Spider Flower – Cleome

SpaceX Starship was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result September 14, 2021 Good article nominee Listed September 24, 2021 Featured article candidate Not promoted October 11, 2021 Peer review Reviewed October 12, 2021 Guild of Copy Editors Copyedited October 21, 2021 Featured article candidate Not promoted November 21, 2021 Good article reassessment Kept December 2, 2021 WikiProject A-class review Not approved January 24, 2022 Peer review Reviewed March 12, 2022 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 17, 2022 Good article reassessment Delisted June 6, 2022 Peer review Reviewed June 16, 2022 Good article nominee Not listed January 13, 2023 Good article nominee Not listed A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 9, 2021. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that SpaceX's reusable Starship launch vehicle has twice as much thrust as the Apollo program's Saturn V? Current status: Delisted good article

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Rocketry High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Spaceflight: SpaceX working group High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by SpaceX working group. Astronomy: Mars / Moon / Solar System Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Mars task force (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by Moon task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Mid-importance). United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Other talk page banners

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Space.com, Teslarati, Futurism, Futurity, Teslamanian, Inverse, Daily Mail, most YouTube videos, blogs (including Universe Today) are NOT reliable. However, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS applies. NASASpaceFlight.com, generally reliable but need some check to separate speculation from reported facts, as with the case of freshly reported news. Eric Berger at Ars Technica is generally reliable but biased towards SpaceX. See this RfC for reference.

@Chuckstablers, why are you removing mention of the Expendable configuration of Starship, despite it's existence and capacity having multiple sources? Redacted II (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because SpaceX's own user guide doesn't mention it. And the only source for it linked to SpaceX's website, which doesn't mention it.

If you have an RS talking about it's expendable capacity, feel free to add it again. Chuckstablers (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like we have two sources for the 100-150 tonnes in it's baseline reused configuration, right?

1.) SpaceX's website: only says in reused mode it gets 100-150 tonnes

2.) Starship User's Guide: : Doesn't mention an expendable mode. In fact it just says > 100 tons to LEO, and equal to 27 tons to GTO.

If you have an RS for it, please add it. But I couldn't find one, let alone one of similar importance to the User's Guide SpaceX provided for prospective customers to determine payload capacity. Chuckstablers (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starships User's Guide is extremely outdated (March 2020).

Tweets from Musk and SpaceX's home page are obviously not ideal sources, but given how much the design has changed in the last four years, they are far more likely to be accurate. Redacted II (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far; we have two sources for the payload figures. SpaceX's own website on Starship, which lists figures of 100-150 tonnes but lists no payload figures for an expendable version. The other is the Starship User's Guide from early-mid 2020, which doesn't mention an expendable payload figure.

If you can provide a source from after the Starship User's Guide talking about an expendable version, we can look at it. If it's from Musk, then it would have to go into the article as we can't attribute it to him in the info box (and it would have to attributed to him).

In any case right now, as the article stands, it's an unsourced statement and can't stay per WP:RS. I'm fine re-adding it with a reliable source for that payload figure. Chuckstablers (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to add, per WP:BURDEN. I'm challenging that payload number as unverifiable.

Quoting from the policy, "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Chuckstablers (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would make sense to attribute the claim to Musk's statements and clarify they are estimates. As to secondary support, teslarati explains how those claims might be achieved.

Here is the archive page from 202303 (the one you removed was 2020) if you want a primary SpaceX claim. "Starship will be the world’s most powerful launch vehicle ever developed, with the ability to carry up to 150 metric tonnes to Earth orbit reusable, and up to 250 metric tonnes expendable." It seems like someone updated the numbers but forgot to update the archive URL.

Why would they take this down? My guess is the number is still in flux. The user's guide is an older source and uses more conservative numbers like "100+" Foonix0 (talk) 08:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teslarati is not a Reliable Source. Redacted II (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1678278811186544640 for 200 tons reusable

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1661441658473570304 for 250-300 tons expendable. Redacted II (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then they'd have to be attributed in the infobox to statements by Elon Musk. Chuckstablers (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.

Does that mean simply putting them down as a source, or something I'm not aware of? Redacted II (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that we'd need to basically say in the info box "In 2023 Elon Musk said that in Expendable Mode Starship would have X payload capacity". That's gonna be hard to do in the infobox and we can really only do so in the article itself.

