Jump to content

Talk:SpaceX Starship: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Undid revision 1189566693 by Redacted II (talk) improper archive
Tags: Undo Reverted
Line 400: Line 400:
:Yeah am fine with it. Glad we have sourcing for it now. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 03:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
:Yeah am fine with it. Glad we have sourcing for it now. [[User:Chuckstablers|Chuckstablers]] ([[User talk:Chuckstablers|talk]]) 03:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:Foonix0|Foonix0]] Do you plan to add this wording in? [[User:Ergzay|Ergzay]] ([[User talk:Ergzay|talk]]) 16:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:Foonix0|Foonix0]] Do you plan to add this wording in? [[User:Ergzay|Ergzay]] ([[User talk:Ergzay|talk]]) 16:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

== RfC on infobox flight status ==
{{Archive top|Enough bickering. The general consensus here and all other previous discussions/RfCs is to classify the first/second orbital launch attempt as a failure. It should be noted that some editors that challenge IFT-1 and IFT-2 launch's failure status have engaged in sealioning and bludgeoning behaviors, and thus, have not being receptive to other editors' arguments. [[User:CactiStaccingCrane|CactiStaccingCrane]] ([[User talk:CactiStaccingCrane|talk]]) 07:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)}}
Should the SpaceX Starship IFT-2 launch be categorized as "failure" or "partial failure" in the infobox? – [[User:Jadebenn|Jadebenn]] <small>([[User talk:Jadebenn|talk]]&nbsp;<b>&middot;</b>&#32;[[Special:Contributions/Jadebenn|contribs]]&nbsp;<b>&middot;</b>&#32;[[Special:PrefixIndex/User:Jadebenn|subpages]])</small> 13:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

===Remove===
*'''Remove:''' This discussion has been an endless source of [[bikeshedding]]. The actual usefulness of the field is minor compared to the level of effort on this talk page. There is non-trivial diagreement amoung [[WP:RS]] sources. There is little consensus among editors. The two other options presented by this RFC cannot and will not "settle" the issue because it cannot and will not reflect a consensus amoung sources. Trying to call it a failure flies in the face of statements from SMEs like [[Chris Hadfield]] and the actual stakeholders of the Starship development program. If people insist that the defintion of the field is so inflexible that it can't be anying but "failure", then it's time to remove it because it is a drastic oversimplification that obfuscates important nuance of the program and neglects what it means to the actual stakeholders. If IFT-3 doesn't either explode on the pad or complete %100 flawlessly, then we're all going to be right back here bikeshedding about this again. [[User:Foonix0|Foonix0]] ([[User talk:Foonix0|talk]]) 04:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)<small>— [[User:Foonix0|Foonix0]] ([[User talk:Foonix0|talk]]&#32;• [[Special:Contributions/Foonix0|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>
*:* '''REMOVE:''' Prototypes (not a production vehicle) have never been counted in the Infobox. With one exception: Starship. Putting IFT-1 or IFT-2 in the infobox is like putting Grasshopper in the Falcon V1.0 infobox. Same goes for IFT-3, regardless of the outcome. So long as SpaceX is launching Integrated Flight Tests, then they shouldn't be counted in the infobox (though, S29-S32 may be similar enough to be a production version).
*:[[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 12:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
*:In light of the (surprisingly excessive) discussion on this subject, there seems to be no consensus on how these Starship flight outcomes should be classified. You're absolutely right that, if IFT-3 does anything between "explode on the pad" and "execute every mission objective flawlessly", a long-winded discussion like this is just going to drag on again. Without a consensus on how these flights should be counted, the only thing we can really do (at least for now) is just not count them at all. Thus, I'm inclined to again agree with the earlier suggestion to '''remove''' the listings (Success, Partial Failure, Failure) from the Starship infobox, at least until it starts flying payloads.
*:It's not the solution I would prefer (mainly on the basis that no other launch vehicle on Wikipedia has been treated as such) but I do feel it's the best compromise we can come to at the moment. [[User:Gojet-64|Gojet-64]] ([[User talk:Gojet-64|talk]]) 00:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
*::A potential compromise would be a system similar to Atlas.
*::It would show 0 failures, and "show", with two prototype launches shown under that.
*::This avoids misleading users, as both launches can be shown to have failed, but readers won't see those flights as flights of the actual rocket? [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 12:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
*:::Iam fully on board with this idea👍
*:::I belive it represents what happened well, AND isnt treating starship differently [[User:Fehér Zsigmond-03|Fehér Zsigmond-03]] ([[User talk:Fehér Zsigmond-03|talk]]) 14:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
*:::I disagree with this suggestion, because the whole point of this compromise is due to a lack of consensus/agreement on what counts as success or failure for these launches. Counting these launches instead with "prototype success" or "prototype failure" would just have the exact same issue (and has been suggested before in earlier talks). This is especially a problem if the judgment of success/failure depends on company objectives, which makes it inherently inconsistent, and thus impossible to use just a simple contextless number to accurately inform readers of how such launches actually went.
*:::Essentially, the core premise of the "remove" position is '''Wikipedia shall make no judgment on whether the Starship IFTs are "successful" or "failure"''' (There shall be no judgment of "prototype success" or "prototype failure" either, because that has the same issue which is trying to be avoided; namely the lack of consensus on what those classifications should be defined as)
*:::To be clear however, this isn't a suggestion for permanency going forward. My intention with this compromise is that ''this would be temporary until, in separate discussion, a consensus is reached on defining success/partial failure/failure'' (Or until Starship becomes operational). [[User:Gojet-64|Gojet-64]] ([[User talk:Gojet-64|talk]]) 01:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
*::::I belive we would only say prototype launch, this way further conflict can be avoided, and it doesnt represent what happened any worse then saying failure or succes [[User:Fehér Zsigmond-03|Fehér Zsigmond-03]] ([[User talk:Fehér Zsigmond-03|talk]]) 06:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

===Failure===
*'''Failure:''' The [[Template:Infobox rocket|infobox documentation]] has defined "partial failure" to allow for a consistent meaning across Wikipedia as per [[MOS:INFOBOXUSE|MoS guidelines]]. Unless the definition changes, the policy-based action is to determine if IFT-2 meets the current partial failure criteria predicated on reaching orbit.

:IFT-2 failed to reach orbit, so it doesn't meet the "partial failure" definition or standard used across other launch vehicle articles. [[User:Redraiderengineer|Redraiderengineer]] ([[User talk:Redraiderengineer|talk]]) 16:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

*'''Failure:''' A couple of things. Firstly: listing some form of "flight successful" or obscurism through removal of the box would be at odds with a supermajority of published independent media reports, which variously describe a test flight failure. And a test failure needn't be of any shame: don't they call this a fail-fast program, anyway? Apart from that, the test did not meet the objectives set for it and for which substantial preparation was made. I see a lot of increasingly specific definitions of success/failure being made here so that this recent test flight just barely falls on the "win" side. I'd also like to clarify that the infobox is not some kind of scoreboard. It's just a way to show flight outcomes. [[User:Sub31k|Sub31k]] ([[User talk:Sub31k|talk]]) 17:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

::I've made my statements before, but will summarize here. '''Every''' rocket gets treated the '''same''' acrossed '''all''' of Wikipedia, with perfect consistency & consensus '''except for Starship'''. I'm not going to pretend the issue isn't a small group of loud people who feel attacked if SpaceX is criticized with industry norms in any way. I;ve been here long enough to know that. Test flights aren't given special treatment anywhere else, for any other company and I know most of you arguing for "partials" would ''all'' classify the first Vulcan launch as a failure if Centaur's FTS activated during it's first burn. Don't pretend you wouldn't. A quick test flight recap for you guys:

::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'''

