that uses this combustion cycle. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  • "A performance inside Starship.jpg" is too promotional, please remove

And some nitpicks:

  • "issues identified in the final assessment" – I'm sorry if I messed up the meaning as I think I tweaked this sentence, but which assessment is being referred to?
  • Is the "Mechzilla" name relevant?

Spotchecks

Making a separate section for these. PMC says there have been source–text integrity issues, so I will be complete here. Checks are relative to Special:Diff/1129175118.

I'm rather concerned about all the discrepancies I've seen so far. Would you like time to go through the sources yourself before I go through the remaining references? Ovinus (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
@CactiStaccingCrane: Just checking in case you missed this. Ovinus (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Alright, since it's been some time I'll mark this one as failed; sorry. In a future review these source–text issues should be addressed. Ovinus (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
  • [1]: Good, except doesn't say anything about "super heavy-lift launch vehicle" as used in the lead, which I assume is elsewhere.
  • [2]: Good, except it doesn't say "high-capacity" as far as I can see
    • Seems to be a paraphrase of "heavy-lift launch vehicle", fixed
  • [3, 4, 5]: Good
  • [6]: Doesn't seem to check out? The company doesn't seem to have said much definitive.
    • I used [7] instead to tag the year 2015.
  • [7]:
  • [8]: (Keep in mind I'm using the diff above. It appears the numbering has changed due to the source replacement you just performed.) The engine was not fired for the first time on this date; rather, the success was announced. Also, Musk's tweet appears to date to the 25th. I would only keep the month + year, and clarify.
  • [9]: "carbon composite" not found in source. Source claims 550 tons to orbit if landing the thing isn't required; I'd keep 300 tons and clarify that that figure is in the case of re-landing. I also fail to see where the article discusses the "three variants".
  • [10]: Fine
  • [11]: "68th International Astronautical Congress" detail not present; in fact, it appears to be a tweet where Musk announced the name change. Second usage is fine.
  • [12]: Fine. Please link spaceport
  • [13, 14]: Fine
  • [15]: Source calls it "fins" instead of "flaps", so please use these terms if accurate. "Crucial funding" is not really found in the source, only that the sum was significant. So please adjust that or find another source.
  • [16]: Fine
  • [17]: I fail to see where the six Raptor engines (and their classification into vacuum- and sea-level-optimized variants) are discussed, or the "pins" (it only says they are "mechanically attached")
  • [18]: Source does not say any static fire tests were performed (afait)
  • [19]: Fine
  • [20]: I fail to see where the source gives the date of 2023 for the first test.
  • [21]:
  • [22]:
  • [23]:
  • [24]:
  • [25]:
  • [26]:
  • [27]:
  • [28]:
  • [29]:
  • [30]:
  • [31]:
  • [32]:
  • [33]:
  • [34]:
  • [35]:
  • [36]:
  • [37]:
  • [38]:
  • [39]:
  • [40]:
  • [41]:
  • [42]:
  • [43]:
  • [44]:
  • [45]:
  • [46]:
  • [47]:
  • [48]:
  • [49]:
  • [50]:
  • [51]:
  • [52]:
  • [53]:
  • [54]:
  • [55]:
  • [56]:
  • [57]:
  • [58]:
  • [59]:
  • [60]:
  • [61]:
  • [62]:
  • [63]:
  • [64]:
  • [65]:
  • [66]:
  • [67]:
  • [68]:
  • [69]:
  • [70]:
  • [71]:
  • [72]:
  • [73]:
  • [74]:
  • [75]:
  • [76]:
  • [77]:
  • [78]:
  • [79]:
  • [80]:
  • [81]:
  • [82]:
  • [83]:
  • [84]:
  • [85]:
  • [86]:
  • [87]:
  • [88]:
  • [89]:
  • [90]:
  • [91]:
  • [92]:
  • [93]:
  • [94]:
  • [95]:
  • [96]:
  • [97]:
  • [98]:
  • [99]:
  • [100]:
  • [101]:
  • [102]:
  • [103]:
  • [104]:
  • [105]:
  • [106]:
  • [107]:
  • [108]:
  • [109]:
  • [110]:
  • [111]:
  • [112]:
  • [113]:
  • [114]:
  • [115]:
  • [116]:
  • [117]:
  • [118]:
  • [119]:
  • [120]:
  • [121]:
  • [122]:
  • [123]:
  • [124]:
  • [125]:
  • [126]:
  • [127]:
  • [128]:
  • [129]:
  • [130]:
  • [131]:
  • [132]:

Timothy

(I'd like to keep our checks separate, so I put yours down here. Hope that's okay. Ovinus (talk) 03:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC))

  • Ovinus, can you help me check 127-129? Thanks a lot! Timothytyy (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
  • [122]: Ok, but in the source I only found "potentially followed by pads at LC-49" and "SpaceX and NASA currently working on assessing the potential of a site at LC-49 to the north of Complex 39", nothing else. Also it is not mentioned that 49 is north to 39A, but not 39B or 39C.
  • [123-124]: OK
  • [125]: Ok, but I just noticed that this source is actually more suitable than source 126 at that place.
  • [126]: "nearly identical" not seen in source
  • [127]: Forbidden 403
  • [128]: Front part OK, can't check the back
  • [129]: (Can't check, not a subscriber of the New York Times)
  • [130]: Except "SpaceX currently launches its Falcon 9 rockets from a leased launch pad at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida.", no "Falcon 9" is mentioned in the article, so "originally planned to launch Falcon rockets" is completely unsourced. Better source needed(or change wordings).
  • [131]: Good.
  • [132]: Source only says "closes the road to the beach" instead of closing the beach and the road. Suggestion: change wordings.
    • Done

Comment: Yeah the thing is good as I tried to say when I reviewed it before - like the new info in "Applications and launches" - just give it the green spot. Suggest you highlight dup wlinks e.g. with User:Evad37/duplinks-alt and remove Chidgk1 (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment on date format

Latest comment: 1 year ago17 comments12 people in discussion

Should this article use either dmy or mdy date format? See § Date format for prior discussion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

YYYY-MM-DD. As per ISO 8601. Chillpadde (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Chillpadde. The order in which month and day are written is unambiguous in the YYYY-MM-DD format. I am in the UK, but could not detect in which English dialect the article was written STonyG (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

CactiStaccingCrane , this Rfc should not have been closed by you (as is was on 29 June 2022: diff), since you initiated the discussion. Needs to be closed by a non-involved editor, per WP:NACRFC.

Please reopen and allow the full 30 days required for RfCs for comments and discussion. Please self-remove you premature closing. N2e (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Done, sorry for my premature close. I don't mean to be disruptive, I just found that the discussion has already taken 1+ month and the RfC won't likely to get more comments. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for quickly doing that! Your belief that "the RfC won't likely to get more comments." was (now) rather obviously not a correct estimation, as the RfC has had six additonal substantive comments in ~5 days. But that doesn't matter, as the early close, by you, was incorrect on two policy grounds. Let's let this run to full duration, and let some non-involved editor close it, in late July. N2e (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. I think I may have improperly opened the RfC somehow so that people don't get notifications at their talk page. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Mixture of fact, planning and science fiction

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Currently the article is a mixture of facts, planning and science fiction.

Some sections are obviously science fiction, like these private cabines. Large portions use the wording "is expected" or "is planned", but seem to be not supported by references except by "optimistic" (as in made-up) claims of SpaceX. Some sections, like "mission profile", are entirely unclear if they describe real capabilities or "visions". How much of the article is real, how much is fantasy? 10%? 50%? 90%?

As an analogy, it also wouldn't be a good idea to mix the article of Apollo 11 with the stories of Jules Verne, let alone entangling it in a way that it is not clear what is what.

Suggestion:

The article describes exclusively what is real. Remove all "is expected" and "is planned" claims, except if they are supported by neutral reliable sources as solid reliable predictions.

Yes, maybe 90% of the article would go away, but the quality and trustworthiness would increase a lot. 2003:C5:8710:2800:6497:DCD8:8E57:BE47 (talk) 09:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a clear guideline for this kind of topic WP:Crystal. According to my interpretation of this guideline, a good portion of this article should be deleted. Still, I think, this is a bit more complicated, because most articles on proposed space missions don't fullfill to this guideline.
I would propose shortening the subsection on the orbital launch, despite being well-sourced it is not (yet) a scheduled event. Also, I think, the "Mission Profile" and "Applications and launches" sections could be drastically reduced to "they were awarded a NASA contract". Sourcing of these sections is very sparse anyway. C9po (talk) 10:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
The current state of Starship development right now is like the Apollo program in 1965, when it was still very much uncertain whether the U.S. or the Soviet Union would win the space race. What would you write about the Apollo program in an encyclopedia back then? You would need to do the calculus to balance between including the established facts and speculative plans for the program. You would probably get your research material from NASA itself and past news articles that talks about "recent" announcements about the program.
In practice, official press release from SpaceX and NASA rarely contains enough information to cover the Starship program in its entirety. Usually, information is obtained either via interpretation of Elon's tweets and actions inside Starbase (that's usually never announced publicly) and it's up to the news reporters to digest this info mess. I do recognize that limitation early on and have tried my hardest to balance the information to make the article as comprehensive as possible without compromising on accuracy. I do believe that I've breached that balance by adding too much speculative plans like 2003:C5:8710:2800:6497:DCD8:8E57:BE47 has said. I'll try to go through the article again and weed out excessive speculative information especially in the Application and launches section before continuing with the GA review. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia routinely reports on plans. We even have 2034 FIFA World Cup today, 12 years before the tournament. Nothing wrong with that. These plans exist today and billions are spent according to these plans. If the plans change we'll update the article. --mfb (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
The guideline clearly distinguishes between scheduled events like a World Cup and what a billionaire might posts on twitter. Currently, the SpaceX mars program has no set timeframes and is based upon a dozen or so technologies never successfully implemented before. To me, this implies, that wikipedia should cover this to the same extent that it covers other corporate product announcements (See Wikipedia:CRYSTAL section 5).
Also, the available sources are problematic, in my opinion. A secondary source is not necessarily NPOV. Most news coverage of the Starship development is based either on speculation based on what was photographed at starbase or speculation over Elon's tweets or Elon's presentations. Especially the last two types of sources conflict with Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:Adverts. This affects pretty much the whole article except for the information on the contracts SpaceX was awarded and some information about completed test flights. C9po (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
C9po, I do agree that information here are heavily dependent on what SpaceX or Elon says. As a result, sources are often really muddy in terms of reliability and actual reliable stats are hard to come by. However, the article wouldn't be complete without mentions of such plans, though as 2003:C5:8710:2800:6497:DCD8:8E57:BE47 has said I had give too much attention to it. To make sure that the article only contains true and verifiable facts, I had made sure that the information presented in the article are:
  1. About things that had happened or things that has been publicly announced by Musk or SpaceX or NASA;
  2. Can be reliably confirmed without original research or interpretation (e.g. prototypes had its serial number labeled, launch tower sections in construction, etc.);
  3. Preferably has been mentioned in multiple independent sources based on different research/info acquisition techniques (e.g. stats about the lifting capabilities of Starship are confirmed in SpaceX homepage and presentations, NASA presentation slides, and independent news articles from reputable publishers such as NYT.)
CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I think we can agree about most sources, still I would like to see the following sections and sentences gone or altered:
  1. Design 3rd paragraph (ars technica article). Basically just a recap of a part of the article and not worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. I dislike the first sentence especially, to me it sounds like a typical case of journalism/PR-symbiosis.
  2. Design/Variants first paragraph: The last sentence conveys only the information that the writer of the cited article saw this similarity. This is irrelevant, I think.
  3. Mission Profile: second paragraph: "increasing the spacecraft's capacity" is a bit of a misleading wording I think and hard to understand for people without a better than average knowledge of spaceflight physics. The source also does not use this exact wording, but a far more verbose (and understandable) description of the benefits of orbital refueling.
  4. Mission Profile: everything belly-flop-related. I do think, that this is really stretching the scope a general article should have. If Starship proves successfull, then this might be worthy of its own wikipedia article (as i. e. Shuttle and Apollo abort modes have their own article).
  5. Applications and Launches/Commercial and defence: The first sentence unnecessarily switches from future to present tense
  6. Applications and Launches/Commercial and defence: I would remove "aforementioned", most people read wikipedia articles only in sections, not as one coherent piece
  7. Applications and Launches/Commercial and defence: Starship point-to-point is most likely dead. It wasn't announced dead, but it has only been reported on for a very short time and there is no evidence that SpaceX is still pursuing this idea. Seems more like a short-lived media attention grab to me and not like something relevant to the wikipedia. Without any announced timeframe or even evidence of continued effort, this aspect imo fails the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guideline
  8. Applications and Launches/Space Colnization: I would recommend using a future tense and subjunctive throughout (except for quotes of course), as this section describes only plans, but nothing that has been successfully done yet
C9po (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your criticisms C9po, but unfortunately I couldn't address them immediately as I'm working at the Mars Society article for now. Feel free to be bold and address the issues by yourself. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
CRYSTAL section 5 says we shouldn't start an article just because a product has been announced - but here we have hardware on the launch pad, we had test flights and so on. The section doesn't apply. Concerning your individual points:
  1. I agree that the phrasing of the first sentence can be improved, but I think the manufacturing process is interesting. It's also one of the things that exists now.
  2. The comparison to the Pez dispenser has been made widely: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... We can add more references if you like.
  3. Sure, rephrase it.
  4. The belly-flop maneuver has been demonstrated, it's completely new in rocketry, and it's a key feature of the system because Starship needs to land in order to be reused. Two sentences are certainly not excessive. Even if this ever gets its own article: We would still summarize that article here, just like we summarize the Shuttle aborts in Space Shuttle.
  5. The constellation already delivers internet today, but launches with Starship are in the future. We could avoid having a present tense statement by saying "SpaceX's Starlink constellation, a high speed internet access service" or similar.
  6. I removed "aforementioned", don't see the point of it either.
  7. Point to point seems to have a low priority but SpaceX still has it on its website ("carrying passengers and cargo to Earth orbit, planetary destinations, and between destinations on Earth") and the military side of this is well alive (rocket cargo program). I'm fine with significantly shortening this section as it seems to be far future at best. The rocket cargo program should stay in.
  8. Fine with me.
--mfb (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