I'm opposed to including it in the info box essentially in wiki voice solely on the basis of "well known liar Elon Musk" said so (hyperloop is his idea and going to revolutionize public transport, the boring company can make tunnels at 5% the cost of everyone else, tesla FSD is ready to go today, solar roofs are hyper advanced and can be made at half the price of normal solar panels, i'm going to take tesla private at 420 a share, etc)

I'd be fine with either something from

1.) SpaceX's website, even if it's archived.

2.) Something from a users guide

3.) Any source on the perennial source page that's reliable.

4.) Even something from a website not explicitly listed as an RS on the perennial sources list as long as it's not a blog/fansite or something.

@Redacted II, I'll do a search tonight and check back in here tomorrow, see if I can find anything. If I can't find anything beyond something Musk said then we can go from there? Chuckstablers (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start my search now.

This is just a restating of Elon Tweets by NSF, so I don't think it qualifies (though it is from a RS, at least): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hukjMVIecdU

If we can't find anything, then we'll go back to 150/250 tons. Redacted II (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found this for expendable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgqZMK22LEk (Everyday Astronaut N1:Starship video. Given that he'll be flying on it, I think this should count). Redacted II (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As "Elon Musk said so" is not a reliable source. We need an RS to readd it. Musk is a well known liar when it come to numbers, timelines, costs, etc. Now that I think about it; I don't think you could even attribute it to him in the infobox because the space isn't there.

We need an RS per WP:RS to readd the content. An updated Starship User's Guide? Something on SpaceX's website advertising it? I'll take anything; but it has to be an RS. Musk isn't that. Chuckstablers (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Musk a liar (at best)? Yes. Is he the best source we have? Maybe.

I might be able to find a source restating the 200/300 ton numbers. But that will take some time. Redacted II (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So this section is under "particular missions". I've tried to remove it since it is definitely not a particular mission, but it's been reintroduced a few times now so I thought i'd bring this up here.

"In 2017 SpaceX president and chief operating officer Gwynne Shotwell stated that point-to-point travel with passengers could become cost competitive with conventional business class flights. John Logsdon, an academic on space policy and history, said that the idea of transporting passengers in this manner was "extremely unrealistic", as the craft would switch between weightlessness to 5 g of acceleration He also commented that “Musk calls all of this ‘aspirational,’ which is a nice code word for more than likely not achievable.”"

So here's the issue; this is not a particular mission. All the other things we have there? Starship HLS, the rocket cargo program, the 5 tonne satellite Starship is contracted to launch into GEO? All particular missions.

Point to point travel being competitive with business class flights is a crazy thing said by SpaceX 6 years ago. One that's never developed at all since then. It's not a particular mission; it's a statement of an aspirational goal of Musk's. It should be removed and or merged in some way with the rocket cargo program paragraph I added a while back. Chuckstablers (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It probably can be condensed and merged with the previous paragraph. It's related enough to the suborbital cargo flights (same idea but "remove cargo, add seats"), but I agree it's not likely to be a significant commercial success. Perhaps the idea significant enough for a mention, but perhaps not enough for its own paragraph.

"In 2017, it was proposed that point-to-point flights could potentially carry passengers, but the idea has been criticized as "highly unrealistic" over passenger comfort and other concerns." (ref existing sources)

Alternatively, the section title can probably be improved or the sections rearranged. For example, starlink v2 launches would be more of an ongoing set of launches rather than a particular launch. Point-to-point cargo includes a particular demonstration mission, but if successful would become a general category of ongoing suborbital operations. Foonix0 (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We know it’s probably bullshit. Once you read the criticism, you get the idea that it’s probably nonsense (assuming you didn’t know this already or about Musk’s tendency for hyperbolic claims) CoastRedwood (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of my point... it is probably BS, and we have sources calling it BS. The idea that strapping a few hundred or a thousand people onto a 5000 tonne stack of fuel, launching them into space with no abort system, and doing re-entry, and somehow having this be cheaper than a business class ticket is somewhat... laughable to anyone in the industry. Which is why they've never mentioned it again, because even for Musk it's a bit too... much.