::Notice how there wasn't raging discussions about those (Are some of you going to push for N1's test flight to be counted as partials) because they failed to reach orbit on test flights. Why is Starship different? Why does it and only it get to be special and not allowed to fail? An orbital (Transatmospheric orbit) flight that is destroyed before reaching even an initial orbit is a failure. Don't sight SpaceX's definitions of success because that's a first party source. Wikipedia must retain it's unbiased and neutral POV, and giving only ONE rocket a pass on everything is '''clear''' and '''consistent''' bias. If this gets classed as a "partial" I may push for some N1 flight to be reclassed alongside a chunk of those above. And I'd expect '''every''' one of those in favor of partials to do the same. --[[User:Jrcraft Yt|Jrcraft Yt]] ([[User talk:Jrcraft Yt|talk]]) 18:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
:::This rocket is evidently different from all of the ones indicated above. This is an incomplete '''prototype'''. The design has even radically changed from one launch to the other (hot staging). The approach is totally different from what has been attempted by the industry so far. <span style="color:#AAA"><small><nowiki>&#123;{u&#124;</nowiki></small>[[User:Gtoffoletto|<span style="color:darkGreen;font-weight:bold">Gtoffoletto</span>]]<small><nowiki>&#125;}</nowiki></small></span>  <sup>[[User talk:Gtoffoletto|'''talk''']]</sup> 19:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
::::And its gonna change even more with v2 [[User:Fehér Zsigmond-03|Fehér Zsigmond-03]] ([[User talk:Fehér Zsigmond-03|talk]]) 09:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
::::Can we then count it as failure but, when it's significantly upgraded, count it as a different vehicle or at least a different version and separate the stats? That seems like the most honest/responsible way to do this. It is almost indisputably a full failure, but it's an *expected* failure, so it would be a shame if it taints future reliability numbers once it's more polished up. [[User:TheSpaceGoat|TheSpaceGoat]] ([[User talk:TheSpaceGoat|talk]]) 13:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::(this belongs in discussion, but with that out of the way):
:::::"Can we then count it as failure but, when it's significantly upgraded, count it as a different vehicle or at least a different version and separate the stats?"
:::::I think Partial Failure is the right classification (see [[Talk:SpaceX Starship#Partial failure|Partial Failure]] for my reasoning), but I agree, it it's counted in the infobox, it needs to be separate from "actual"/production/v2 vehicles. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 13:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
*'''Failure''' is my end state, as said above in regards to IFT-2. --[[User:Jrcraft Yt|Jrcraft Yt]] ([[User talk:Jrcraft Yt|talk]]) 19:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

*'''Failure'''. This was a failed launch (it did not complete objectives), while being a successful test. This isn't even controversial; there's a statement to the effect that when NASA has a launch failure, you get congressional hearings, when SpaceX has a launch failure, you add something to the blooper reel. IFT2 provided lots of test data, and is an addition to the blooper reel. [[User:Tarl_N.|<b style="color:green">Tarl N.</b>]] ([[User talk:Tarl N.#top|<span style="color:teal">discuss</span>]]) 18:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
::Moved. [[User:Tarl_N.|<b style="color:green">Tarl N.</b>]] ([[User talk:Tarl N.#top|<span style="color:teal">discuss</span>]]) 19:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

*'''Failure'''. It was successful as a test but unsuccessful as an attempt to reach orbit. Our infoboxes and launch lists all use the latter. --[[User:Mfb|mfb]] ([[User talk:Mfb|talk]]) 05:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

*'''Failure''' - Other similar flights, speficially the Electron 1 launch, were all classed as failures and we shouldn't be treating Starship differently by moving the goalposts around to squeeze it into partial failure. It doesn't matter how much test data they successfully collect, the launch was still a failure.
:[[User:CtrlDPredator|CtrlDPredator]] ([[User talk:CtrlDPredator|talk]]) 06:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

*'''Failure:''' All other orbital launch attempts that do not reach orbit have been classified as "failures" on Wikipedia; it doesn't matter how close it got, or whether it had a payload, or what was the expectation of the company/organization launching it. If it was attempting to reach orbit, but failed to reach orbit, that's a clear-cut failure (note that "attempting" and "expecting" are different things). Classifying IFT-2 as a "partial failure" would be grossly inconsistent with how any other launch outcome is classified on Wikipedia, and would likely mislead readers into believing IFT-2 reached orbit when it did not, as reaching orbit is the minimum requirement for "Partial failure" for any other orbital launch attempt. We have to classify these launches clearly and consistently, and not give any special treatment to Starship just because "it's a prototype" or "it got close". [[User:Gojet-64|Gojet-64]] ([[User talk:Gojet-64|talk]]) 22:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
*:we once again, do not treat starship differently, and many similar flights that were classified as failure, should have been the same partial failure. Spacex new way of testing isnt the same as for any other company, therefore should be differently classified then other ways of testing. Would you classify an overpressure tank test as failure? Likely not [[User:Fehér Zsigmond-03|Fehér Zsigmond-03]] ([[User talk:Fehér Zsigmond-03|talk]]) 07:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
*::I'm not really sure what your argument is. In the very same post, you said "we ... do not treat starship differently" and "[Starship] should be differently classified". You can pick one, but not both. Regarding your example of a tank test; no that would not be considered a ''launch'' failure because it wasn't a ''launch'' attempt. And that's what the infobox entries are based on: ''launch'' outcomes, not ''test'' outcomes. If SpaceX considers the test to be successful, then good for them, but the ''launch'' is still a failure. And as mentioned previously, whether it's a prototype or developmental vehicle is irrelevant. The N1 launches were also iterative vehicles which had substantial changes between launches, yet there is no controversy in calling all of those launches failures. Plenty of other examples are also given in the discussion section below. What matters is clearly communicating to the reader what the outcome of an orbital launch attempt was, and if an attempt to reach orbit failed to do so, then the clearest way to communicate that is by classifying it a "failure". [[User:Gojet-64|Gojet-64]] ([[User talk:Gojet-64|talk]]) 12:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
*:::I meant that we dont treat starship specifically differently, but rather similar scenarios too. The N1 is a REALLY poor example, because the lack of quality engines made it so they had no choice but fly it. Starship isnt as similar to the n1. Some barely lifted off, some exploded during first stage burn, not accomplishing much. This is different from ift1, where the only goal was to not destroy the pad, wich it very much didnt fully do. Communicating failure would miss the development that happened to the second launch, and not reflect what starship had achieved. As i said, this isnt a working non-prototype rocket, therefore it doesnt have the same goals. At the very least we could separate these two, to better reflect what flew, and what it achieved. [[User:Fehér Zsigmond-03|Fehér Zsigmond-03]] ([[User talk:Fehér Zsigmond-03|talk]]) 13:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
*::::You are talking about the milestones that Starship has passed as measures of success, not the launch itself. You are advocating for Starship to be treated differently when it isn't any different to other test launches that have occurred before. [[User:CtrlDPredator|CtrlDPredator]] ([[User talk:CtrlDPredator|talk]]) 15:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
*:::::I think it is, other “test” launched arent expected to fail, many carry payloads, and arent changing with every launch [[User:Fehér Zsigmond-03|Fehér Zsigmond-03]] ([[User talk:Fehér Zsigmond-03|talk]]) 07:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

*'''Failure'''. It was a failed launch and it should be described as such. — '''[[User:Sadko|<span style="color:#CC6600;">Sadko</span>]]''' [[User talk:Sadko|<span style="color: #0c0609;">(words are wind)</span>]] 00:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

*'''Failure'''. The rocket did not do what it was supposed to do. It didn't complete any of the stated objectives; therefore, using the same criteria used to judge other rocket launches, we can safely classify it as what it objectively is: a failure. This is not something that has absolutely ANY room for any shade of grey whatsoever, and trying to move the goalposts around to sugarcoat the outcome is not how reality works. [[User:DASL51984|DASL51984]] <sup>([[User talk:DASL51984|Speak to me!]])</sup> 12:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
*:How did it not complete anything exactly? [[User:Fehér Zsigmond-03|Fehér Zsigmond-03]] ([[User talk:Fehér Zsigmond-03|talk]]) 08:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

*'''Failure.''' The spacecraft and booster terminated mid-flight and were unable to achieve their goals, that is to return to the launch pad or reach orbit, re-enter the Earth's atmosphere and splashdown in the ocean. It's misleading to say that the launch was a partial failure or success as the launch vehicle was unable to achieve the aforementioned main objectives set out by SpaceX. [[User:Yasslaywikia|Yasslaywikia]] ([[User talk:Yasslaywikia|talk]]) 17:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

===Partial failure===

* '''Partial failure'''. We do have a general criteria, which means partial failure would only be applicable if a payload is placed in an incorrect orbit. This is for actual production launches. We don't have such a criteria for test flights. As per my comments in the above section, I believe this should be a partial failure as it made it past the Karman line before the Starship vehicle was lost. I believe test flights should be separated from actual launches.