composing of

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

that should be composed of 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:3112:9AB7:34AE:ADE1 (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Masses appear incorrect

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Wikipedia's presentation of "mass" (in the right margin table) appears erroneous, listing: 10,000,000 lbm total "mass"... while the propellant alone (i.e., neglecting hardware) adds up to more than 10,000,000 lbm (i.e., listed as 7.5M lbm + 2.65M lbm)... leaving the hardware to weigh a "negative" 150,000 lbm. 97.101.194.114 (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

You're correct. Fixed that to 11 million pounds. CactiStaccingCrane 03:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Reusable

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments3 people in discussion

User:Zae8, you keep reverting my changes by claiming that the Starship is not only "planned" or "designed" to be full reusable, but "is" reusable. Do you have a reference for that? The only reference I see is the Space X advertisement website, which I would not consider being a reliable source, and I think Wikipedia should not just blindly copy-paste marketing claims. More in general, the statement that it is "planned" to be reusable is obviously a precise and correct description, so what problem do you have with that? Zae8 (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Zae8: by this reasoning, it is not yet a super-heavy launch vehicle, or even a launch vehicle at all, since it has not launched. The wording "in development" covers all of this. It's not just "planned". "Planned" has the connotation that no real hardware work has yet been done. "In development" is therefore more precise in this context. This is a matter of editorial judgement, and we should try to arrive at a consensus instead of just complaining at each other. Please note that this is far more than just SpaceX advertisement. We can actually see that SpaceX has installed TPS tiles on the Starship, that they have successfully undertaken a landing from a height of several kilometers, and they have spent a whole lot of money on their crazy chopsticks system. -Arch dude (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
@Arch: Sorry, I didn't want to complain about you.
Well, WP:CRYSTALBALL "Wikipedia does not predict the future.". See "Biden is serving a second term" versus "Biden is planning to serve a second term". Which is correct and which is not correct?
What I don't understand is why you object to describing something as "planned" which obviously is not accomplish yet, but, well, "planned". Using that wording is obviously absolutely correct and on spot. So why do you revert that? Zae8 (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
@Zae8: This is a nuance of the usage of the word "planned" in the English language. "Planned" usually implies that no concrete actions have yet been taken. You "plan" an event. By contrast, "in development" implies that substantial activity is underway, and is therefore a better choice of wording here. The sentence does not predict the future, because the system really is in development and a very large amount of development has taken place. "In development" also means quite clearly that development is not complete yet. Your opinion is that "planned" is more precise, and my opinion is that "in development" is more precise. I am willing to wait for a third opinion. -Arch dude (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
You are right, describing it as a "[system with x properties] in development" is the best approach. We do the same with other rockets, too. "The Space Launch System [...] is an American super heavy-lift expendable launch vehicle under development" (before it launched), "Vulcan Centaur is a two-stage-to-orbit, heavy-lift launch vehicle that is under development", "The H3 Launch Vehicle is an expendable launch system in development", ... We don't write that H3 is "planned to be expendable" or Vulcan Centaur is "planned to be a two-stage-to-orbit rocket" because that would be ridiculous, and we should avoid equally awkward expressions here. --mfb (talk) 03:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, I think WP:CRYSTALBALL is quite clear about this. The H3 is not only "planned to be expendable", but expendable and a two-stage-to-orbit right now, so yes, it would be "ridiculous" to describe something as planned if it is already reality. And Biden is serving his first term, so it would be "ridiculous" to say that he is only "planning to serve a first term".
But what you are basically saying is that as soon as Biden's reelection is "in develoment", then it is not only ok to say "Biden is serving is second term", but it is forbidden to say "Biden is planning to serve a second term", because it is "ridiculous" and an "awkward expression". Or in the Space Launch System article we should replace "is designed to launch the crewed Orion spacecraft on a trans-lunar trajectory" by "launches the crewed Orion spacecraft on a trans-lunar trajectory", because the current wording is "ridiculous" and an "awkward expression". And thousands of more examples in Wikipedia.
This goes beyond my understanding of reality and logic, I give up. Zae8 (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Starship is reusable in the same way as H3 is expendable. Both are systems in development to have these properties. Your comparison to Biden never made sense. You keep rephrasing it without any success. --mfb (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Is it fully reusable?

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments6 people in discussion

In the Header is written „it is fully reusable“. As of right now it is not. It is INTENDET to be fully reusable. 2A02:1210:8ACF:FB00:1CF4:C3DB:DF64:4C6A (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

You are right. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
"intendet" really? are all fans of this project Ralph Wiggums? 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:3112:9AB7:34AE:ADE1 (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
As of now (April 4th 2023 ~ A week from launch) The flight with change all of the the tenses, also note, this WILL be FULLY REUSABLE, if you've seen the SN15 launch flight, they WILL be doing a fully reusable launch with the second stage (SN24) landing near Hawaii *fact check*. Anyways, I wish the editors luck with changing all the tenses to "has" or "launched" overall info seams accurate. 104.48.56.111 (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
This is incorrect. The system under development is to be fully reusable. Certain test launches will be deliberately landed in the ocean expended as part of the tests. An "expendable" booster is not landed with its engines and an expended second stage is left in space. Separately, expendable variants MAY be developed, but not initially. This is stated in the Teslarati reference. The expendable version will be developed only if there is customer demand for payloads that exceed the capability of the fully-reusable version. -Arch dude (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Arch dude, the test campaign will include water landings and future upper stage versions may be designed without reuse provisions, that doesn't change the fact that the intention for the program is full rapid reusability. Scottd521 (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Let's improve this article!

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Launch of the Starship is imminent and we want the article to be as polished and high quality as possible. Let's fix the article! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I've gotten complaints about this article before. The image for starship (labeled as 24/7 wdr) is an image of b4/s20, as an example Redacted II (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

“Commercial and defense” section does not have much on defense

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The title should perhaps be changed or section split. As I understand it all the defence work is commercial (ie paid for) except for the Ukraine Starlink which is free. Also perhaps more could be said on defense - for example I understand this makes Starlink technically unshootdownable because the satellites can so easily be replaced. But if Oneweb sats are launched by this rocket does that mean Taiwan won’t use them because China could just threaten to expel Tesla in future? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the best option would be to just remove "and defense" from the section title. Redacted II (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Outer planets?

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

So is the idea that it would go direct by burning lots of fuel, rather than slowly by slingshots like JUICE? If so I cannot find a cite Chidgk1 (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea. Probably just refueliing in LEO Redacted II (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Future Flights

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Starship is soon to fly for the first time. However, this site has no section dedicated to the next prototype flights. Maybe that should be added? Redacted II (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Success or Failure 20-Apr-2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago242 comments30 people in discussion

Did the rocket launch attain all it's goals? No

Did Starship succeed? Maybe

Per https://cnn.com/cnn/2023/04/20/world/spacex-starship-launch-thursday-scn/index.html

"Although it ended in an explosion, Thursday's test met several of the company's objectives for the vehicle.

..."Clearing the launchpad was a major milestone for Starship."