This comment was largely ignored by the RS's by the way; because it was a bit too much for even the uncritical media. Because it doesn't take much knowledge to seriously question the viability of this. Musk has a history of naive math using best case wildly optimistic scenarios stacked ontop of each other (see "50 billion in profit by 2025" with Starlink lol). Chuckstablers (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I say move the point-to-point CGI stuff to the "Early design and abandoned features" section of the SpaceX Starship design process subpage. The subpage, which is analogous to the one that was created years ago for the Shuttle, should eventually become its own page, once I figure out a way to not make it redundant on the mess that is "SpaceX ambition of colonizing Mars" (which should either not exist, become just a paragraph on the SpaceX page or be entirely reworked IMO). CodemWiki (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I just fixed it. Much cleaner now. CodemWiki (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for doing so :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Super minor topic: Redacted II and Chuckstablers keep writing its as it's on Starship pages. It's everywhere on here, and it startles me slightly (this is coming from some kid who learned English out of boredom during the pandemic, regular English speakers might not be bothered - both are great users though, I'm just saying something I've noticed) CodemWiki (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will avoid that in the future, I'd encourage you to fix it in the meantime? Chuckstablers (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure if you already fixed it or something? I just went through the article, can't find an inappropriate use of it's vs its. You use it's in place of "it is". You use its if it's a possessive word.

"It's is a contraction and should be used where a sentence would normally read "it is." The apostrophe indicates that part of a word has been removed. Its with no apostrophe, on the other hand, is the possessive word, like "his" and "her," for nouns without gender. For example, "The sun was so bright, its rays blinded me."" - Merriam Webster Chuckstablers (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just reread the title of what you wrote: "its <noun>" is the correct English. It's a possessive form. Notice why I'm using "it's" just then? It's because "it's" is meant for a contraction of "it is", whereas "its" is a possessive form used to show that something belongs to or is associated with something previously mentioned. Examples of correct vs incorrect usage are below.

Correct use:

"It's a beautiful day outside" (short for it is a beautiful day outside).

"the cat closed its eyes" (possessive form)

"Starship lit its engines" (possessive form)

Incorrect use:

"its a horrible day so far" (should have the apostrophe since it's shorthand for it is)

"destroy it's engines" (should have its as it's a possessive form)

"it's Artemis program" (same thing, should have its as it's a possessive form)

Hope that clears it up. Chuckstablers (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm aware of the correct use. You didn't find any instance of the typo because Wikipedia lurkers keep correcting them (here or here or here or here or here among others). But it still happens regularly so I'm just saying for the future. CodemWiki (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine then, just weird for you to say "its <noun>" in the title given that is literally the correct usage. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless your html displays it incorrectly, my topic title illustrates the incorrect usage it's <noun>. CodemWiki (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, but that's fine. Definitely showing its but I believe you.

Just a heads up; this is definitely something that goes on the user talk page, not the article talk page. For so many reasons. Chuckstablers (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure CodemWiki (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this, I have to agree with Chuckstablers, this belongs on our respective user pages instead of the article itself.

I'll work on correcting my usage on it's vs its, though. Redacted II (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After Musks speech about starship, he talked about the reason for the failure for ift2 being the dumping of oxigen mid-flight. I have a few ideas how to write it in but couldnt really find a good source for it. What do you think should we write, and does someone have a good source for it? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 08:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source: https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/01/rocket-report-a-new-estimate-of-starship-costs-japan-launches-spy-satellite/

Writing:

"During a briefing of SpaceX employees in January 2024, Elon Musk stated that the cause of IFT-2s failure was due to venting liquid oxygen. He also stated that this LOX dump was only conducted due to IFT-2 not carrying a payload." Redacted II (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Had a feeling its gonna be you to answer first, thanks👍 Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In section "Environmental reception" it says "in 2022 after the failed first orbital test flight". It was in 2023. JimboRy (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Thanks! Redraiderengineer (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the article (still) semi-protected?

The IFT-2 debate and edit wars is long-gone, and IFT-3 isn't until early March Redacted II (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The semi-protection expires on February 20. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 23:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Done Stoplookin9 :) Send me a message! 15:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"SpaceX is currently planning its next Starship launch, Starship Integrated Flight Test 3 (Starship-IFT-3), for February 2024."