:However, it now also seems that the general convention is that test flights like the IFTs aren't included in the count. No other launch vehicle has test flights included in the success/failure count. Starship is still in its prototype stages and we can start using the count once Starship is in full production, and then we treat Starship with the usual criteria. Therefore, '''as an alternative, remove the IFTs from the counts entirely'''. [[Special:Contributions/87.200.147.139|87.200.147.139]] ([[User talk:87.200.147.139|talk]]) 06:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
::In regards to some other comments I've seen with articles including test flights into the count. These test flights uses the actual production launch vehicle, not a prototype. Starship is still a prototype and not the final vehicle. A lot has already changed between IFT-1 and IFT-2, and probably again for IFT-3. But no other article has prototype test flights in the count. [[Special:Contributions/87.200.147.139|87.200.147.139]] ([[User talk:87.200.147.139|talk]]) 06:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
::There are test launches that use boilerplate or mass simulator payloads, and test launches that don't use any payloads at all.
::For the first Electron launch it was literally called "It's a Test" and still included in the launch infobox. It too had no payload, same as Starship, and it too was destroyed after first stage separation, just like Starship. [[User:CtrlDPredator|CtrlDPredator]] ([[User talk:CtrlDPredator|talk]]) 08:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
:::I agree, but please read the comment above. What I'm saying is that prototypes like this (rapidly evolving, trial by flying) aren't usually considered. The Electron launch you mentioned is a test flight but not the same nature. [[Special:Contributions/87.200.147.139|87.200.147.139]] ([[User talk:87.200.147.139|talk]]) 11:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
:::Please take this argument to the discussion section. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 12:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
::Given that removing the prototype flights seems unlikely, I'm switching to '''Partial Failure''', as IFT-2 satisfies all of the requirements (payload/crew not lost, vehicle entered usable, but not the intended trajectory). EDIT: PLEASE IGNORE THIS STATEMENT, NOW THAT MORE PEOPLE ARE JOINED "REMOVE" [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 12:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

===Discussion of RfC===
Pinging editors that have previously participated in the discussion: [[User: Arch dude|Arch dude]], {{u|Bugsiesegal}}, {{u|C9po}}, {{u|CtrlDPredator}}, {{u|Ergzay}}, {{u|Finlaymorrison0}}, {{u|Fnlayson}}, {{u|Full Shunyata}}, {{u|Fyunck(click)}}, {{u|Galactic Penguin SST}}, {{u|Gtoffoletto}}, {{u|Idontno2}}, {{u|Jrcraft Yt}}, {{u|LordDainIronfoot}}, {{u|North8000}}, {{u|Redacted II}}, {{u|Sub31k}}, {{u|Tarl N.}}, and {{u|mfb}}. Please list your position above in addition to any discussion you make in this subsection. – [[User:Jadebenn|Jadebenn]] <small>([[User talk:Jadebenn|talk]]&nbsp;<b>&middot;</b>&#32;[[Special:Contributions/Jadebenn|contribs]]&nbsp;<b>&middot;</b>&#32;[[Special:PrefixIndex/User:Jadebenn|subpages]])</small> 13:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

:Why is '''Partial Success''' a category? There is no difference between '''Partial Success''' and '''Partial Failure'''. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 13:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
::Both point to a failure in the end, so there should only be partial failure [[User:Fehér Zsigmond-03|Fehér Zsigmond-03]] ([[User talk:Fehér Zsigmond-03|talk]]) 14:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
:'''Comment''': We can't waste all this time for every launch. We should decide a '''rule to apply to all launches'''. Not decide on a case by case basis. I think given SpaceX's unique modus operandi in which they test partially incomplete prototypes as part of their development program we should distinguish between test launches and launches with an operational payload. With a clear method of understanding what a "success" is that is consistent across all vehicle types. Otherwise the infobox won't make any sense. This is probably a more centralised discussion rather than something we should decide in the article talk page of a single rocket. <span style="color:#AAA"><small><nowiki>&#123;{u&#124;</nowiki></small>[[User:Gtoffoletto|<span style="color:darkGreen;font-weight:bold">Gtoffoletto</span>]]<small><nowiki>&#125;}</nowiki></small></span>  <sup>[[User talk:Gtoffoletto|'''talk''']]</sup> 13:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
::Agreed, prototypes should be separate from fully capable vehichles [[User:Fehér Zsigmond-03|Fehér Zsigmond-03]] ([[User talk:Fehér Zsigmond-03|talk]]) 14:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
::Agreed. Due to SpaceX's unique testing practice marking these test launches as failures for Starship would cause a lot of confusion if Starship enters common use. [[User:Bugsiesegal|Bugsiesegal]] ([[User talk:Bugsiesegal|talk]]) 15:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
::I also agree that prototypes/test flights should have separate criteria from full production launches, but again there should be a general criteria for each, instead of a case by case basis. [[Special:Contributions/87.200.147.139|87.200.147.139]] ([[User talk:87.200.147.139|talk]]) 10:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
:::There is a general criteria:
:::Is the crew killed/payload destroyed: if yes, '''failure''', if no...
:::Is the final trajectory usable, if no, '''failure''', if yes...
:::Is the final trajectory the intended one, if yes, '''success''', if no, '''partial failure'''. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 13:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
::::You are ignoring that the vehicle was lost before achieving orbit. You are trying to hand-wave that since there was no "payload" that it doesn't matter that it blew up, but that was never applied before now. As well as using "trajectory" instead of orbit to try and get around that it didn't physically get there because it blew up. We shouldn't be trying to twist and change these statuses to fit Starship into partial failure. [[User:CtrlDPredator|CtrlDPredator]] ([[User talk:CtrlDPredator|talk]]) 05:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::Launch vehicles that exploded have been counted as successes before, such as the [[Crew Dragon In-Flight Abort Test]]. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 12:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::That is completely disingenuous, was not an orbital flight and was destroyed to successfully test the in-flight abort system of the dragon capsule. [[User:CtrlDPredator|CtrlDPredator]] ([[User talk:CtrlDPredator|talk]]) 16:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::It was not destroyed to test the in-flight abort system. It's destruction was expected, however.
:::::::And a launch is a launch, orbital, suborbital, or atmospheric. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 16:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::Its also different scenario then other test flights, since the design process, iteration is different, and isnt expected to survive. So is it not surviving really a failure? Wouldnt say so. [[User:Fehér Zsigmond-03|Fehér Zsigmond-03]] ([[User talk:Fehér Zsigmond-03|talk]]) 12:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:Gtoffoletto|Gtoffoletto]] take discussion to this section of the RFC.
:Also, that user has indicated that they aren't going to be convinced, no matter what you or anyone else says. Trust me, I tried. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 21:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:Yasslaywikia|Yasslaywikia]]
:"The spacecraft and booster terminated mid-flight and were unable to achieve their goals, that is to return to the launch pad or reach orbit"
:First, in a 100% nominal flight, the booster would not have returned to the launch pad. Second, failure to land doesn't count for failure v.s success, as has been established on the [[Falcon 9|Falcon 9 article]].
:"re-enter the Earth's atmosphere and splashdown in the ocean."
:Same as with the booster. That is part of the mission, not the launch. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 18:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
::Despite what the rest of the mission entailed, both Super Heavy and Starship were terminated mid-flight, so I wouldn't call this a successful launch. I stand by what I said in my original comment as I think that it's applicable in regards to the launch. Not meaning to look into a [[Wikipedia:Crystal ball|crystal ball]] here, but I don't think that we should categorise the success of each launch until Starship exits its prototype phase, that is if it starts launching payloads into orbit, however, this is beyond the scope of the RFC. Regards, [[User:Yasslaywikia|Yasslaywikia]] ([[User talk:Yasslaywikia|talk]]) 18:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
:::"Despite what the rest of the mission entailed, both Super Heavy and Starship were terminated mid-flight, so I wouldn't call this a successful launch."
:::That is a good point, however, vehicle explosion doesn't actually mean failure. [[Crew Dragon In-Flight Abort Test]] is an excellent example of this.
:::"I stand by what I said in my original comment as I think that it's applicable in regards to the launch"
:::For the booster, everything past MECO doesn't matter when defining success v failure. And once the ship has completed it's ascent phase (and payload deployment), then it is also irrelevant for success v failure.
:::"Not meaning to look into a [[Wikipedia:Crystal ball|crystal ball]] here, but I don't think that we should categorise the success of each launch until Starship exits its prototype phase, that is if it starts launching payloads into orbit, however, this is beyond the scope of the RFC."
:::There is a category for that: "'''REMOVE'''" [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 19:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
::::Sorry, I should've rephrased that slightly. What I meant is that we should classify the prototypes under a different category if Starship starts to launch payloads into space, as commercial launches will be different in how we determine that they're successful compared to the prototype flights.
::::For the Crew Dragon test, that was meant to explode as the objectives of the launch were different. For the reasons I've stated, I think that failure is the best way to describe how successful IFT-2 was, however, I am somewhat open to describing the launch as a partial failure, but I stand firmly on describing it as a failure. Regards, [[User:Yasslaywikia|Yasslaywikia]] ([[User talk:Yasslaywikia|talk]]) 20:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::"What I meant is that we should classify the prototypes under a different category if Starship starts to launch payloads into space"
:::::I agree, I just think we should start doing that now, instead of later.
:::::"For the Crew Dragon test, that was meant to explode as the objectives of the launch were different"
:::::Well, actually, it was expected to explode post-abort, but it's destruction (and please, correct me if I'm wrong) was not intentional. FTS didn't explode it, aerodynamic forces did. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 20:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