My 2¢ is to call it a partial success. What do others think? Idontno2 (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I think calling it a failure is ignoring what the intentions of launch was. However it definitely wasn’t a complete success. Are we allowed to make a partial success category though? Bugsiesegal (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
"Partial failure" was used by Boeing and NASA for the Boeing Starliner OFT-1 flight. I think that anyone who really cares will look more deeply than the labe we give it and learn about what actually happened. -Arch dude (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Completely reasonable. Though this page might influence the public’s views on the safety of starship in the future. Bugsiesegal (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Regardless of the companies "intentions," acrossed spaceflight Wikipedia pages, we treat all orbital flights the same, be them test flights of new rockets or the 1200 flight of a Soyuz. Doing so would break the consensus and consistence developed acrossed spaceflight Wikipedia. This is simply the nature of iterative design, you will fail. this was an orbital launch attempts, it was destroyed at 39 km. It's not close to a success in the way every other Wikipedia article about launch vehicles are done. This argument comes up many times a new rocket fails during launch, and people can't bring themselves to be unbiased and continue with consensus and precedent. Should we reconsider the first flights of the N1 rocket because they too were developmental test flights? Was Falcon 1 Flight 1 a partial success? This test is not partial, that not how we catalogue launches here. If an operational starship mission did the same, would it still be considered partial, even if it was crewed? If this test really is partial, then I expect the same people to push for changing N1 to partial as well. Otherwise it's clear that there's a deviation from precedent and consensus. And we gain nothing from changing definitions page by page. If this is the bar, it's essentially impossible for Starship to "fail". This sets the success criteria for Starship on this page going forward. So it needs to be consistent. Test flight's don't get special success categories, if this flight was carrying satellites to orbit, it would be nowhere near a partial. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
But it wasn’t carrying satellites. And hey if you want to change N1 to a partial success go for it. That rocket was cool. Bugsiesegal (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not going to change it because that's not objective and not inline with Wikipedia spaceflight consensus. Anything to hide the word failure from a SpaceX page.Jrcraft Yt (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
This is a test vehicle, does wikipedia have the list of F9s that were lost in developing that vehicle too? No, so why is it here?
108.14.243.103 (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Maybe it should. 2603:8000:C200:C412:7D2F:BD9C:70C7:F6C2 (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Exactly. I agree 100%. I'm the user who cited the ArsTechnica link to verify that this flight was a failure (https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/04/so-what-was-that-was-starships-launch-a-failure-or-a-success/) and I cited it specifically because it states that the mission is failure by the original standards of successful separation, orbital flight, and successful landing. All orbital flights are treated the same by Wikipedia and this flight is no different. It's a failure. It's only "successful" in the limited sense of lifting off, but even that is only a partial success at best because it apparently damaged several engines in the process and experienced unscheduled engine-outs and thrust oscillation. The ArsTechnica article addresses the people wanting to talk about what went right while definitively stating this flight is still a failure because it was intended to be orbital. Full Shunyata (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
You cited an article that explicitly describes the event as both a success and a failure, but you then chose to unilaterally declare it is a failure. The entire point of the article, including its title, is that it can be viewed as both. The author, Eric Berger, is IMO a thoughtful journalist with a pro-space bias leaning slightly toward a SpaceX bias, but you should not unilaterally re-interpret the article. I think we need to explain both sides to our readers. This is similar to the situation when sources disagree, but it's in one source. -Arch dude (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
I can choose a different article that's more suitable and leaves no ambiguity. One that would be more appropriate for a citation as a failure. Full Shunyata (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
And if you did that, you would be demonstrating that you are not a neutral editor, but instead are pushing your own POV. When there is a disagreement in the press, we are supposed to describe both sides. -Arch dude (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia has consistent rules about classifying orbital launches, which this flight expressly was. If there is a reason this particular flight should be given a special exemption from Wikipedia's rules about orbital launches then it should be specified. There's nothing to disagree about when it comes to Wikipedia's rules. Someone would need to prove that this flight was not intended to be orbital in order to exempt this flight from being listed as a failure. Full Shunyata (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
According to other Wikipedia articles, the launch was a partial failure. So, in order to be consistent, it should be labeled a "partial failure" Redacted II (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, no. "Wikipedia" has no such rules. The highest level of "rule" is a formal policy, and there are only about 8 of them. You are referring instead to a set of conventions agreed on collaboratively by a set of editors interested in space-related articles (and which I generally agree with). However, the policies override these conventions, and one of the policies is that we must use reliable sources and that we must report on both sides when there reliable sources conflict. The flight was a failure, and it was a success. -Arch dude (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Good point. But to me a key consideration is this wasn't planned to be an orbital flight.
https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-first-space-launch
"The flight plan today called for... (a) planned partial trip around our planet... ending with a hard splashdown in the Pacific Ocean not far from the Hawaiian island of Kauai about 90 minutes after liftoff."
So I guess the question I have is do we treat sub-orbital flights the same as orbital?
I totally agree that we should be consistent across all wiki's. But sometimes it's a real head scratcher on whether we should look at what might have been, vs what the key objectives of the launch were. Idontno2 (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
I suggest adding a footnote to the failure entry for clarification and to reduce back & forth changes. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
This was intended as an orbital flight, specifically a Transatmospheric Earth Orbit (TAO). Perigee was intended to be around 50 km, with apogee of 250 km. That is a type of orbit. An EFN footnote could be added. That would still make it consistent. I mean, if the bar for success or partial success of the first orbital launch attempt of a new rocket is just lift off from the pad, every single launch no matter the outcome would be at least partially successful. ABl's RS-1 was a failure, Rocket 3 F1 was a failure, Zhuque-2 was a failure, Japan's H3 was a failure. LauncherOne's F1 was a failure. Those aren't debated, and they're just as much a test launch with the explicit intent of reaching orbit as this Starship orbital launch attempt was.Jrcraft Yt (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah. As a SpaceX project to generate engineering data, it succeeded. As a launch, it failed, unambiguously. Compare with the Energia/Polyus launch (which has also tri-stated on Wiki between failure/success/mixture), which successfully tested the booster, but failed to launch the satellite. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Indeed. It can be a success as a step in the overall development program but in terms of reaching its main test objectives, it failed. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 23:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I think we should avoid including this distinction. The current text succinctly explains what happened in the test and its objectives. 66.65.55.221 (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
This well-sourced Reuters article refers to the launch as a "successful failure", and reiterates that this is part of the company's testing strategy, so labelling the infobox possibly as a partial success or partial failure, or adding a note giving more context. LordDainIronfoot (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
I have a compromise idea: Label this as a "prototype failure". Not a partial failure, nor a complete failure. I know it breaks Wikipedia standard, but it labels the launch about as accurately as possible. Redacted II (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
IMO we're here to provide information, not a wikipedian-selected value-laden characterization on something which is not clearly either. How about just put statements (with attribution) by SpaceX and an independent expert or two? Sincerely,. North8000 (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
But Musk himself gave it about a 50/50 chance of attaining orbit. There is a big difference between a standard expected full success, like an atlas launch or spacex space station supply mission, and a test flight where it is unknown how far it could fly. They learned some things and then had to hit the self-destruct button on this prototype. Apollo 13 was a successful failure and it was fully expected to go well. Prototypes are a different entity. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Considering this was a test launch, I feel it should be considered a partial success/failure in the Infobox since it launched and got near 1st [stage] separation. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
That's fine, if you want to set the bar this low, go ahead. There is no partial failure entry for an orbital launch attempt for a rocket on Wikipedia that didn't at least reach some sort of orbit. And that because "partial failure" implies most of the launch was successful, which is not true. It lifted off, causing major damage to it's launch pad, reached a sub-nominal max-Q and then blew up, not even halfway to space, and without accomplishing the majority of it's pre defined objectives. If getting this far for an orbital launch is success. Why was the case not made for Firefly's Alpha rocket's first flight being a partial failure (mostly successful) rather than a failure? Astra's rocket 3 launching Tropics must have been incredibly successful then. The Proton-M that flew upside down was still partial because it didn't destroy the launch pad. The bar has been set so that now if a company claims the probability of success is now, it's impossible to fail. This rocket could have blown up 5 seconds after launch, and this argument would still be made. It's irrelevant if they're test flights because that's the nature of test flight, they fail sometimes. And pretending they don't is incredibly disingenuous. If what happened during this previous orbital launch occurs during a cargo, tanker, or crewed flight. I fully expect them to also be labeled as at least partial success, you can't have both. Because if that's the bar you want, be prepared to stick with it. The amount of bias in this article and talk section is unbelievable, and most of the reasoning comes directly from SpaceX saying it may not be successful, and using them as the primary reason for this is a violation of Wikipedia:Independent sources. Not to mention the egregious violations of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view considering this was not a conversation even considered for launches of Firefly Alpha, Rocket 1, Rocket 2, Rocket 3. H-III, ZQ-2, ZQ-2, SS-520, Electron, LauncherOne, Nuri, N1, RS1, CZ-7A, etc. And most of those got further than this orbital launch attempt did. This argument did happen for Terran-1 and the outcome is as you'd expect from a non-bias and impartial editor (it failed). Musk also said the odds of the first Falcon Heavy were 50/50. That doesn't mean it can't fail. If Musk gave this orbital launch attempt 50/50 odds. It's exceptionably clear what side of the "50" it landed on. Bvbv13 (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
The main goal of this flight was to clear the tower. Everything else was secondary. So, since it succeeded in that goal, before failing, it can be at least considered a partial failure. All of your other examples failed launches had more ambitious goals then "make it off the pad". Therefore, they're completely irrelevant on the matter of "Did starship fail, partially fail, or succeed?". Redacted II (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Considering the vehicle is grounded by the FAA pending a mishap investigation (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/24/spacex-starship-explosion-spread-particulate-matter-for-miles.html) and that every other maiden launch that has failed to reach its main test objectives on Wikipedia has been categorized as a "failure" I don't see how any consistent argument can be made to classify Starship differently. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 22:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Because those other test flights had more ambitious goals. This didn't have a payload. The primary goal was to clear the tower. It cleared the tower. Therefore, since it failed at the secondary goal (reach orbit), it can only be called a partial failure. Calling it a failure would be misleading. Redacted II (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Calling it a "partial failure" would be far more misleading because it implies the vehicle successfully completed the majority of the test objectives set out before launch. It did not.
As user:Jrcraft Yt brings up, Wikipedia has a fairly consistent usage of the term across many articles and what you are proposing is not at all consistent with how the term is defined elsewhere. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 23:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Think about the definition of "partial failure". Part of the launch was successful. Part of it was a failure. They achieved some goals. They failed in others. This is quite literally a perfect case of partial failure. They cleared the tower (primary goal). They failed to reach orbit (secondary goal). Every single knowledgeable source (like SpaceX, the DearMoon astronauts, and Jared Isaacman, a Polaris III astronaut) is calling it a successful test flight. So the label "failure" shouldn't even be an option Redacted II (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
According to CNBC, Starship is currently grounded pending an FAA mishap investigation. There's a difference between saying "it contributed meaningfully and successfully to the overall vehicle development campaign" and "the flight was a success." – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 23:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Read the test goals. I don't know how many times I have to explain that. Redacted II (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Read user:Jrcraft Yt's reply. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 23:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Read the test goals.
PRIMARY: Clear the tower. Result: SUCCESS
SECONDARY: Reach orbit. Result: FAILURE Redacted II (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
@Fnlayson, Jrcraft Yt, CtrlDPredator, Bvbv13, and Full Shunyata: Just wanted to let you all know that Redacted II has deemed you all as having "abandoned" this discussion and believes this gives them the right to unilaterally edit the launch status in the infobar and edit war with anyone who attempts to change it. They have reverted me twice now for attempting to return it to the status quo.
Do you all agree there is a "consensus" to change the page status the way they have? – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 00:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
That's misleading. The one whose been doing an edit war is Jadebenn. I have been reverting their edits BECAUSE it violates the status quo, which is "partial failure". Redacted II (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
You've done a lot more than revert just my edits. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 01:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I've also reverted others edits, when they change it to "failure" Redacted II (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, you have actually violated WP:3RR in doing so. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 14:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah no. let's be clear here, simply lifting off was not the be all end all goal here. The stated goals for this flight, as explicitly laid out by SpaceX were:

Planned mission timeline
Time Event April 20
00:00:00 Liftoff Success, damaged pad and vehicle
00:00:55 Max q (moment of peak mechanical stress on the rocket) Success, but sub-nominal
00:02:49 Main engine cutoff (MECO) Failure
00:02:52 Stage separation Failure
00:02:57 Starship ignition Failure
00:03:11 Booster boost backburn startup Failure
00:04:06 Booster boost backburn shutdown Failure
00:07:32 Booster is transonic Failure
00:07:40 Booster landing burn startup Failure
00:08:03 Booster splashdown Failure
00:09:20 Starship engine cutoff (SECO) Failure
01:17:21 Starship atmospheric re-entry interface Failure
01:28:43 Starship is transonic Failure
01:30:00 Starship Pacific impact Failure