What is the planning in March 2024? Uwappa (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed this text to say March 2024. User3749 (talk) 11:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources say NET March other NET April. After successful WDR 4th March, the FAA approval will take minimum 2-3 weeks ===> April is much more likely than March — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.146.191.212 (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the FAA was quite speedy Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this time we can agree that its a succes, since it did reach intended trajectory (as far as I know) Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. B10 loss doesn't matter, as that isn't part of ascent. Redacted II (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed too, but let's wait until we know if all objectives have been accomplished or not (re-entry etc.) just in case Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The orbital test objectives don't matter. Success v.s failure is decided between 0:00 and 8:35 for the ship, and between 0:00 and 2:42 for the booster. Redacted II (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I belive re entry happened, but it lost control some way into it Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Launch itself should be considered a success as it reached orbital velocity unlike the past two flights. Landing for Super Heavy should be loss on landing and apparently re-entry was not successful. User3749 (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed for outcome: success ---> booster: loss on landing ---> ship: loss on re-entry Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let the dust settle. When more information is available from reliable sources, the outcome of the launch can be added based on the consensus. Redraiderengineer (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/14/world/starship-launch-spacex-scn/index.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/14/spacex-starship-rocket-third-test-flight-launch.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-launch-super-heavy-starship-rocket-third-test-flight/ Redacted II (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is to wait on adding the outcome to the infobox per WP:RSBREAKING.

Not all of the sources listed directly support "success." According to the CNN article, "The company routinely frames failures during these early test flights as normal."

Additionally, the FAA will also oversee a mishap investigation. "A mishap occurred during the SpaceX Starship OFT-3 mission that launched from Boca Chica, Texas, on March 14." [1] Redraiderengineer (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to wikipedia precedent, reaching the desired orbit=success.

S28 reached the desired (not) orbit.

Therefore, success Redacted II (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FAA announcing a mishap investigation is not relevant in this context. Plus, saying "[SpaceX] routinely frames failures ... as normal" isn't directly calling it a failure, but that source does not state in its own tone that it was a success. User3749 (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that a mishap investigation likely involving what happened after MECO means the launch was a failure (or even a partial failure). If the FAA/other RS announces that there was a mishap during launch that opinion will change but I don't see evidence for that RN. Rainclaw7 (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Launch success, Booster landing failure (very much like early F9), Ship lost prior to landing (precluded). Suborbital rather than TAO (since in-space maneuver which would have raised perigee did not occur).Jrcraft Yt (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The maneuver, IIRC, would have lowered perigee.

If they said otherwise during the official livestream, then it's suborbital. Redacted II (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At about 1:14:00 in the stream, they said the test relight would raise the perigee ("the opposite of a de-orbit burn"). At ~1:15:05 they explained that it would be at a steep trajectory and would be "coming home no matter what."

It's unclear if the resulting perigee would have been positive from the information in the stream. Foonix0 (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to calculations by Jonathan Mcdowell, without the engine burn, perigee is -100 (or was it -50?) km.

My objection is withdrawn. IFT-3 was (technically) suborbital Redacted II (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say partial success, as the booster completed almost all objectives. Ship failing during reentry certainly triggered a mishap investigation, so that will prevent the mission from being fully successful Stoplookin9 :) Send me a message! 15:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Launch success, not full mission success :) Jrcraft Yt (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean here but we are talking about the launch itself. On the page SpaceX Starship flight tests we have separate outcomes for the launch itself (the ascent phase), booster landing (everything Super Heavy does after hot staging), and spacecraft landing (everything from deorbit, reentry and landing). Landing phases are viewed separately from the launch itself. Same thing applies here. User3749 (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah exactly this Jrcraft Yt (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and we already have the booster splashdown failure and Starship splashdown preclusion on the proper page. The infobox asks about the launch and that was a success. Rainclaw7 (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was a failure because did not reach the surface of the Indian Ocean intact as planned. May also take Columbia disaster as a reference: it was classified as a failure in the Space Shuttle article. 42.98.182.158 (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia lost crew. Very different.