'''Remove that assessment from the infobox''' Infoboxes are only useful for slam-dumk certain factoids. The are problematic for everything else; the don't have the space for the necessary nuanceing, explanations, attributions etc. for cases like this the oversimplified "answer" is inherently [[WP:OR]] and controversial. In this case it leads to the many quandaries of subjectively deciding which of the many meanings of the words "success" and "failure" to use. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 16:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

:An amendment to this: remove it for the Integrated Flight Test's only. Once Starship is flying operationally, and not as a test vehicle, failure v success v partial failure should be much clearer and included in the infobox. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 16:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
:Just like Grasshopper wasn't a Falcon 9, IFT-1 and IFT-2 shouldn't even be considered Starships. Different second stage design, different gimbling mechanism (booster on IFT-1, both ships), no payload bay door (they were sealed around a year or so ago) and probably a host of other factors that none of us know about.
:By including them at all in the infobox, we are misleading everyone who reads this article. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 18:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
::Are you serious? [[User:Sub31k|Sub31k]] ([[User talk:Sub31k|talk]]) 18:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
:::yes, and this belongs in the discussion section. I'll be moving my comments in failure down there shortly [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 18:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
::::Practically everyone, including SpaceX themselves, call these vehicles Super Heavy and Starship. That is not your determination to make. [[User:FrostyAnimations126|Frosty126]] ([[User talk:FrostyAnimations126|talk]]) 18:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::And? Prototypes aren't included in the infobox for every vehicle except Starship. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 18:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::I don't see prototypes in the info box, where exactly is this? [[User:FrostyAnimations126|Frosty126]] ([[User talk:FrostyAnimations126|talk]]) 18:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::It took me a bit of time to realize what you meant, the only similar scenario I know of is with Enterprise and the ALT tests, the main difference is that IFTs are testing the entire system, not just Starship or Super Heavy. [[User:FrostyAnimations126|Frosty126]] ([[User talk:FrostyAnimations126|talk]]) 19:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::"the main difference is that IFTs are testing the entire system, not just Starship or Super Heavy."
:::::::I think that's irrelevant. Both stages were prototypes, so the only difference is that it was two prototypes instead of one that flew.
:::::::If you want, I could probably get a dozen sources that call the IFT-1 and IFT-2 stacks prototypes. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 19:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Could you provide examples of entire system prototypes being excluded from the launch count? I acknowledge that they are prototypes, but they should still be included in the count as they are still flights of the Starship stack. [[User:FrostyAnimations126|Frosty126]] ([[User talk:FrostyAnimations126|talk]]) 20:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::As a counter-example, I'll point to the page for [[SM-65 Atlas]], which lists the prototype [[SM-65A Atlas]] in its count. [[User:Sub31k|Sub31k]] ([[User talk:Sub31k|talk]]) 20:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::There really haven't been a lot of entire system prototypes, so no.
:::::::::Would you include the S8-Sn15 flights on the [[SpaceX Starship (spacecraft)]] article?
:::::::::@[[User:Sub31k|Sub31k]] excellent example, however, the SM-65A wasn't constantly changing (unlike the Starship prototypes), it was a full up version, with each missile being essentially identical. If you have a source that says otherwise, please share it. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 20:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::Can't find Atlas books in my library, so cannot ascertain, but this post https://www.drewexmachina.com/2015/06/11/first-atlas-tests/ is pretty clear on there being substantial article-to-article changes between SM-65As.
::::::::::That aside, it really seems like you search for any way in which historical flights are at all different to SpaceX Starship to justify a different treatment, starting from a position (Starship is different!) and working backwards from there. I don't think this is going to result in any meaningful resolution. [[User:Sub31k|Sub31k]] ([[User talk:Sub31k|talk]]) 21:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::I've read the article you linked, and I don't think the changes were ''as'' substantial as the ones between B7/S24 and B9/S25 (removed engine skirt and additional engine shielding, compared to the previously mentioned changes for starship), but I'll read it a few more times to make sure.
:::::::::::"That aside, it really seems like you search for any way in which historical flights are at all different to SpaceX Starship to justify a different treatment."
:::::::::::I do go through every example failure listed to see what differences there are, and if they are enough to justify IFT-2 being a partial failure, and not a failure. So that might be what's causing it.
:::::::::::"I don't think this is going to result in any meaningful resolution."
:::::::::::I do have some compromise ideas that may satisfy both sides, but some of these were denied during the IFT-1 debate, so I'm not sure how it will go. If you want me to list them, I can do that.
:::::::::::Finally, let's take this to the discussion section instead. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 21:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::SpaceX's development approach is "different" for the space industry. See for example this Oxford case study examining those differences: [https://qz.com/emails/space-business/2172377/an-oxford-case-study-explains-why-spacex-is-more-efficient-than-nasa]. The "platform" approach described in this paper is not "compatible" with our current success/failure infobox. I think @[[User:North8000|North8000]]'s idea is probably the best solution for the moment until we can find something better. We can't have this discussion for every launch. This is clearly controversial and a huge time waste. <span style="color:#AAA"><small><nowiki>&#123;{u&#124;</nowiki></small>[[User:Gtoffoletto|<span style="color:darkGreen;font-weight:bold">Gtoffoletto</span>]]<small><nowiki>&#125;}</nowiki></small></span>  <sup>[[User talk:Gtoffoletto|'''talk''']]</sup> 01:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The Ansar and Flyvbjerg study was published in the [[Oxford Review of Economic Policy|''Oxford Review of Economic Policy'']], and [[public policy]] is the focus of the study's theory.{{tq2|A timeless question arises whether public policy responses to big societal problems should occur in big bold leaps or in small repeatable steps.|source= Ansar, A., & Flyvbjerg, B., [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4119492 How to Solve Big Problems: Bespoke Versus Platform Strategies]}}
:::::::::::::It's not a technical examination of SpaceX, and if this exception is applied, SpaceX's competitors will also qualify.
:::::::::::::{{tq2|We’ll focus here on just one company, SpaceX, but its competitors are sharing the same experience.|source=Ansar, A., & Flyvbjerg, B., [https://hbr.org/2022/11/a-platform-approach-to-space-exploration A platform approach to space exploration], [[Harvard Business Review]]}} [[User:Redraiderengineer|Redraiderengineer]] ([[User talk:Redraiderengineer|talk]]) 15:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
::Support as second option to partial failure. Remove the classifications for the IFTs only, and add those once Starship is in full production and is no longer in its prototype stages. Or, we should list these prototypes separately, but that was discussed before. [[Special:Contributions/87.200.147.139|87.200.147.139]] ([[User talk:87.200.147.139|talk]]) 11:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
:::please move this to '''Partial Failure''' [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 13:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