The vast majority of the stated test objectives failed, as they were precluded by the rocket being terminated in flight. resulting in complete vehicle failure. I think many of the people here don't understand what the term "partial failure" means. It implies that the majority of the objectives were successful, with only a smaller portion of them failing. The vast majority of the explicitly stated goals failed completely. So even the use of the term partial failure is objectively wrong. Out of these 14 explicit objectives for this orbital flight, 2 were completed, both with issue. That amounts to, at most 14% of the objectives being completed, though not without issues of their own. There's no possible way to spin that to say that the majority of the objectives were completed successfully as the term "partial failure" implies. You're going to need a new term when 86% of the stated goals fail, and the rocket ends up being terminated by the ROS, and that word is failure. The launches stated above were launched under similar probability's of success (LauncherOne, Rocket 3, etc). With those companies stating that they did not expect orbit to be achieved. In Astra's page for rockets 1 & 2, the outcome is listed as "Failure (Astra declared success)" because both vehicles failed and were completely destroyed. Please, somebody here find a single example where a non successful madden orbital launch attempt of a rocket is classified as partial failure rather than failure. Every single orbital launch classified as partially successful on Wikipedia, as a minimum, reached some sort of orbit. And even then, not all that did are classified as partial because their orbits were too out of specification to result in any amount of success. Take SSLV D1. It's first launch reached a TAO (the same Earth orbit that this flight was targeting) and is classed as a failure because it's satellites were destroyed. SSLV D1 was just as much a test flight as this one was, and it actually reached an orbit (356 x 76) km. I said this before, but some editors will be as disingenuous as possible in order to prevent the word "Failure" on a SpaceX page. Almost all of the arguments against this all fall into this category. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Let me provide some examples of actual partial failures for orbital launches, including some test flights:
Firefly Alpha flight 2, deployed payloads in too low an orbit.
Ariane 5 VA-241, Satellites reached orbit, but with substantial inclination deviations from what was intended.
Ariane 5 VA-142, Satellites delivered to a MEO rather than a GTO, one satellite was recovered, one could not be salvaged.
Angara A5/Persei F1, a test flight in which the Persei upper stage failed during the second engine burn, stranding the dummy payload in LEO.
Atlas V AV-009, Centaur shut down too early, deploying the satellite in a suboptimal orbit.
Long March 3B/E, satellites were deployed into a lower than intended orbit because of a third stage attitude control anomaly.
Soyuz-2.1a/Fregat, satellites deployed into wrong orbit due to issues with the Fregat upper stage.
Proton-m/Briz-M 935-34, Briz-M shut down 4 minutes too early due to engine damage. Satellites deployed into an incorrect orbit.
Falcon 9 flight 4, single engine failure on stage 1, resulting in the secondary payloads being deployed into a near useless orbit and subsequently lost after a short time.
Delta IV Heavy Flight 1, a test flight where both side boosters shut down 8 seconds too early, and the core stage shut down 9 seconds too early. The DCSS was unable to compensate fully and the satellites were deployed into a rapidly decaying orbit.

Notice how they all reached orbit, and the vast majority of flight objectives were completed with success. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

And now, for some of the outcomes for maiden, test flights of new orbital rockets:

H3, second stage did not ignite. Vehicle later terminated by range, did not reach orbit. Failure
Electron, telemetry was lost and the RSO destroyed the rocket during second stage burn. Failure
Rocket 3, Failed during first stage burn, deviated from trajectory and destroyed by RSO. Failure
Terran-1, second stage failed to start. Failure
Launcher One, LOX line rupture, starving engine of oxidizer. Failure.
Firefly Alpha F1: Engine failure 15 seconds after launch, lost control authority at ~T+2:30, activating FTS and destroying the vehicle (remind you of anything?). Failure
Ariane 5 V88/501, first launch of Ariane 5, decided it was 90 degrees off course, deviating from trajectory and subsequently destroyed by RSO. Failure
Zhuque-2, Vernier engines failed, precluding any chance of reaching orbit. Failure
Zhuque-1, Attitude control failure on stage 3, failed to reach orbit. Failure
Soviet N1, started to drop engines shortly after liftoff, causing a fire in the first stage, all engines shut off at T+68 seconds. Failure
Falcon 1, Engine failure at T+33 seconds, vehicle destroyed. Failure
Proton-K, flew off course and exploded shortly after launch. Failure
Long March 7A, lost pressure in a side booster just before MECO. Failure
Zenit-3SL, failed to reach orbit due to a guidance problem. Failure
ABL RS1, all engines shut down shortly after liftoff. Failure

Every single rocket that failed to reach orbit during it's inaugural test flight to orbit is considered a failure, despite chances of success being low, and intent to fly as long as possible. And most of these flew lar longer, higher, and accomplished more test objectives than this first orbital launch attempts of Starship. It's obvious here. Unsurprisingly, test flight fail often, pretending they don't which is what's going on here is nonsense. Accept when failure happens, be objective, that's how we edit. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Every single one of your examples had the goal of reaching orbit. This one had the PRIMARY goal of getting off the pad, with the SECONDARY goal being orbit. Since the primary goal was achieved, but not the secondary, it must be classified as a partial failure. Redacted II (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
It was planned to exit the atmosphere and become sub-orbital. It didn't even get close to that. If we are being consistent then this is a failed launch, and there isn't anything wrong with that. Other SpaceX launches have failed. CtrlDPredator (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
The primary goal was to get off the pad. It succeeded in that. So, partial failure is the right classification. Redacted II (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
That is inconsistent with other launches, as has been pointed out by several others here. CtrlDPredator (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
That's not true. For example, LauncherOne's first flight had expectations set by the company as "That moment of ignition of the NewtonThree, I would say, is the key moment in this flight,” Pomerantz said. “We’ll keep going as long as we can after that, potentially all the way to orbit, but we’re really excited about the data and about the moment of ignition and as far as we can get after that." Still a Failure
For rocket 3, "For this flight, our first orbital attempt, our primary objective is to achieve a nominal first stage burn. If we make it this far, we’ll be happy with our progress and be well on our way to reaching orbit within 3 flights. The more we accomplish, the more we learn, and the closer we are to reaching orbit." Failure
Terran 1, "Getting through Max-Q was a major goal for this launch to demonstrate the integrity of the rocket’s 3D-printed structure" Failure
The goals are clearly laid out by SpaceX, so enough with the "anything after liftoff is icing on the cake" because that's not an argument. All of these examples are objective and deal with the facts. Which is not what's happening here. It's irrelevant what the companies expectations were. This was an orbital launch attempt, and a test flight. It failed. We've delt with such things on Wikipedia countless times. Wikipedia is intended to be free of personal bias and misleading information.

Also, Wikipedia's talk page guidelines give at least a week before closing, which has not happened Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. So the article should return to the previous state before this discussion was started. Which was failure in the sidebar. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Closing discussions, this article should be returned to the previous status quo. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
According to WP:Consensus, a consensus does not need unanimous approval. So far I have seen the vast majority of posts in the talk section of this page supporting the label of "partial failure". Therefore, it is safe to assume that there is a consensus. Redacted II (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't know how you can claim there is at all a consensus for "partial failure" in this discussion. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 22:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Read WP:Consensus. Because the majority are in approval of "partial failure". It doesn't have to be unanimous.
There are five for "failure", including you.
There are six for "partial failure", including me.
Six>five. Redacted II (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Please review WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 23:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Remember, a consensus does not need unanimous approval. Given that the majority seem to be in support, and that the majority of EVIDENCE is in support, it can be assumed.
Right now, the ONLY people continuing this topic are you and me. This is a settled matter. Continuing this argument only weakens the article, and the entirety of Wikipedia as well. Redacted II (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
What weakens Wikipedia is trying to prematurely close contentious discussions with slim majorities in contravention of community guidelines. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 23:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
When no-one is arguing for a side but you, and everyone else has moved on, then your weakening Wikipedia. This has been settled. Redacted II (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Please review WP:THEREISNORUSH. There are dissenting comments made today, and the discussion has been active for less than a week. There is no consensus for a change to "partial failure" and therefore no justification for a unilateral change. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 23:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
There would be no change to "partial failure". It's already "partial failure". But that's irrelevant.
When the discussion has ended, consensus can be assumed. Everyone (with one exception) has accepted the results, and moved on. Redacted II (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Really? Because I see quite a few people who posted over the past few days saying that they disagree. Have you asked them if they've changed their minds? Or are you simply assuming it because that's convenient to your point of view?
I realize you're a new user to this site, but you need to understand that this behavior is not conducive to productive discussion. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 23:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Just because you've been editing for longer than me doesn't affect the validity of my argument. The discussion was abandoned by everyone else. So, unless someone (other than the two of us) revived this discussion, it's safe to assume that this is over. Redacted II (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Less than 24 hours elapsed does not an "abandonment" make. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 23:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
At the time they left, the current status of the page was "partial failure". Until the consensus changes, "partial failure" it will remain.
This entire discussion between us is just wasting space in the talk page. How about we wait a week? After all, WP:THEREISNORUSH. Redacted II (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is to uphold the status quo until a new consensus is reached. Your edit warring is extremely tendentious. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 23:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Who's changing the status quo here? Before you edited, it was "partial failure". After, "failure". Disturbing the status quo. And how is the label "partial failure" tendentious, when it's the majority view?
So, follow your own advice. Stop the edit war by not changing the status until (and only until) a new consensus is reached.
I also think that my idea of waiting a week for others to begin discussion is fair. It stops this needless stream of posts from both of us, and proves whether the conversation has been abandoned or not. Redacted II (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
it's not your idea, it's Wikipedia policy that I stated above. Second, you stated:
There are five for "failure", including you.
There are six for "partial failure", including me.
Need I remind you of this WP:NOTDEM rule. 5 to 6 is absolutely not consensus, and Wikipedia does not hold votes for things in talk pages. So any atempt to use taht to further your argument or ram through changes is null and void. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Also, I'm still participating in this discussion, and will continue to do so. Anyone claiming that I have abandoned this is incorrect. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I assumed that you weren't. It was a reasonable assumption, given that your contributions stopped suddenly.
Until a new consensus is reached, the article should remain as is. I believe that's fair. And that several other editors would agree with me here.
(Also, my idea of waiting a week for other editors, such as you, was based on Wikipedia policy) Redacted II (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Please post the Wikipedia policy that's state's I have abandoned this discussion after 24 hours. I'm genuinely curious. If you want to inquire if someone has abandoned something, you can always leave them a message in the talk page. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I made an assumption, that, given how often you were posted, your pause meant you had left. I was wrong.
I don't see how my assumption affects what the proper label is. Redacted II (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
As they say, assuming makes an a** out of you and me.
If we would like to get into what "status quo" is, the sidebox had Failure as the outcome from the first edits after the msision until, what? The 23rd? I believe that using "status quo" to freeze a classification in a favourable condition, when the existence of such a status quo is very much debatable, is not the best choice. Sub31k (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
A potential compromise would be to label the launch as none of the three existing options. Given that B7/S24 were prototype vehicles, one could argue that a partial failure, success, or failure of the vehicle doesn't count as a launch of the SpaceX starship. Redacted II (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I haven't abandoned my position just because I haven't been able to reply for 24 hours. CtrlDPredator (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Currently, the discussion has shifted over to the "New Sidebar Proposal section"
I admit I made an assumption then, and I was wrong. Let's not have that dominate the rest of this discussion, as that would severely inhibit the entire point of this discussion. Redacted II (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