Success for launch only means it launched successfully. Everything after SECO is irrelevant. Redacted II (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The overall mission was not successful, but there is a distinction between mission success and launch success (which is what we are discussing here). A better comparison would be to the launch of Starliner OFT-1, which is recorded as a success even though the overall mission was a partial failure. Rainclaw7 (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we're keeping this consistent with other launch vehicles, I think Partial Failure would be the fairest judgment. IFT-3 was almost identically-successful as Apollo 6 (Reached [intended] orbit, failed to perform engine relight. Starship additionally did not survive reentry, which was a mission milestone). However, 2 things:

1: As other editors have mentioned, it is unclear whether Starship statistics should measure mission success (e.g. Space Shuttle) or launch success (e.g. Falcon 9). I believe it's important that we come to a consensus on this matter.

2: We should also make our judgement based on how most third-party sources are describing the flight. Wikipedia is meant to follow what sources say, not advocate for its own positions (WP:PODIUM) Gojet-64 (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed now that I think of it, we have to follow what reliable sources say, let's wait a day or two to see Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to to Bludgeon the discussion, but the RS have declared it a success:

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/outlook/article/spacex-test-launch-rocket-booster-elon-musk-moon-18986410.php (Separates IFT-3 from 2 and 1, calling the earlier flights partial successes)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/03/14/spacex-starship-test-flight/ (most successful yet)

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/spacex-starship-third-test-launch-thursday-rcna143286 (Starship launches successfully) Redacted II (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, aguess so be it! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, as launch was flawless (0 engine failures, 0 known issues during flight).

The booster Mishap was after Stage Separation. According to established precedent (Falcon 9), this is irrelevant for success v failure.

The ship burned up on reentry, but the same precedent applies.

Furthermore, upper stages (not just reusable stages) being destroyed after SECO has never meant launch failure or partial failure. There have been multiple Delta II upper stages and Centaurs that explode in orbit after SECO.

Launch success does not require mission success. Redacted II (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but still, that's us making those thoughts, remember that Wikipedia is a tertiary source trying to summarize what reliable sources say Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we all agree the disputed part of this is false. The success criteria (as many of you stated before) was the targeted orbit. It did that. So by the boundaries set for 1&2 it was a success. Anything other is moving the goalposts

Entry and landing are secondary and if there was payload on the flight going to an orbit it would've been a success.

Numerous industry leaders including the NASA Administrator called this a success.

Funny how quickly the failure disputes get shut down but the moment there is a success it's disputed. If this is seriously going from clickbait headlines yall need to grow up and learn journalists don't have more knowledge or expertise than engineers

This should not be disputed because of personal gripes or ignorance JudaPoor (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please know that Wikipedia relies on statements from reliable sources in articles, and that gathering consensus through discussion is at the basis of decision-making in Wikipedia. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus here looks firmly as a success. That's also not what I was told before and plenty of high quality sources (NASA, SpaceX, Thomas Zurbuchen, Chris Hadfield) testify to it being a success.

Articles also don't abjectly call it a failure but simply call it's a Loss of vehicle which happened after a norminal flight. For any other vehicle this would be indisputably a success. JudaPoor (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute part is not false.

There are editors who are disputing it.

(Yes, it will almost certainly continue to be labeled as a success, with no disputed tag, but this is part of the process) Redacted II (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus in this thread is clearly in support of it being a success. Of course not everyone agrees but to claim it's disputed is false especially when that's based on ignorance not facts JudaPoor (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The majority (all but 2-3 IIRC) say success.

But the process is the process. Keep the disputed tag for a week.

Just ask yourself "would I want the disputed tag to remain if the situation was reversed?" Redacted II (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with it for any. My point is that by the logic of 1 or 2 all should have a disputed tag.

Personally I think they shouldn't be counted as either due to the developmental nature of the flights and possible confusion between them and operational flights.

JudaPoor (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't agree with it for any. My point is that by the logic of 1 or 2 all should have a disputed tag."

IFT-1 and IFT-2 aren't being discussed. So they aren't disputed (and trying to add disputed to either will go VERY badly, so please don't).

"Personally I think they shouldn't be counted as either due to the developmental nature of the flights and possible confusion between them and operational flights."