:@[[User:Jadebenn|Jadebenn]] '''Success''' is my vote. You're missing the option of "Success". This launch and even IFT-1 were "Successes" because they were test flights with end goals of eventual vehicle destruction. Once this is all done we're going to have to have another RFC to relabel all the test flights as successes and then have a separate category for operational launches. What we're talking about is the equivalent of Grasshopper test flights right now, of which only the last one was a failure because they were not intending to test the vehicle to destruction. For Starship test flights all vehicles are intended to be tested to failure. [[User:Ergzay|Ergzay]] ([[User talk:Ergzay|talk]]) 15:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
::IFT-1 lost control and broke up, IFT-2 was terminated. The final objectives of both flights were successful re-entry of Starship. When did SpaceX ever state these were destructive tests? [[User:FrostyAnimations126|Frosty126]] ([[User talk:FrostyAnimations126|talk]]) 15:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
:::Launch and mission are separate, as has been established by Falcon 9. Failure/Partial Failure/Success distinctions end for the booster at Stage Separation and SECO for the ship.
:::(Though, in the mission plan, SpaceX clearly indicates both vehicles would be destroyed in a nominal scenario) [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 15:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:FrostyAnimations126|Frosty126]] SpaceX stated during the live stream and before both tests that the goal of IFT-1 was to "not destroy the pad" by blowing up the vehicle on the pad and the goal in IFT-2 was "to get through staging". [[User:Ergzay|Ergzay]] ([[User talk:Ergzay|talk]]) 15:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
::::Success for SpaceX and Success by Wikipedia standard are very different things. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 15:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::Well maybe we can work on changing Wikipedia's definition to allow for SpaceX's industry standard violating definitions that involve iterative development, something not performed elsewhere in the industry. [[User:Ergzay|Ergzay]] ([[User talk:Ergzay|talk]]) 16:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::That discussion is for Project Spaceflight (or Rocketry), not here [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 16:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
::::Exactly [[User:Fehér Zsigmond-03|Fehér Zsigmond-03]] ([[User talk:Fehér Zsigmond-03|talk]]) 16:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
::::I don't think anyone other than SpaceX would ever consider an unintentional loss of vehicle a success. While getting through hot-staging was the main objective for IFT-2, it was not the final nor only objective. A successful test would be expected to verify all components of the system for operational flight. [[User:FrostyAnimations126|Frosty126]] ([[User talk:FrostyAnimations126|talk]]) 16:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::Please remember to ignore anything past SECO for the ship and anything past stage separation of the booster when referring to launch success.
:::::Anything past those two milestones for the respective vehicles is referring to the mission, not the launch. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 16:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::I'm referring to the test as a whole, which I'm pretty sure means the whole mission. [[User:FrostyAnimations126|Frosty126]] ([[User talk:FrostyAnimations126|talk]]) 16:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::This RFC is referring to the Launch, and not the mission. So using parts of the mission to determine success of the launch is misleading. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 16:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Considering the launch only, the vehicle was lost ''before'' orbital insertion, meaning the launch was still a failure. [[User:FrostyAnimations126|Frosty126]] ([[User talk:FrostyAnimations126|talk]]) 17:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Yes, but how fast did Starship need to go in order to test reentry? That would be the definition of the "usable orbit" required for partial failure.
:::::::::And previous flights have shown suborbital trajectories (similar to the final trajectory of IFT-2) are sufficient for testing the heat shield of orbital reentry vehicles. [[Gemini 2]] and [[Atmospheric Reentry Demonstrator]] demonstrate this very well. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 18:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::I don't know if the orbit was usable, however loss of vehicle is what made this a failure. [[User:FrostyAnimations126|Frosty126]] ([[User talk:FrostyAnimations126|talk]]) 18:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::If it inserted the payload (in this case, itself. Does starship count as a payload?) into a usable orbit, then it's a partial failure. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 18:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
::Ift1 wanted to lift off, ift 2 wanted to test staging. Spacex never stated this would survive, wich is similar to it [[User:Fehér Zsigmond-03|Fehér Zsigmond-03]] ([[User talk:Fehér Zsigmond-03|talk]]) 15:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
:Alternatively, completely remove the section as @[[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] presented above, which is also for some reason not an option in your poll.[[User:Ergzay|Ergzay]] ([[User talk:Ergzay|talk]]) 15:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