(Going to scoot this back over for readability) Starship is grounded by the FAA due to inflight failure on an orbital launch attempt with clear and explicit primary mission goals. And did not accomplish even a quarter of them, it is inline with how Wikipedia has been cataloging spaceflights, and test launches for over a decade to class this as failure. This is as unbiased and objective as it can possibly be. That's build on over a decade of precedent and consensus. It is the most clear, precise, and definite classification that we can use of this page for readers. Not something like ("It failed shortly into flight before the vast majority test objectives were completed, but actually it didn't fail, it mostly succeeded (what partial failure means) unlike every other failed test flight on this website because we want it to be different for no legitimate, unbiased reason"). Jrcraft Yt (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

It's primary goal was to clear the tower. The reason all but Terran 1s first flight are failures is that the payload was lost. With Terran 1, it should have been regarded as a partial failure, for the same reasons as Starship should be regarded as a partial failure.
But for all of the other launches, there was a payload, and it was lost. And your definition of partial failure is, IMO, incorrect. Partial Failure is a mixture of failure and success. It can mostly fail, but have some success, or mostly succeed, and have some failure.
However, there is still my compromise option. Since Grasshopper's explosion isn't regarded as a failure of Falcon 9, B7/S24s flight shouldn't be regarded as anything in relation to the SpaceX starship vehicle. This has precedent in Wikipedia, going back at least a decade (probably more).
So what do you say?
We label it as a prototype failure (like Grasshopper), or we just continue this argument for the foreseeable future?
(Also, scooting it over really helped with being able to read your points. Thank you for that) Redacted II (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
If having no payload means that something is subject to different rules, than N1/6L should be considered a partial failure, too, since that had a dummy Soyuz 7K-LOK and LK. It was also a flight of an unproven vehicle simply attempting to achieve orbit.
I also disagree with the idea that the primary goal is to clear the tower. Such a thing is based on an informal comment, not an actual testing schedule. The testing schedule posted had a great number of flight objectives, almost all of which were not met. Flight plans were submitted to regulatory agencies. Should not these more formal definitions take priority over casual statements? Sub31k (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
No problem, it was getting quite small. It's akin to Falcon 9 V 1.0 than grasshopper to F9 B5. There's no reason IMO to break Wikipedia precedent, but if you have one, I'm all ears. I have a compromise, however. Direct your attention to the Falcon 9 Wikipedia page Falcon 9 and glance at the sidebar. Part of the categories for launch statistics are broken up into versions of the vehicle (V1.1, V1.0, FT, B5, etc). If you want to separate this early version of starship out from the more planned, operational ones. We do it that way. (nextspaceflight does something similar for their starship page). The sidebar would be broken up into sections just like the F9 page, which would be precedent. Say "prototype" "tanker" "crew" "HLS lander" etc. That way, the later versions are separate, and it's clear that a prototype version failed. It would loke almost identical to the way CRS-7 looks in that page's sidebar. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
That fits the objective, unbiased, the precedent, and "the should / should-not-be" parts of the arguments here.Jrcraft Yt (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
If some of you think this compromise is worth considering, I am happy to create a prototype sidebar with those changes, and put it here. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Your compromise is, so far, the best option I've seen. Can you add a "prototype" of the sidebar here, so we can discuss any changes before it's added to the article? Redacted II (talk) 11:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I would also be fine with separating the vehicle out this way, for what it's worth. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 01:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
+1 to separating the test flights from the final vehicle record. We should indicate clearly this was an exploratory prototype. The final starship might look significantly different once the prototype phase is complete. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 15:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
(shifting left for readability):
Maybe a new topic should be created to discuss the four options: partial failure, failure, prototype failure, or test launch?
This would be so we don't have to scroll through 90% of the talk page before responding. Redacted II (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Done below {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 21:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Recent Edit Revert

-Fnlayson I understand why you keep on reverting my edit. But, at least to me, it seems like the majority on the talk page are in favor of "partial failure", instead of "failure". So, keeping it labeled as "failure" is disregarding the discussions held here. Redacted II (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Read through the section above here concerning WP:Consensus. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Lets not start an edit war here. Given that the majority of posters in the talk page (including both of us) are in support of the label "partial failure", then one could arguably say consensus has been formed, especially when multiple sources have been added that call it a partial failure. Redacted II (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
@Redacted II: I think you have the wrong editor here. My only edit was a single revert of an anon IP (120.18.150.63) removing links. So you may want to strike that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry about that. I'll see what I can do. (EDIT: FIXED ISSUE) Redacted II (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

however I did just now add a dubious template to let readers know this is not completely true and it's being discussed here. We don't want to mislead our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

That's the best move until a consensus can be made Redacted II (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

New Sidebar Proposal

Proposal A

(A) Starship
Launch history
Total launches0
[edit on Wikidata]

It is imprecise to say that the launch had "many objectives that were not met". Of course they planned a full mission profile from launch to splashdown but the chances of even just clearing the tower were low. The only mission goal was "fire it and see what happens" as supported by multiple sources. This is very much an exploratory prototype phase and not the final design. Reliable sources call this a success for a reason (see comments by Bill Nelson or Chris Hadfield https://www.npr.org/2023/04/21/1171202753/spacex-starship-launch-explosion-cheer-success. It was a successful test and NOT an operational launch. Therefore it should not count as an operational launch failure. But should be clearly indicated as a test in the sidebar or not included at all in the sidebar and placed in an article such as Falcon 9 prototypes or List of SpaceX Starship flight tests. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 15:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

How about something like the sidebar on the right? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 16:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
That's exactly what I proposed earlier! While I believe the label of partial failure is best, I'd support this option over Jrcraft Yt compromise. Redacted II (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Can you go into more detail about how you are interpreting this compromise? I'm not sure we are all on the same page. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 20:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
@Jadebenn we had a slight edit conflict. I was reformatting to make things clearer. The proposal is on the right. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 21:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
The idea of this compromise is that starship has had 0 operational flights, 9 second stage flight tests (if Hopper counts, otherwise 5), and 1 full stack flight test, which will simply be regarded as having not achieved orbit. This removes the entire success/partial failure/failure debate, as none of these are used in the sidebar. Redacted II (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I disagree with the inclusion of sub-10km hops in the launch history section. After all, Falcon doesn't have Grasshopper flights on its page. (The ship hops feature roughly the same OML as the "complete" second stage but are totally different in capability, profile, etc., and are not representative of the complete system.)
Also, might want to find language a bit more standardised than "full stack", which is something seldom seem outside this program.
I still maintain that informal comments by individuals do not override formally defined flight goals, in writing, which all point towards an orbital flight as part of the objectives. Sub31k (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I just included them as a proof of concept. We can decide what to actually include but right now we are not linking that excellent article (List of SpaceX Starship flight tests) which is a pity {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 08:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
They were starship prototypes. They can arguably be included.
However, I can also see reasons to not include them. Redacted II (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Does Hopper count as a second stage flight test, given how dissimilar it was to the current starship spacecraft? Different steel thickness (12.5 mm v.s 3 mm), different engines (1 r1 v.s 3 r2 and 3 (eventually 6) r2vac), different size, no nosecone, no flaps, different landing legs (three immobile legs v.s none).
One could say the same about sn5 and sn6. No nosecone, and no flaps. Redacted II (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Considering also other comments by Sub31k how about "Full vehicle orbital test"? It's shorter {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 12:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
That also works. Redacted II (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. Outside of issues with interpretation of outcome, it's confusing and contradictory to list both zero and one launch simultaneously, in close quarters with one another. This lacks clarity and is definitionally predicated on forcing a change to outcome classification. Sub31k (talk) 12:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose mostly for the same reason as Sub31k, either a flight is a launch and it should be included in the sum, or it isn't. C9po (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Those are not launches of the final vehicle though. They are launches of exploratory and partial prototypes so they should be clearly indicated as such. For example: this prototype did not possess the capability to carry any kind of payload (no payload bay or cabin has been designed), or to land as no landing legs were installed (it was scheduled to crash in the ocean). So it could NOT be a full success under any circumstance as it was not capable of performing a full mission (vehicle is designed to land). This is not an ordinary rocket and the basic expendable rocket template is insufficient to describe it. The "final starship" doesn't exist yet and will be very different from those prototypes. Hence: Starship launches = 0 - Prototype orbital launches = 1. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 14:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
OPPOSE as articulated by Sub31k and C9po. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
OPPOSE as articulated by Sub31k. Zae8 (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal A2

(A2) Starship
Launch history
Total launches0
[edit on Wikidata]
  • Other ways of tweeking this sidebar proposal:
"Launch history: Attempted orbital test flights: 1 (did not reach orbit)"

"Previous test flight: 20 April 2023". 2001:2020:32F:A3C0:38BB:99D2:BDC4:C435 (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
That sounds very similar (but not identical) to the option being discussed above this one. With your permission, I'll move your post over to that discussion. Redacted II (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal B

Here was how I intended my proposal. consider this what a future, more filled out version would look like given a few years:

(B) Starship
Launch history
Total launches30
Prototype: 3 · Tanker: 20 · Crewed: 5 · HLS: 2
Success(es)27
Prototype: 2 · Tanker: 18 · Crewed: 5 · HLS: 2
Failure(s)3
Prototype: 1 · Tanker: 2 · Crewed: 0 · HLS: 0
First flight20 April 2023
[edit on Wikidata]


This is based upon the same style and formatting of the Falcon 9 side bar. This effectively what I was going for. This allows up to break up the different versions, and add new one when needed. The same design would also work for recovery statistics. This is totally impartial, objective, and follows precedent set for over a decade to maintain consistency & compatibility with other articles. it provides more information to the reader, and separates out these early vehicles from further statistics. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind the previous edit, I'm an idiot and didn't read (it's also 2 am where I am, lol). This is fine by me. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 06:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I can settle for this. If we decide on that, I'm good with it. Bvbv13 (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Sure it's a good alternative. As long as we clearly indicate this was a test prototype. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 08:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm a little confused on the implementation here. In your new infobox I see "3" prototype launches. I see "2" prototype successes and "1" prototype failure. Given that most here seem to feel this last prototype launch was both a success and a failure (partial success), how would it be numbered in your infobox? Would you list it in both success and failure slots? Also, while the average reader will understand the terms prototype, crewed, and tanker, they will not know what the heck HLS is. For an infobox that is bad. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
They're just showing what it could potentially look like after a few years. If that proposal was implemented, only one launch would be present Redacted II (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I fully understood it was just an example, but the terms must be understood before we should say yea or nay. How would this launch be applied in the infobox? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, it would just show under failure(s):
1
Prototype: 1
And under success(es):
0
Prototype: 0 Redacted II (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
So we don't solve the problem of a "partial success", we just move it under a new heading and still call it a failure? We'd be right back to square one with more than 1/2 the editors understandingly upset with the nomenclature, and our readers still scratching their heads. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Which is why I think the option above this one is better. Redacted II (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Just saying, either way, there's about an even split in favour and opposing definition as a failure/success. There isn't any agreement either way. Sub31k (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I tried simulating how it would look with current data. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 12:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Support - That's the best proposal I think. It includes all the stats in that space, which is great. I'm good if we end up choosing that one! Cocobb8 (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Starship
Launch history
Total launches1
Prototype: 1
Success(es)0
Failure(s)1
Prototype: 1
First flight20 April 2023
[edit on Wikidata]
I do not think that this kind of Falcon 9 style infobox makes sense, as falcon 9 was already flying when they started testing booster landings. With starship, there is only the promise of future tanker, crewed and HLS versions, so I don't see a reason to already list those versions in the Infobox at this point in time. C9po (talk) 09:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
RGV aerial has begun to spot HLS components at Starbase (the upper engine rings). So it's not a "promise of future HLS versions". Redacted II (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
These future variants can be included as they begin to materialise. For now, just what exists - the prototypes. Sub31k (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
We will want to separate b9/s26s flight with b7/s24, as they are vastly different vehicles (similar to how grasshopper and F9 1.0 are different vehicles).
Maybe we can use prototype dev1 and prototype dev2 to differentiate? Redacted II (talk) 11:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
This is why I would simplify with the proposal above that keeps all the prototypes in a separate launch counter. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 11:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
OPPOSE- While this is a good option, the other options do better at portraying the flight as a "partial failure". Redacted II (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Fully support As other's said, this option reduces the complexity, technical jargon, and overcrowding of the sidebar. It's the one easiest to add to when new iterations come out because it doesn't impose a limit unto itself. It's the cleanest, and follows Wikipedia's quality standards as well as spaceflight Wikipedia precedent established for well over a decade. --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not necessarily on concept, but in implementation. Just putting the prototype launch under failure is against sourcing. And I don't think most here feel that is the proper categorization. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
SUPPORT Option B. To make my stance clear, I will not support any proposal that does not count the test launch as a vehicle failure, as to do otherwise would be blatantly inconsistent with its usage elsewhere on the wiki. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Splitting out the status is completely pointless and not a "compromise" when the whole reason the proposal was done to begin with was to add context to the failure. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