Agreed, but most likely, once v2 starts flying, these will all be labeled as (v1)

Finally, if you don't mind, I'll move this tangent to a dedicated section. Redacted II (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's incredibly threatening. Maybe that's not a good look for you guys when that's what you resort to.

I also was simply explaining my opinion and position after you asked about it prior. I thought I made that clear

I'd prefer to keep this open for others to see JudaPoor (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"That's incredibly threatening. Maybe that's not a good look for you guys when that's what you resort to."

How was that threatening? Trying to add that tag will go badly (trust me, ANI is not a pleasant part of Wikipedia to be).

"I also was simply explaining my opinion and position after you asked about it prior. I thought I made that clear"

And then enforcing it in the infobox, deleting the disputed tag while it is being disputed.

"I'd prefer to keep this open for others to see"

I wasn't saying "delete this", just "give it it's own dedicated section", so it isn't sending a notification to everyone who doesn't want to take part in this argument. Redacted II (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It came across as a "try and edit it and you'll be suspended". I apologise I misread

There is a clear consensus as you acknowledged. That was enough to remove them from the previous two.

Understood for the last part. Agreed JudaPoor (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Reply once with either a yes or no option to the two questions.

Based on previous requirements for success (being a targeted orbit not entry) do you consider IFT 3 a Success or a Failure?

JudaPoor (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two problems here. First, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. And second, it's a false dilema. There is also Partial Failure, which is a classification given to other similar missions (most notably Apollo 6). That mission is classified as a partial failure on the Saturn V page despite accomplishing more mission objectives than IFT-3 did. Gojet-64 (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo 6 was targeting a different orbit. It had a complete propulsion failure

Starship broke up way past other missions would have.

It also met all but 3 objectives. Apollo 6 had more objectives but its partial failure is based on the failed restart not the milestones reached.

I will happily allow an additional partial failure option however the purpose was to gauge consensus on whether it was or was not a success (which based on the previous requirements from 1&2 being a target orbit insertion) it was

How can Wiki be consensus driven if polls or measurements for consensus aren't possible? JudaPoor (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Apollo 6 was targeting a different orbit" It was targeting LEO as its initial orbit, which it reached.

"It had a complete propulsion failure" Which doesn't sound as catastrophic as a complete structural failure.

"Starship broke up way past other missions would have" Something Apollo 6 didn't suffer at all.

"Apollo 6 ... partial failure is based on the failed restart" IFT-3 also did not accomplish a planned engine restart.

"How can Wiki be consensus driven if polls or measurements for consensus aren't possible?" I apologize, I assumed this was aiming to resolve the dispute with a simple poll. I understand now that was an incorrect assumption to make. Suffice to say, my vote on the matter is partial failure, mainly based on he precedent of other similar missions (e.g. Apollo 6) Gojet-64 (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo 6 is a bad comparison. It had multiple propulsion failures, entering an off-nominal orbit, and it's engine failed to restart (IFT-3 had a planned engine relight, but this was canceled and wasn't mission-critical).

Meanwhile, IFT-3 had a flawless ascent (which is the only part that even matters for success v.s partial v.s failure, according to established precedent), and even ignoring that achieved all but one of it's tests. Redacted II (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technically it could be argued it didn't achieve 3. Being booster landing burn, entry and controlled decent. But agreed

Past precedent was constantly brought up in previous discussions for flights and the requirement of success being the targeted orbit was repeatedly stated. I am not a fan of some (not many) wanting this goalpost to be moved JudaPoor (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's false. It was targeting a high earth elliptical orbit (to simulate a direct return from the moon).

All rockets burn up on entry btw. So did the SIVB from Apollo 6. If there was a payload deployment planned it would've happened. For literally every launch that is a success. That is the end goal of a launch

They didn't conduct the restart but that was an additional milestone not one they needed to. They did conduct the rest of the demonstrations.

All of this is screaming to me that you don't follow spaceflight or at least not closely.

I think we can agree to disagree though since this was intended as a measure for consensus to avoid disputes or at least clarify positions. JudaPoor (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JudaPoor and @WyoGrad2024, please stop edit warring and discuss on the talk page instead of the edit summary. Redraiderengineer (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]