:'''RfC Statement:''' @[[User:Jadebenn|Jadebenn]], based on the existing discussion and for greater clarity, it's preferrable to [[WP:RFCQ#Modifying or challenging questions|modify]] the statement. The current wording of the question results in voting on multiple options, which is [[WP:RFCBRIEF|discouraged]].
:I recommend: "Should the SpaceX Starship IFT-2 launch be categorized as "failure" or "partial failure" in the infobox?" This question is specific, neutral, and brief. If this RfC doesn't resolve additional points of contention, we can [[WP:RFCQ#Specificity|create further RfCs]] to address these points. [[User:Redraiderengineer|Redraiderengineer]] ([[User talk:Redraiderengineer|talk]]) 16:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
::I disagree, the current RFC description is neutral and is specific enough for the current debate. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 16:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
::Modified accordingly. Can someone separate the discussions out of the position listings? They're supposed to make it clear which editors hold what position. The actual discussion of said positions should be confined to the section here. I'd do it myself but it's very difficult to do the edits from a phone. – [[User:Jadebenn|Jadebenn]] <small>([[User talk:Jadebenn|talk]]&nbsp;<b>&middot;</b>&#32;[[Special:Contributions/Jadebenn|contribs]]&nbsp;<b>&middot;</b>&#32;[[Special:PrefixIndex/User:Jadebenn|subpages]])</small> 18:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
:::I'll start moving mine out. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 18:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:Jrcraft Yt|Jrcraft Yt]]
:Read the previous discussion. There are reasons for almost all (but not all, like the Electron launch. I'd support reclassification of that to "Other Outcome") of the example launches to be a failure.
:'''H3 first flight''': Desired orbit: LEO. Final "orbit": Very suborbital. '''Failure'''
:'''Rocket 3''': LEO attempt, failed to get past staging. '''Failure'''
:'''Terran 1''': No second stage ignition. '''Failure'''
:'''Launcher One''': First stage engine failure, didn't reach staging. '''Failure'''
:'''Ariane 5''': Didn't even make it to staging. '''Failure'''
:'''Zhuque-2''': Wasn't a prototype vehicle, and was almost twice as far from the desired orbit as IFT-2 was at the end of their respective flights.
:'''Zhuque-1''': Desired orbit: LEO. Was slower than IFT-2 near staging. '''Failure'''
:'''N1''': Not prototype vehicles, never made it through first stage burn. '''Failure'''
:'''Falcon 1''': Failed to make it through stage 1 burn/stage 2 issues much farther from desired trajectory than IFT-2/engine destroyed by first stage residual thrust. '''Failure'''
:'''Proton K''': It flew off course very early on in the flight (although we might be referring to different flights). '''Failure'''
:'''Long March 7a''': didn't make it to staging. '''Failure'''.
:'''Zenit-3sl''': didn't reach orbit on what seems like a GEO launch. '''Failure'''
:'''ABL RS1''': Engines failed right after liftoff. '''Failure'''
:And, for the two Starship launches:
:'''IFT-1''': didn't make it near the karman line, much less TAO. '''Failure'''
:'''IFT-2''': made it past staging, less than 1 km/s from desired orbit. Was going fast enough to test reentry ([[Atmospheric Reentry Demonstrator]], [[Gemini 2]]). '''Partial Failure''' [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 18:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
:::: Notice how you structure each one of those '''around''' Starship. You're making Starship the baseline. In effect, saying getting close but not as close as Starship IFT-2 is failure. "Too slow" "not as far downrange." Incredibly flawed analysis. The baseline for an orbital launch is orbit, not "as close or closer than Starship got." Let's be serious. --[[User:Jrcraft Yt|Jrcraft Yt]] ([[User talk:Jrcraft Yt|talk]]) 18:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::(amended descript)
:::::'''H3 first flight''': Desired orbit: LEO. Final "orbit": Very suborbital. '''Failure'''
:::::'''Rocket 3''': LEO attempt, failed to get past staging. '''Failure'''
:::::'''Terran 1''': No second stage ignition. '''Failure'''
:::::'''Launcher One''': First stage engine failure, didn't reach staging. '''Failure'''
:::::'''Ariane 5''': Didn't even make it to staging. '''Failure'''
:::::'''Zhuque-2''': Wasn't a prototype vehicle, stage 2 (3? Zhuque-2 does switch engines) issues with over 2km/s left.
:::::'''Zhuque-1''': Desired orbit: LEO. Stage 3 issues with over 2km/s left. '''Failure'''
:::::'''N1''': Not prototype vehicles, never made it through first stage burn. '''Failure'''
:::::'''Falcon 1''': Failed to make it through stage 1 burn/stage 2 issues with over 2km/s./engine destroyed by first stage residual thrust. '''Failure'''
:::::'''Proton K''': It flew off course very early on in the flight (although we might be referring to different flights). '''Failure'''
:::::'''Long March 7a''': didn't make it to staging. '''Failure'''.
:::::'''Zenit-3sl''': didn't reach orbit on what seems like a GEO launch. '''Failure'''
:::::'''ABL RS1''': Engines failed right after liftoff. '''Failure'''
:::::And, for the two Starship launches:
:::::'''IFT-1''': didn't make it near the karman line, much less TAO. '''Failure'''
:::::'''IFT-2''': made it past staging, less than 1 km/s from desired orbit. Was going fast enough to test reentry ([[Atmospheric Reentry Demonstrator]], [[Gemini 2]]). '''Partial Failure''' [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 18:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
::You are ignoring the first Electron launch which was also a failure, despite having no payload, being a test and completing 1st stage separation. And just stating a list of other failed launches doesn't make IFT-2 a partial success. [[User:CtrlDPredator|CtrlDPredator]] ([[User talk:CtrlDPredator|talk]]) 06:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
:::That's because I objected to the first Electron Launch being a failure. The failure was of the ground system, not the vehicle itself.
:::But, if you insist:
:::I don't have it's final velocity anywhere, but it seems like it was at least 2-3 km/s from the desired final trajectory (and over 270 km from the desired altitude). And for a 500 km orbit, that's more than enough to make it a failure. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 12:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
::It could be argued the terran 1 launch is succes because they wanted to test the strenght of the printing [[User:Fehér Zsigmond-03|Fehér Zsigmond-03]] ([[User talk:Fehér Zsigmond-03|talk]]) 07:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
:(moved from failure discussion):
:Reaching orbit gives a 15 m/s window, while the velocity needed to test the heat shield is probably in the 5.5-6 km/s range (see [[Gemini 2]]). [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 18:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::: Rocket 3.0 on 15 December 2020 got, by your own definition, closer to orbit (short by 0.5 km/s). The only failure that could be realistically sent to partial ''on the merits of reaching orbit'' was the June 21 1985 Zenit launch. 2nd stage engine blew up near end of burn, sending some fragments of the vehicle into orbit. Back to "discrediting everything else but Starship" as I said before, demonstrating my argument. 18:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)) --[[User:Jrcraft Yt|Jrcraft Yt]] ([[User talk:Jrcraft Yt|talk]]) 18:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::So, using logic to explain why your examples weren't partial failures, while using the same logic to say IFT-2 was a partial failure, is "discrediting everything else but Starship"?
:::::::'''Rocket 3 (again)''': failed to reach orbit, desired orbit was 390 km circular (if I am wrong, please correct me and [[List of Astra rocket launches]]). '''Failure''', as orbit wasn't stable.
:::::::I don't think your being serious with the June 21 1985 Zenit Launch, but in case you were,
:::::::'''Zenit-2''': Failed to reach orbit, lost payload.
:::::::IFT-2 did not lose the payload (only because there was no payload), and the final trajectory was usable for testing reentry.
::::::: Edit: Having saw your "Failure is my end state" message, I'll stop trying to convince you otherwise.[[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 19:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:Tarl N.|Tarl N.]] Completing all <u>mission</u> objectives is not required for a <u>successful</u> launch. The only launch milestone not met was SECO (Anything with the Booster after stage separation isn't required, as has been established by Falcon), which it missed by a minute while going fast enough to test the tiles. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 20:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] Where is it written down that this is the definition of launch success? Personally I don't even consider IFT-2 a "launch" but a "mission". The IFT-2 mission was to test multiple aspects of the vehicle with success of that mission set at the point the of staging. The point of success for IFT-1 mission was leaving the pad (it could be argued the mission for IFT-1 was a partial failure because of the unintended damage to the pad). [[User:Ergzay|Ergzay]] ([[User talk:Ergzay|talk]]) 00:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
:::Thats partially your way of seeing things, but it certainly makes sense [[User:Fehér Zsigmond-03|Fehér Zsigmond-03]] ([[User talk:Fehér Zsigmond-03|talk]]) 07:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
:::The definition is from established precedent on every single rocket's infobox. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 12:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:Mfb|Mfb]] In order for the "orbit" to be usable, it needed to be going fast enough to test the tiles (on this launch). [[Gemini 2]] and the [[Atmospheric Reentry Demonstrator]] both tested orbital reentry vehicles on suborbital trajectories. So, it was going fast enough.
:And if the "orbit" is usable, it counts as a partial failure. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 12:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
::Doesn't loss of vehicle make this a failure, regardless of whether the orbit was usable? [[User:FrostyAnimations126|Frosty126]] ([[User talk:FrostyAnimations126|talk]]) 13:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
:::I don't think so, as the Dragon 2 In-Flight Abort vehicle was destroyed (though this was expected, and after payload "deployment") before the FTS went off. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 13:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
::::The difference is that Starship is part of the launch vehicle and payload, as it puts itself into orbit. Loss of Starship would be comparable to the loss of Dragon 2 or the Space Shuttle orbiter, not the loss of the booster. [[User:FrostyAnimations126|Frosty126]] ([[User talk:FrostyAnimations126|talk]]) 14:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::"Loss of Starship would be comparable to the loss of Dragon 2 or the Space Shuttle orbiter, not the loss of the booster."
:::::Is it? Starship is a second stage, which deploys a payload into the desired orbit. Just because it returns from orbit doesn't make it the payload. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 15:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::Yes, it is, they are all spacecraft, and the orbiter and Starship just happen to be part of the launch vehicle.
::::::"Just because it returns form orbit doesn't make it the payload." My point was that it being put into orbit does. [[User:FrostyAnimations126|Frosty126]] ([[User talk:FrostyAnimations126|talk]]) 16:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::"Yes, it is, they are all spacecraft, and the orbiter and Starship just happen to be part of the launch vehicle."
:::::::"My point was that it being put into orbit does"
:::::::[[Centaur (rocket stage)|Centaur upper stages]] are put into orbit. Are they spacecraft? No, they aren't. So why is Starship a spacecraft? It deploys the payload, and (with the exception of crewed starships and HLS, but neither have flown) doesn't carry a crew. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 16:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::[[Spacecraft]] considers Starship as such.
::::::::"[[Centaur (rocket stage)|Centaur upper stages]] are put into orbit. Are they spacecraft? No, they aren't." My point was being put into orbit made them payload. [[User:FrostyAnimations126|Frosty126]] ([[User talk:FrostyAnimations126|talk]]) 16:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::So, the Centaur is part of the payload of the Atlas V? I don't think it i.
:::::::::The S-IVB isn't counted as part of the TLI payload of the [[Saturn V]], as another example. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 16:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::The "them" was referring to was Starship and the Space Shuttle orbiter, they can be considered payload because they are operational spacecraft. [[User:FrostyAnimations126|Frosty126]] ([[User talk:FrostyAnimations126|talk]]) 18:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::I don't think Starship counts as a payload, but I can confirm that shuttle doesn't. Look at the payload capacity listed on it's [[Space Shuttle|article]]: 27550 kg (204 km LEO). The dry mass of the [[Space Shuttle Endeavour|lightest orbiter]] is 78000 kg. As 78000 is more than 27550, the space shuttle is not counted as a payload on it's article.
:::::::::::So why should Starship be any different? [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 18:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::It depends on the context, when talking about what the system puts into orbit, the orbiter and Starship can be included. However, in most cases it refers to cargo of the spacecraft to be payload. Dragon carries cargo and Starship carries cargo, while both are spacecraft, Starship is part of the launch vehicle. The only reason I made that distinction is because Starship isn't just a stage, but a spacecraft with a very large (projected) cargo capacity. [[User:FrostyAnimations126|Frosty126]] ([[User talk:FrostyAnimations126|talk]]) 18:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I see your argument, but I have to disagree with you.
:::::::::::::This debate has occurred before: [[Talk:Super heavy-lift launch vehicle#It seems strange to include the Space Shuttle|here is one example]]. I
:::::::::::::The final decision was that the Shuttle is part of the launch vehicle, and not part of the payload. During every flight, it was the orbital insertion stage, so (technically), the shuttle was a two stage launch vehicle.
:::::::::::::Given that Starship is much closer to being a full launch vehicle than the shuttle was, then it shouldn't be considered a payload. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 18:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
::It didn't test the tiles, and it never had a chance to test them without reaching its target orbit (which it failed to do). --[[User:Mfb|mfb]] ([[User talk:Mfb|talk]]) 14:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
:::There are multiple examples of suborbital trajectories being used to test heat shields of orbital vehicles ([[Gemini 2]], [[Atmospheric Reentry Demonstrator]]). So it was in a usable "orbit" for the end goals of the mission. (though it's debris didn't reenter in the exclusion zone).
:::Reaching the target orbit is a success (such as Starship reaching orbit but burning up)
:::Reaching a usable trajectory is a partial failure (IFT-2)
:::Not reaching a usable trajectory is a failure (IFT-1). [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 15:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
::::The heat shield wasn't tested because communications were lost and the thing exploded. That should be important to note if you use heat shield testing as a criterion for a viable orbit. Again it seems like you're going with the minimal viable definition that includes IFT2. [[User:Sub31k|Sub31k]] ([[User talk:Sub31k|talk]]) 16:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::"The heat shield wasn't tested because communications were lost and the thing exploded."
:::::Is it confirmed that it exploded because comms were lost? I thought comms were lost because it exploded. If you have a source that says otherwise, please share it.
:::::"That should be important to note if you use heat shield testing as a criterion for a viable orbit."
:::::A viable orbit is one that allows for heat shield testing, but testing the heat shield is part of the mission, and not the launch (the divider is really weird for vehicles like Starship and the Space Shuttle).
:::::"Again it seems like you're going with the minimal viable definition that includes IFT2."
:::::For me, it seems like you (not just you) are going with the opposite, throwing in requirements to exclude IFT-2.
:::::But the definition I used is identical to the definition used for every other vehicle: it must enter a (somewhat) usable trajectory, and not cause the death/destruction of the crew/payload.
:::::IFT-2 had no payload, so the second part does not apply. And it did enter a usable trajectory, thus satisfying the first part. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 17:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::Personally I've been of the opinion that since independent reporting is saying test failure, then the infobox would do fine mirroring that. Everything else is just throwing in opinions to arguments that others have brought up.
::::::It's nice to have physical criteria, but given how subjective under interpretation they clearly have been, it's not something I'm very interested in. And anyway, two different events will always have differences in the details. But one has to avoid "splitting hairs". Everything is an exception to the norm in its own way. [[User:Sub31k|Sub31k]] ([[User talk:Sub31k|talk]]) 19:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::"Personally I've been of the opinion that since independent reporting is saying test failure, then the infobox would do fine mirroring that"
:::::::Well, for IFT-1, the majority of sources called it a success or partial failure (If I remember correctly), and not failure. I am not saying IFT-1 needs reclassification, and will oppose any push to label it as a partial failure.
:::::::"It's nice to have physical criteria, but given how subjective under interpretation they clearly have been, it's not something I'm very interested in."
:::::::If something meets the criteria to be a partial failure, then why shouldn't it be a partial failure?
:::::::"And anyway, two different events will always have differences in the details. But one has to avoid "splitting hairs"."
:::::::Yes, different events will always have differences. And those differences, if major enough, can result in different classification. I don't think pointing them out constitutes "splitting hairs", but, as you have said many times, "Interpretations vary".
:::::::"Everything is an exception to the norm in its own way."
:::::::Agreed. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 20:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::It did not reach a usable trajectory for a heat shield test. It was programmed to blow up if it doesn't reach its target orbit. A test at lower velocities was never an option. --[[User:Mfb|mfb]] ([[User talk:Mfb|talk]]) 07:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Yes, because safety margins, if it werent for that, it very well could have done it. [[User:Fehér Zsigmond-03|Fehér Zsigmond-03]] ([[User talk:Fehér Zsigmond-03|talk]]) 07:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::We don't know if it was safety margins that destroyed the vehicle. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 12:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Im not saying we do, im saying that its a likely reason for the activation of the explosives [[User:Fehér Zsigmond-03|Fehér Zsigmond-03]] ([[User talk:Fehér Zsigmond-03|talk]]) 13:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::"Im not saying we do, im saying that its a likely reason for the activation of the explosives"
::::::::::::Here's a quote from you that contradicts this:
::::::::::::"Yes, because safety margins, if it werent for that, it very well could have done it."
::::::::::::Don't say it was safety margins as a fact when the actual cause is still unknown to everyone (with the exception of everyone who actually works for SpaceX, and even then, they still might not have figured it out yet, cause it's only been 12 days). [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 13:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::There are examples of suborbital trajectories being used to test Orbital Reentry Vehicles ([[Gemini 2]], [[Atmospheric Reentry Demonstrator]]). So "A test at lower velocities was never an option" is completely wrong. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 12:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::We are discussing Starship, not these other vehicles. Starship was programmed to blow up if it can't get fast enough to deorbit near Hawaii. It couldn't get fast enough, so it blew up. Testing the heat shield at lower velocities was never an option for this flight of this vehicle. The general ability to get data about a heat shield at 6.5 km/s in a flight is irrelevant. --[[User:Mfb|mfb]] ([[User talk:Mfb|talk]]) 17:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::"Starship was programmed to blow up if it can't get fast enough to deorbit near Hawaii."
:::::::::::It wouldn't deorbit during a nominal flight. If it had to, that would be a complete failure (accidentally reaching a stable orbit)
:::::::::::"The general ability to get data about a heat shield at 6.5 km/s in a flight is irrelevant."
:::::::::::The mission was to test entry. It was going fast enough to test entry. However, it was not fast enough to reenter in the designated area, so it exploded. So, the ability to get data at that velocity is very relevant. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 17:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