SUPPORT This one is easily the better out of the three. No question. As Jadebenn said, not I too won't support any proposal calling this OFT partial for the above reasons. Bvbv13 (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

OPPOSE A reasonable reader reading about a rocket designed for reaching orbit expects the number of launches including orbital launches, not small-scale test lauches. Zae8 (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal C

(C) Starship
Launch history
Total launches0
[edit on Wikidata]
(C2) Starship
Launch history
Total launches
[edit on Wikidata]
(C3) Starship
Launch history
Total launches
[edit on Wikidata]
(C4) Starship
Launch history
Total launches
[edit on Wikidata]
(C5) Starship
Launch history
Total launches
  • Operational launches: 0
    • Successes = 0
    • Failures = 0
    • Partial = 0
  • Prototype launches: 1
    • Orbital Success = 0
    • Suborbital Success = 0
    • Suborbital Failure= 1
  • List of SpaceX Starship flight tests
[edit on Wikidata]

But zero launches? Even the last prototype was a launch. It did not achieve all they wanted, but it was a launch. Maybe we need an infobox that is simply broken into full flights and test flights.

  • Starship
  • Full launches 0
    Crewed 0
    Uncrewed 0
    Successes = 0
    Failures = 0
    Partial = 0
  • Test launches 1
    Successes = 0
    Failures = 0
    Partial = 1

With this we could break it down into something the public would understand. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent option Redacted II (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Now I don't know how to tweak "infobox rocket" to make something like this. The parameters don't give much room to manipulate so someone with the ability to tweak that template might be needed (or an offshoot template created). And my wording might not be kosher with how you guys usually handle things here. I'm just passing through because of my lifelong love of spaceflights starting with my dad working on the engines of the mercury, gemini, apollo, and spaceshuttle crafts at Rocketdyne. I want the discussion here to end in success with everyone at least "partially" happy with the outcome so when I see the final product it's truthful and understandible by all our readers. I usually handle Wikiproject Tennis issues but always dip my toe in items I have a passion about. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
OPPOSE. Option B fits better with existing infoboxes and generally is a visually more "clean" template. Also, with variant proliferation, it will not take up so much vertical space as this one will, which may become relevant in the future.
Also, agree with @Jrcraft Yt and @Jadebenn in that the discussion of failure/partial failure/partial success/success should be split from the sidebar formatting. Sub31k (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
You prefer option B but would this be an acceptable compromise? If yes maybe vote "Partial Support" so that your position is clearer. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 15:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
SUPPORT - I think more informative to separate prototype launches from operational launches. Finlaymorrison0 (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
SUPPORT - informative. 2001:2020:309:A924:D150:F4F9:1A5C:BF2 (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
OPPOSE, Potential to support - This one is ok. Though I disagree heavily with the "partial" classification. I've already made my points on that. (The point to separate out prototypes was so that they're failures would be cataloged separately). If that were to change. I will give my backing to this version instead of my own proposal immediately. I prefer C over C2, but both would Jrcraft Yt (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
@Jrcraft Yt: A query then. Under prototype would you simply list number of launches? Absolutely no successes/failures/partials? No outstanding/satisfactory/below average? Just a number of prototype launches only? I don't really disagree with you in concept since it's often rare that a prototype is 100% successful except the last few, and often the early models have abysmal failure rates as the scientists learn. However, if in prose on those prototypes it gets written that they were successful or failed or had mixed results, usually on wikipedia an infobox would state what's in prose. That can create a bit of a conundrum with people who edit these space articles all the time. They want to summarize the prose in the infobox for easy access. So would we also leave out the mention of success, failure, or partial even in the main body? Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): Sure. I would yield that if necessary to form a consensus. Though the point of separating them was to separate their reliability statistics, which would be removed by this. That's why I prefer sidebar 2, because that's *super duper* easy to implement into statbars, and is expandable. See List of Ariane launches for example. How wonderfull would that be? Jrcraft Yt (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
When I look at proposal B (which is what I assume you mean by No. 2) I see the same issue you bring up here... Labeling prototypes into successes and failures. B does the exact same thing. And it's a bit more cluttered with tankers and Human Landing systems included. I think the worst attribute of B is that it focuses the sections of successes and failures rather than focusing on the mission type. I guess to each his own on esthetics. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
How about C2? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 15:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Would you be willing to support my "C4" option? In the prototype section, it sorts it into three categories: Orbital, suborbital, and atmospheric. This removes the labels of success, failure, and partial failure from that flight. Redacted II (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
C3 and C4, those could work. Prototype tests aren't really classified as pass/fail/partial as much as they are data collecting. The queries on those choices would be: C3, how do we write it after four prototype launches where 2 don't reach orbit and 2 do reach orbit? And with C4 (which is kind of a cool compromise), I assume there would be no designation if the test was fully supposed to take place in the atmosphere or only made it to the atmosphere? Likewise if the prototype is supposed to make it to orbit and orbit 7 times, and two prototypes have that designation while going up, one of them does it and one of them blows up on orbit 4. Would we just list them the same? Just trying to think of contingencies so there are no surprises a year from now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Problem with C4 is all tests from now on should be orbital. So that designation doesn't really make sense. As soon as one goes orbital there is no need to point out the old prototypes blew up. With C3 we can switch to something like: "Prototype launches: 4 (achieved first orbit on XX/XX/XXXX)" {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 18:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
{{u|Gtoffoletto}} you have some valid concerns. Allow me to clarify.
"Problem with C4 is all tests from now on should be orbital.": With C4, a prototype flight isn't put into it's planned "destination". After all, then the first flight would be in the orbital section, which is not where it belongs. Instead, here are the guidelines for flight labels:
If a prototype "fails" below 100 km, it goes into "atmospheric".
If a prototype does not achieve orbit, but "fails" above 100 km, then it goes into "suborbital".
If a prototype achieves orbit, then it goes into "orbital".
And, Fyunck(click), here' are my answers to your questions:
"I assume there would be no designation if the test was fully supposed to take place in the atmosphere or only made it to the atmosphere?": Such a flight would be designated '"atmospheric"
"Likewise if the prototype is supposed to make it to orbit and orbit 7 times, and two prototypes have that designation while going up, one of them does it and one of them blows up on orbit 4. Would we just list them the same?" I think both would fall into orbital, maybe a "partial orbital" category could be created if the need existed. Redacted II (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the answers. They satisficed my curiosity. Also, with the C4 thought that they should all be orbital from now on.... true for this rocket and this infobox, but that may not be the case for other prototypes in the future. We would want a multi-use infobox that we could use for other companies and other spaceships. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
OPPOSE for the same reasons as Jrcraft Yt. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
This whole debate is over the classification of the launch. Splitting out the status changes nothing if we are merely continuing the incorrect and inconsistent "partial failure" categorization. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I also don't like how we are conflating to issues here. It feels misleading. There should be one discussion as to whether this is a failure or not, and following that, a discussion how to contextualize it. Not this mixture of sidebar options and debate that's hard to read and follow if you do not already understand what is being discussed. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
We're deciding between various options.
Anything is better than a digital screaming match (which is what we had before) Redacted II (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose too cluttered, and I don't support a partial label. Bvbv13 (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
The other options are equally, if not even more, cluttered than this. And C4 doesn't label the flight as failure, partial failure, or success.
So, does this objection apply to C4, or just c-c3? Redacted II (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Support C3 C3 seems the most accurate and avoids the debate of whether the vehicle failed or succeeded and leaves that to the article itself to describe. There is lots of nuance that needs to be discussed so summarizing that simply is impossible in the infobox. After we have a number of future Starship launches, how to categorize this launch will become much more apparent to most editors. At such time we can replace the infobox with a new version. Ergzay (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I would prefer to not use an interim sidebar, as that would only lead to another debate in the future. It's much better to settle that now. Redacted II (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal D

(D) Starship
Launch history
Total launches1
Success(es)0
Failure during flight1
First flight20 April 2023
[edit on Wikidata]

Reviewing sources, I found that sources were very inconsistent about how the flight was characterised. Many did not make any calls at all; some characterised the flight as a failure; many used the word "partial", in or outside of quotation marks. There didn't exist grounds for consensus that way, even in source material. However, what is unequivocal is that the vehicle suffered a failure during flight that left it unable to complete the mission. Therefore, this new format (the prototype is a quick hack, I'm sure it could be made cleaner) uses that specific wording. A tooltip also is available to give readers basic context. A relatively broad wording is used to allow future test flights to fall under this category. Also, if there is debate on whether or not there should be a distinction made for prototype flights, that can be integrated too. If desired, it could be made to resemble Jrcraft Yt's infobox style in the future as variants come into being. Let me know how you think!