There are roughly five arguments the small but vocal group of editors opposing the classification of IFT-2 as a "failure" are making.

*Argument 1: Starship is a prototype with an iterative development process.
:First, numerous launch vehicles include non-operational launches (e.g., prototypes and test vehicles/flights) in the infobox launch count. [[Angara (rocket family)|Angara]], [[Antares (rocket)]], [[Rocket Lab Electron|Electron]], [[Epsilon (rocket)|Epsilon]], [[Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle|GSLV]], [[LVM3]], [[Saturn I]], [[Saturn IB]], [[Small Satellite Launch Vehicle|SSLV]], [[Zhuque-2]], [[Falcon Heavy]], and notably [[Falcon 1]], which had a commercial launch, all include non-operational launches in their infobox launch count.

:Second, the iterative development process isn’t unique to Starship or SpaceX. It's at the core of the [[engineering design process]]. SpaceX has adopted a [[History of SpaceX#Falcon 1|rapid iteration approach]] (i.e., “move fast, break things”) known as [[Iterative and incremental development#Use in hardware and embedded systems|iterative and incremental development]]. The accepted tradeoff of this process is [https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/16/spacex-biggest-challenge/ “failure in the development phase.”]

*Argument 2: List the prototypes separately.
:Once a new version of Starship has flown, [[WP:CCC|consensus may change]]. Future versions will likely be listed in a similar format to the [[Falcon 9]] infobox. However, that discussion is beyond the scope of this RfC.

*Argument 3: IFT-2 satisfies the “partial failure” criteria.
:For an orbital launch, the “partial failure” criteria are predicated on reaching orbit. [[Orbit]] is used synonymously with the term [[trajectory]] in some replies.
:{{tq2|There is a general criteria:<br />Is the crew killed/payload destroyed: if yes, '''failure''', if no... <br />Is the final trajectory usable, if no, '''failure''', if yes... <br />Is the final trajectory the intended one, if yes, '''success''', if no, '''partial failure'''.|Redacted II|ts= 13:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)|oldid= 1188125641}}
:While an orbit is a trajectory, the term specifically refers to a trajectory (in this case) [[List of orbits#Altitude classifications for geocentric orbits|around Earth]]. IFT-2 failed to reach orbit and doesn’t meet this criteria as applied on other launch vehicle articles.

*Argument 4: Ignore anything past SECO.
:[[SpaceX CRS-1|CRS-1]] is listed as a partial failure in [[Falcon 9]] infobox. Dragon, the primary payload, successfully reached its orbit. However, the secondary payload couldn’t reach its intended orbit after SECO, and the launch was declared a partial failure.