  • Support I think that your D2 option has merit. Maybe change it to "prototype failure" instead? That clarifies the status of that vehicle. Redacted II (talk)
  • Support This makes most sense. A reader reading about a spaceship designed for reaching orbit having X launches expects them to be orbital launches, not including limited tests near the ground. There were 1 (planned) orbital launches. 0 of them reached orbit.Zae8 (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Now that the chart has been created this is the worst chart I think. We don't know if it is an operational flight or a test flight. And failure in flight doesn't really add anything to simply failure. You'd have to also include a "successful launch" if you have a "failed in flight", and I'm not sure that's worth it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
(D2) Starship
Launch history
Total launches1
Vehicle failure during flight1
First flight20 April 2023
[edit on Wikidata]
We don't know if it is an operational flight or a test flight.
The point is to avoid making placements altogether, because there is extensive disgreement about how that should be done, if at all.
And failure in flight doesn't really add anything to simply failure.
In my opinion, the wording contributes a lot. It shifts the meaning from being mission failure, something shrouded in controversy and subject to the non-consensus of sources, to vehicle failure, which is broadly accepted as having happened by media. Perhaps it would be more amenable to omit the success parameter altogether for now, and to change to it "Vehicle failure during flight?"
Also, I am very curious as to why you placed @Zae8's statement in strikethrough. Sub31k (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
The strikethru was a complete error on my part. Sorry about that. The problem is the chart gives us these choices: Total launches, Success(es), Failure during flight, and First flight. What if it's a failure during launch? How do we know if it's a prototype or an operational flight, since design changes happen all the time with prototypes. Is it a first operational flight or a first prototype test? It doesn't seem like that chart helps readers in the way we need it to. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
No worries about the strikethrough, then. It's not always easy to read through dense wikitext. Personally, I had been hoping to avoid addressing the prototype-operational distinction altogether, because I had been afraid it would have been a pain point. In D2.1.1 and D2.1.2 I've put together some stuff that makes a distinction, though, with D2.1.2 mocked up for some point in the future with arbitrary values. Also, first flight is just used to list when the first time the vehicle flew was. Ultimately, my objective is to try and make something that reflects the sources - which for this test flight may mean rephrasing the question of vehicle failure or success. Given that Musk is already downplaying the odds of success for the next flight, it's likely that such a category will see more use in the future, as reporting will likely continue to be mixed about fail/success. Sub31k (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
@Sub31k: You know there's a lot of semantics used that are hard to apply to a prototype test flight when compared to an operational flight. Test flights and mishaps from Mercury to Starship are a lot different than having a mishap such as the Challenger disaster. Obviously the full prose can be more detailed, but this test flight is better described as the launch itself being successful, with the end result being malfunction/early self destruct. We know those items and the rest has scientists all over the map when applying a grade. That's tough to convey in an infobox without giving readers wikpedia opinion or original research. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I would say that describing the launch as successful wouldn't accurately reflect the state of reporting and sources, which definitely do not have consensus on success. Rather, they are thoroughly mixed. You mentioned early space mishaps - I'll bring up the Atlas A prototypes, which have their fair share of parallels to last week's flight. (incomplete propulsion, early design very dissimilar to production, declared by some as a successful outcome despite reporting of failure based on negative results). That one is tabulated as Failure on two pages and as Partial Success on another, not that it changes things, just something a little fun to throw out there.
Anyway, were it based on delivering what I believed was correct, I would be vouching for unqualified Failure, still. But since none of the original options have basis in the reporting, I believe that avoiding the subject and shifting meaning, as some of the biggest, most relevant, and most reputable media outlets did, is the way to go. Sub31k (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Again that's more semantics. Whatever you would like to call the liftoff and clearing of the tower... that was successful for the rocket. I simply called that part the launch. And your atlas example is a good one. Failure/success does not really convey to our readers, or adhere to the sources, what happened. We are misleading which we shouldn't do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
It can be argued that none of failure, success, partial success, or partial failure are adequate, because of the broad spread of the sources and the extreme variation between them.
Personally, between them, I prefer "failure", because in the past, launches which are claimed as "learning experiences" are still categorised as failure when they fail to make their goal of reaching orbit, even if the failure was expected or if expectations were played down. Examples include Terran 1, Firefly Alpha and the List of Astra rocket launches. A rocket failure doesn't imply a disaster in the calibre of STS-51L.
That being said, the sources are far more important than precedent. Strictly following reporting of the launch, I believe that declaring that the vehicle (not the mission) suffered a failure allows the infobox to say something that all the reporting agrees on. I don't believe that's misleading readers, especially if more context is available on hover. Sub31k (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
We'd still have the same issue with "vehicle." yes it suffered a failure but it was not a complete failure when talking prototype. And hover has an issue in that some systems accessing this site don't have hovering ability. Hovering should be used only to augment meaning where the meaning can stand by itself even without hovering. If it said mixed results, that would be accurate even without hovering, and hovering would give the better context. Saying failure is inaccurate unless you hover and see the full context popup that tells readers that partial successes are also classified under failure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Which is why I think C4 is the best option. It categorizes this flight not by outcome (like failure/partial failure/success), but by where the flight "ended".
As for usage of hover, it is rarely checked by readers, even when they can check. So, an alternative is needed. Redacted II (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I find that with C4 it's possibly confusing since the categories could correspond to flight goals instead. i.e. "atmospheric" is easily interpreted to mean something similar to 2020-2021 test flights whose scope was restricted to atmospheric. It also downplays the fact that vehicles like that of 20 April 2023 are still intended to reach orbit and reenter, even if the expectations of success are low (similar to the maiden flight of Terran 1). Sub31k (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Maybe a "c5" option is desirable, with atmospheric and suborbital replaced with "suborbital intended" and suborbital unintended"?
This should reduce the "downplaying" of the desire to reach orbit. Redacted II (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
That'd be logical. However, it is also a little MOS:EUPHEMISMistic, in my opinion. Generally, though, it's factually accurate. My main gripes are that it's a little clunky (in terms of formatting) and again the euphemistic nature of such a categorisation - it's something on the level of "rapid unplanned disassembly". Sub31k (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Maybe "suborbital prototype failure" could work? Redacted II (talk) 11:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
But then it runs in the issue of sounding like the maximum objectives were suborbital, when this was marketted and advertised as an "Orbital Flight Test" before being renamed to IFT or SFT or whatever. Sub31k (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
How about "prototype failure in suborbital flight"? Redacted II (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
yes it suffered a failure but it was not a complete failure when talking prototype
This is the point of the wording "vehicle failure during flight." Taking a good look at sources, they are unequivocal about this - that the vehicle indeed suffered a failure that terminated the mission. It's by no means the same thing as outright "Failure" (even though I think that the latter is still accurate).
That doesn't convey to our readers the proper outcome when you leave it as only those two choices; success or vehicle failure during flight. You would need the two to be labeled; "vehicle success during all facets of flight" and "vehicle failure during any point of flight". That might convey the situation better to our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Why? A successful mission is by default one which achieves its objectives through. A failure is (during operational missions) anything that leaves the mission unable to be completed. The creation of this new category is an in-between meant to remediate the fact that this launch is "grey" in its reporting. Also, there are more than just those two options for the future; please take a look at D2.1.2, which is from a little earlier. This category, if it pleases everyone, can be reserved for such "grey" prototype flights, depending on reporting. Sub31k (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I must have missed that press release on what constitutes a "successful mission." I don't think you and I will ever come very close on this issue, so I'm not going to keep wasting space here in figuring out your logic on this. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
partial successes are also classified under failure
This would only be true if it were widely agreed that the launch constituted a partial success in reporting, which is not the case. In most many such a claim is placed in "quotes" and in some the launch is directly states as failure. And of course a lot of reporting tends to focus on events rather than outcome, because of the confusion surrounding outcomes anyway. Sub31k (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Why? You're using failure when it is not widely agreed the launch was a failure in reporting. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
The point of this is to shift the meaning away from "launch was a failure" to "the vehicle failed and the mission was not completed", which is reported by almost all outlets, with the failure usually pinned on booster separation failure. The presence of the word "failure" does not automatically imply that all has been for naught. Sub31k (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Generally,it is preferable to have something for which there stands strong agreement for among secondary sources. Giving context through the popout, I hope, can provide additional context that elucidates the nature of events. That text can be changed if desired to be more accurate or representative. Sub31k (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Sub31k (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
(D2.1.1) Starship
Launch history
Total launches1
Vehicle failure during flightPrototype: 1
First flight20 April 2023
[edit on Wikidata]
(D2.1.2) Starship
Launch history
Total launches1
Success(es)Prototype: 2 Operational: 6
Vehicle failure during flightPrototype: 3
Failure(s)2
First flight20 April 2023
[edit on Wikidata]
(D3) Starship w. booster rocket
Launch history
Total launches
  • Total launches: 1
  • First launch: April 2023
  • Last return of spacecraft: Wreckage fell to Earth in April 2023
[edit on Wikidata]

Discussion

I feel that user:Gtoffoletto}} should be urged to make a sidebar-thingy, that is relevant for today's status.--That sidebar-thingy should preferably be shown on this talk page, first. Thanks 2001:2020:32F:A3C0:80E:FC2C:BB98:750A (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
They already have. Look right above this section of the discussion. Redacted II (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

This "New Sidebar Proposal" sub-section is fine, but it doesn't seem to be solving the problem of the main section "Success or Failure 20-Apr-2023." It just moves the problem to a new place in the infobox. Per the conversation above with an editor, we'd have a new sidebar with a failure listed under prototype when most editors here want this as a "partial success/partial failure". How does the sidebar, with added prototype, help with this debate? Perhaps this sidebar discussion should not have been a subsection of "Success or Failure 20-Apr-2023" but it's own section entirely, since it's a separate entity. We need to figure out how to list a partial success And how to make a better sidebar to incorporate this terminology. Just listing it as a failure under prototype doesn't really solve anything. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

As user @Jrcraft Yt pointed out, listing the recent starship launch as a success would be inconsistent with the standards applied to other launches. No orbit on an orbital flight, no success. There is precedent for marking an suborbital flight of a large Rocket a success (Ares I-X), but that one had an inert boilerplate upper stage and no goals beyond stage separation were set.
The current standard is imo consistent, while I don't see, how the "at least it left the launchpad"-definition could be consistent without basically eliminating the "failure" category. C9po (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Let's put it this way. I do not care one iota about how other launches have been handled here. If I look at this launch on this article at Wikipedia, and I I here what has been reported in nay sources, then it is a disservice to our readers to write it in a pov direction. All I care about is getting it right and telling our readers what happened using sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Well said, Fyunck(click).
And C9po, the argument of "it left the pad, therefore partial failure", only applies to test flights. If the primary goal was to clear the pad, (which it was in this case), then it should not be labeled as a failure.
But please, let's try to keep the arguing to a minimum. Redacted II (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
It is a disservice to readers of the article to apply different standards in regards to launch status in this article than in other articles on other launch vehicles. Being consistent here would not be a POV issue for myself. CtrlDPredator (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Agree. Consistency is important, and it's my perspective that formal, written objectives are not nullified by informal statements made in the interest of damage control. Sub31k (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Lets not set off this debate (again), when we're closer than ever to a consensus Redacted II (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
It seems you are in support of the other option. Redacted II (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
That depends on how this new sidebar is handled. You said yourself "the majority of posters in the talk page are in support of the label 'partial failure'." Whether we use partial failure or partial success is no matter, but putting it under "failure" alone would go against what you said the majority wanted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
The other sidebar option has the label of 0 launches, as the SpaceX Starship orbital test flight was not a flight of the actual system. Just as a prototype flight that "did not achieve orbit". Redacted II (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
By this standard, we might be compelled to view things like SM-65A Atlas's in-flight failures as "less-than-failures", because they were less than full fidelity prototypes aimed at getting the SM-65 into service by iterative development.
There is plenty of documentation for 20 April's flight objectives, provided through the website, through the FAA filing, etc. Almost all were not met. Sub31k (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand the whole discussion here. Across Wikipedia we always used a consistent scheme: If it was intended to reach orbital velocity (the company publishing a timeline where it does is definitely an indication of that) and did not then it's a failure. If it reaches an orbit but not the intended one (within reason) or if only some payloads make it then it's a partial failure. We have done this with every rocket, no matter how much people expected from the flight, and no matter how much the company tried to manage expectations. Why does this flight trigger so much discussion? --mfb (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
It's a test launch of a prototype (not even close to an "operational" vehicle). The primary goal was for it too clear the tower. The secondary goal was for it to reach orbit. 1 success and 1 failure in the goals means partial failure.
However, several compromise options are being discussed. That's how Wikipedia is managed. As far as I'm aware, simply labeling this flight as a partial failure or a failure would be impossible, as a consensus would never form. Redacted II (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Well, Apollo 13 was expected to land people on the moon. The company also published a timeline for every item, which I have somewhere. It failed to land those two guys on the moon, but it was far from a failure per NASA. It's not so hard to understand why some would look at a prototype, that had a great launch but failed in separation, might be looked at differently. The company said it only had maybe a 50/50 chance at getting to orbit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I do not agree with this analogy. The Apollo 13 failure occured long after the Saturn V had any impact on the mission. It is not inaccurate to categorize it as a successful Saturn V launch. It was not a successful mission, but that's not what's being counted here. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 02:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I think you'd be wrong because the "successful-failure" mission of Apollo 13 is well documented. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Apollo wasn't the launch vehicle though... CtrlDPredator (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
The Saturn V was the launch vehicle for Apollo 13, it's launch was a success. The issues with the SM are not related to the launch.
Apollo 6's launch however was a partial failure. Engine No.2 failed in the second stage, but the control wiring intended for that engine actually went to engine No.3 so when the signal to shutdown No.2 was sent, it instead shut down a good working engine No.3, resulting in a lower than intended orbit despite a longer burn. The third stage engine was used to correct the orbit, but then failed to restart for TLI. They then changed to an alternate backup plan for the remainder for Apollo 6 and complete other objectives.
NASA said it was "a good job all around, an excellent launch, and, in balance, a successful mission ... and we have learned a great deal" but also more importantly that "will have to be defined as a failure". CtrlDPredator (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I am admittedly getting quite rankled that the objective of some seems to be to avoid any listing that has a variation of "failure: 1," regardless of its accuracy. I am willing to add context that it was the failure of a prototype vehicle on a test launch (and thus not wholly unexpected) but any proposed solution or compromise that does not accurately categorize it as the failure of a vehicle seems hard to reconcile with the usage of the term across the entire rest of the wiki's spaceflight articles. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 02:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't get rankled. Everyone is doing their best to express what they read with what we put here on Wikipedia, you included. Sometimes people just disagree, and sometimes sources disagree. This prototype didn't explode on the pad in a fireball. If it winds up going under some "partial failure" header or "mixed results" header, as long as it conveys to readers what happened all should be well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
But we have other failed test launches that completed more mission objectives than Starship that are still classed as failures.
The Terran 1 launch just last month that passed max q and completed stage separation, but the second stage didn't ignite. That is marked down as a launch failure, because it is. We shouldn't treat Starship any differently. CtrlDPredator (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
How we at wikipedia have listed items in the past really doesn't concern me as much as getting the correct info to the population that reads it. I'm sure we could go tit for tat of partial failures. Apollo 6 was a partial failure. It planned to go to the moon per all the paperwork. The first stage fired but the second stage lost a couple engines... this resulted in a poor low orbit insertion. They went ahead to fire up stage three for moon departure and zip... no ignition. It's considered a partial success. For more optimistic goals than the starship prototype. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
We do need to be consistent and impartial else we are misleading people reading these articles. Saying that you don't care about how other launches are categorised and wanting to apply a different standard to Starship launches is straying outside neutrality and pushing a POV. I don't think that is a valid reason to treat this launch differently to all others. CtrlDPredator (talk) 09:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
You are twisting my words. We do need to be impartial, on that we agree. We use sources and we go from there. I don't care how other launches get categorized on wikipedia if they are wrongly categorized. Your words above are POV if you don't go by sources. We treat this launch like everything else, backed by sources. If the other articles are wrong we would look at each, check the sources, and correct them if they are also POV and not backed by sources. You seem to want to follow a script even if it's a bad script. I don't follow that mantra nor do I agree with it. I am helping with this article right now, not a bunch of others that could be wrong if I decided to look at them also. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I have to agree and I am sharing those concerns. I feel that the push to avoid listing it as a launch "failure" is a bit of a POV concern. CtrlDPredator (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
This section is way too long so I haven't read it completely but I'm not so concerned with the near term value of whether this is a failure or a success but more concerned with how this will be treated in the long term. This flight is a non-revenue flight, without a payload (or even a payload bay), without landing functionality and without refueling capability. It will be a functionally completely different vehicle from the Starship vehicle that just flew. I'd argue thus that this vehicle that just flew and that eventual vehicle would neccessarily have different article pages, in the long term, and thus this failure wouldn't count against the failure count of that eventual vehicle. Maybe this can help to resolve the argument. Part of the problem here is that Spaceflight has never been done this way before so we don't have the right words, not just as wikipedia editors, but in the spaceflight community as a whole on how to describe this flight. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Ergzay (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I'll tell you this. For this launch and even Terran 1, they are discussing some of the same things at the NASA forum and in other places on the internet. No one is quite sure how to categorize these launches. However, wikipedia does not make the news... we are not a source. We simply report the facts the sources give us. Sources are certainly not calling this launch a success, but sources are calling this launch a failure, a partial failure, and a partial success. heck it's even being debated by overseas space agencies. Space experts in mainland China are calling it a failure. But space experts in Hong Kong are calling it a moderated success given the company main goals were to "clear the launch pad, collect data, and get ready to go again". So the fact we are arguing about how to categorize it is really no surprise. No matter what we have in the infobox we "must" be informative and lay out the failure to partial success sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors historically have done a lot of original research and synthesis on many spaceflight articles just to fill in basic statistics so we may eventually have to do the same here again at some point. Maybe some kind of splitting of this and future test launches into a separate category from the "operational" starship launches. In that case I'd just omit any statistics on "failure" or "success" or "partial success" as it's a test, and simply describe the outcome of the test and what occurred without labeling it success or failure. If we had to pick a term though I'd actually prefer to use the word "pass" here rather than labeling it a success or failure, if I had to pick a term, as that's what you use with tests. Ergzay (talk) 10:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
@Ergzay I think you views are in line with my proposal A above. Separate clearly this launch as a "Prototype launch" and not a launch of the final vehicle {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 10:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah that sounds like a good idea. Ergzay (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
@Ergzay Express your support then :) {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 14:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I just did didn't I? Ergzay (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Above this "discussion" subsection, you can provide support to any of several options by typing: SUPPORT, followed by listing your reasons.
I hope this was a helpful clarification. Redacted II (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Note - On chart C2 I used the word "partial" as opposed to "partial failure" or "partial success". This left it more ambiguous, and it was on purpose given the strong feelings here. The term "partial" is used extensively here in discussion and I went with the flow. Thinking about it, another term that could be used is "mixed" or "mixed results" instead of "partial." I'm not sure it's better, it's just an option in case someone hadn't thought about it. Whatever gets the most people saying "I can live with that compromise" is what we should strive for. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to add one more thing to this discussion, as Wikipedia is not a source, we should look at how other organizations are cataloging this launch. Some of the most notable ones in no particular order:
Gunter's space page: Failure. (https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/starship-s24.htm).
Nextspaceflight: Failure. (https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/6754)
Rocketlaunch-live: Failure (https://www.rocketlaunch.live/launch/full-stack-test-flig)
Jonathan McDowell's Space Report: Failure (https://www.planet4589.org/space/jsr/latest.html)
Space Launch Schedule: Failure (https://www.spacelaunchschedule.com/launch/starship-integrated-flight-test/)
Please add more if you find them. but at this point, it's a clear POV & original research problem to declare partial. That's be more than enough sources to show consensized failure. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Really?, this is a rather biased list of yours, and I don't think very helpful.
Hong Kong Laboratory for Space Research: Moderated success (https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3217893/chinas-space-enthusiasts-debate-elon-musks-starship-explosion-expensive-failure-or-partial-success)
New Scientist: not a complete failure (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2370122-spacexs-enormous-starship-rocket-finally-launched-and-then-exploded/)
Singularity Hub: Partial Success (https://singularityhub.com/2023/04/21/spacex-starship-launch-hailed-as-a-success-despite-exploding-mid-flight/)
Itf Science Space and Physics: Partial Success (https://www.iflscience.com/spacexs-starship-lifts-off-and-explodes-in-space-68557)
Asronomy.com: Partial Success (https://astronomy.com/news/2023/04/spacex-starship-explodes-minutes-after-launch)
Gulf News: Partial Success (https://gulfnews.com/world/elon-musks-starship-successfully-lifts-off-then-explodes-in-rapid-unscheduled-disassembly-1.1681987094424)
UK Telegraph: considered a win (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/04/20/spacex-starship-rocket-launch-watch-live-elon-musk/)
The Space Review: it may be years before we know whether to count this abbreviated test flight as a success or not (https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4572/1)
Aerospace consultant Linda Forczyk: “a partial success, or a successful failure.” (https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/science-verify/was-the-spacex-explosion-a-success-or-a-failure-a-little-of-both-starship/536-c2def0fe-6cc0-42b9-93a6-7a0ce3d8141a#:~:text=Aerospace%20consultant%20Laura%20Forczyk%2C%20in,the%20atmosphere%2C%E2%80%9D%20she%20said.)
USA Today: Partial Success (https://ustoday.news/the-explosion-of-the-spacex-spacecraft-was-intentional/)
CBC News Canada: Partially Successful (https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/spacex-starship-success-1.6823172)
Los Angeles Times: Successful Failure (https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-04-25/elon-musk-spacex-starship-nasa-moon-landing)
I think it would be even more POV and original research to declare this launch a failure. There are plenty of sources on all sides but to simply plop this into the fail category is quite wrong based on sourcing. Listings such as yours and mine are pointless and non-helpful at this point of discussion, but for you to say that using "partial" is clear POV & original research is completely wrong and you may owe an apology to those that are arguing the other side of the issue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Let's not get into moral issues, now. Sub31k (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Don't insult each other's arguments by labeling it as "POV" and "Original Research". They're not. All the two of you are doing are making fools of yourselves.
We are this close (darn lack of emoji's) to reaching a compromise option. Don't let your bickering ruin that.
So please, let's scale this back to a civil discussion, okay? Redacted II (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
"Partial Failure" in the infobox is not a useful compromise, as it compromises, what the intended purpose of a spaceflight infobox is. "Failure" "partial failure" and "success" have different definitions in this context, than they might have to SpaceX. Of course, this launch attempt was useful for SpaceX and further Starship development, see the sources @Fyunck(click) listed.
But "the company learned something" isn't the definition, by which a launch is counted in the infobox. The infobox definition of failure is "rocket failed before achieving important flight goals", and there is no doubt, that starship did. The sources @Jrcraft Yt listed are enough evidence for that.
The only solution that is consistent with the facts, the sources, and minimizes POV issues, is listing the launch as a failure in the infobox and mentioning in the article, that SpaceX and media considered the flight (partially) successful at gathering data. C9po (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
While partial failure is, IMO, the best label, we can disagree on that.
There are also several compromises that don't list partial failure in the sidebar. Look at options B and C4. B labels it as a "prototype failure", which is more accurate than just "failure", and C4 labels it as an "atmospheric flight", as it never left the atmosphere. Redacted II (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
No problem labelling this a "prototype failure". I have a problem with calling this just a "failure" as this was not the final vehicle by any means. Several proposals above make this distinction and in my view work fine. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 19:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Do we need sources to tell us that

    1+1 ≠ wreckage (booster) + wreckage (spacecraft)
    ?

  • Total launches, booster-with-spacecraft: 1
  • First launch: April 2023
  • Latest return of spacecraft:
    Wreckage fell to Earth in April 2023

In regard to partial-this-or-that: show me a returning spacecraft that can be (largely) re-used, and I will show you a mission that is partial success (negative spin) or partial failure (positive spin).

In the cases where a spacecraft (or its parts) crash into the ground: perhaps one can use sources about how to polish a turd, and the crashed spacecraft can be transformed into a polished entity (with a positive spin). 2001:2020:32F:ECE9:E11F:F5E2:9E0E:3BA4 (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SpaceX_Starship/Archive_3&oldid=1153819307"