*Argument 5: IFT-2’s mission was to test re-entry.
:The [[SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 2|IFT-2 article]] states the mission’s primary objectives. Further, during the SpaceX stream, the objectives (as viewed by SpaceX) were discussed. Re-entry wasn’t the standard set by SpaceX.
:{{tq2|So, let’s talk about some objectives for today. The primary goal for flight one was to clear the pad. We did that, and we got amazing data that helped us to improve the vehicle and pad that you see right there. Today, this time on flight two, we’re hoping to get all the way through stage separation where we will try to perform this hot staging maneuver. In the bigger picture, ascent is the most critical objective today, and everything else is learning.}}
[[User:Redraiderengineer|Redraiderengineer]] ([[User talk:Redraiderengineer|talk]]) 21:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

:"First, numerous launch vehicles include non-operational launches (e.g., prototypes and test vehicles/flights) in the infobox launch count"
:All the examples you listed flew production vehicles. Test launch does not equal prototype launch.
:"Once a new version of Starship has flown, consensus may change. Future versions will likely be listed in a similar format to the Falcon 9 infobox. However, that discussion is beyond the scope of this RfC."
:How is it outside of the scope of this RFC? It's titled: "RFC on Infobox Flight status".
:"While an orbit is a trajectory, the term specifically refers to a trajectory (in this case) [[List of orbits#Altitude classifications for geocentric orbits|around Earth]]. IFT-2 failed to reach orbit and doesn’t meet this criteria as applied on other launch vehicle articles."
:So, your back to the 15 m/s range. Which is ridiculously small, given that other flights (with payloads and even crew) have much larger ranges for success, much less partial failure.
:"[[SpaceX CRS-1|CRS-1]] is listed as a partial failure in [[Falcon 9]] infobox. Dragon, the primary payload, successfully reached its orbit. However, the secondary payload couldn’t reach its intended orbit after SECO, and the launch was declared a partial failure."
:It wasn't inserted into the intended trajectory. This doesn't violate "IFT-2’s mission was to test re-entry."
:"So, let’s talk about some objectives for today. The primary goal for flight one was to clear the pad. We did that, and we got amazing data that helped us to improve the vehicle and pad that you see right there. Today, this time on flight two, we’re hoping to get all the way through stage separation where we will try to perform this hot staging maneuver. In the bigger picture, ascent is the most critical objective today, and everything else is learning."
:So, primary objective was hot staging (though this logic has been rejected (by people who want failure, not partial failure). Which was successful. So this argument falls apart. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 22:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
::*Argument 1: Starship is a prototype with an iterative development process.
:::{{tq2|All the examples you listed flew production vehicles. Test launch does not equal prototype launch.|Redacted II|ts=22:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)|oldid=1188356321}}
:::The list includes numerous launch vehicles with non-production/operational launches. Falcon 1, the first launch vehicle developed and built by SpaceX, is on that list. You would be hard-pressed to call it a production launch vehicle (at least for the first four vehicles). SpaceX considers it a prototype, and all five Falcon 1 launches are included in the infobox launch count.
:::{{tq2|Falcon 1, SpaceX’s prototype rocket, is the first privately developed liquid-fueled rocket to orbit Earth|source=[https://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/010/presskit.pdf SpaceX Press Kit]}}
::*Argument 2: List the prototypes separately.
:::{{tq2|How is it outside of the scope of this RFC? It's titled: "RFC on Infobox Flight status".|Redacted II|ts=22:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)|oldid=1188356321}}
:::The RfC [[WP:RFCBRIEF|statement/question]] is the focus of the discussion. Separating the prototypes is a valid topic of discussion, but the goal of this RfC isn’t to reach a consensus on that point.
:::{{tq2|Should the SpaceX Starship IFT-2 launch be categorized as "failure" or "partial failure" in the infobox?|Jadebenn|ts=13:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)|oldid=1187351596}}
::*Argument 3: IFT-2 satisfies the “partial failure” criteria.
:::{{tq2|So, your back to the 15 m/s range. Which is ridiculously small, given that other flights (with payloads and even crew) have much larger ranges for success, much less partial failure.|Redacted II|ts=22:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)|oldid=1188356321}}
:::This is a [[straw man]] argument. It's your unsubstantiated calculation of Δv based on arbitrary parameters. Your calculation isn't generalizable across orbital launches.
::*Argument 4: Ignore anything past SECO.
:::{{tq2|It wasn't inserted into the intended trajectory. This doesn't violate "IFT-2’s mission was to test re-entry.".|Redacted II|ts=22:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)|oldid=1188356321}}
:::The second stage was capable of delivering the secondary payload to the intended trajectory. It had a 95% probability of completing the second burn, but the required probability of failure was less than 1%. As a result, the burn was aborted. CRS-1 is an example, but the rebuttal is focused on the shortcomings of the {{tq|anything past SECO doesn't impact success v failure}} standard you've stated.
::*Argument 5: IFT-2’s mission was to test re-entry.
:::{{tq2|So, primary objective was hot staging (though this logic has been rejected (by people who want failure, not partial failure). Which was successful. So this argument falls apart.|Redacted II|ts=22:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)|oldid=1188356321}}
:::This is a rebuttal to your claim of partial failure that is predicated on re-entry as the primary objective and factor in determining the usability of an orbit. (See your reply: {{tq|...how fast did Starship need to go in order to test reentry? That would be the definition of the "usable orbit" required for partial failure.}}) The arguments made in the "failure" section don't depend on re-entry.
::*Reaching a consensus
:::{{tq2|So long as each side stubbornly (and everyone here is to blame for this, including you and me) insists on getting everything and refuses to make compromises, then no, I don't think anyone will switch sides.|Redacted II|ts=13:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)|oldid=1188446888}}
:::The outcome (and therefore consensus) of this RfC isn't difficult to predict when examining the current arguments in the "failure" and "partial failure" sections, and it aligns with the outcome of previous RfCs. Eventually, there's a risk of [[WP:GAME|gaming the consensus-building process]] and [[WP:STONEWALL|stonewalling]] when one or two insistent editors repeatedly push their viewpoint.
::[[User:Redraiderengineer|Redraiderengineer]] ([[User talk:Redraiderengineer|talk]]) 17:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
:::"You would be hard-pressed to call it a production launch vehicle (at least for the first four vehicles)"
:::Except they were production vehicles
:::"The RfC [[Wikipedia:RFCBRIEF|statement/question]] is the focus of the discussion. Separating the prototypes is a valid topic of discussion, but the goal of this RfC isn’t to reach a consensus on that point."
:::Fair.
:::"This is a [[straw man]] argument. It's your unsubstantiated calculation of Δv based on arbitrary parameters. Your calculation isn't generalizable across orbital launches."
:::First, do you want me to show you the math? Cause I can do that.
:::Second, it's a rejection of your orbit requirement, and an explanation as to why it falls apart for TransAtmospheric.
:::"The second stage was capable of delivering the secondary payload to the intended trajectory. It had a 95% probability of completing the second burn, but the required probability of failure was less than 1%. As a result, the burn was aborted. CRS-1 is an example, but the rebuttal is focused on the shortcomings of the <q>anything past SECO doesn't impact success v failure</q> standard you've stated."
:::First, where did you get the 95% probability. Same for required probability of failure being less than 1%. If this is regarding CRS-1, then it still doesn't violate my "Anything past SECO doesn't impact success v failure"
:::"The outcome (and therefore consensus) of this RfC isn't difficult to predict when examining the current arguments in the "failure" and "partial failure" sections, and it aligns with the outcome of previous RfCs. Eventually, there's a risk of [[Wikipedia:GAME|gaming the consensus-building process]] and [[Wikipedia:STONEWALL|stonewalling]] when one or two insistent editors repeatedly push their viewpoint."
:::Are you likely to get your way? Yes, there is a near-certain probability that the debate closer (is that the right term?) will side with you. But that doesn't negate the right of everyone who believes IFT-2 was a partial failure to try to push for it.
:::
:::
:::Finally, how did you color in your quotations of my responses? [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 17:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
:This is a good summary of the arguments and I feel it rightly shows how there is an attempt to redefine partial failure to fit the last Starship launch, instead of evaluating the launch for what it was. [[User:CtrlDPredator|CtrlDPredator]] ([[User talk:CtrlDPredator|talk]]) 09:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
::Did you read the reply of Redacted II? He basically counters every argument against it. [[User:Fehér Zsigmond-03|Fehér Zsigmond-03]] ([[User talk:Fehér Zsigmond-03|talk]]) 11:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
:::Honestly I don't feel like they did. Inventing your own criteria around an arbitrary 15m/s and presenting it as some sort of agreed upon threshold isn't countering the argument. We have discussed this over and over and it is clear that no matter how many similar examples or precedents are presented that the goalposts keep changing to try and fit Starship into Partial Failure. No one is going to change their mind here. [[User:CtrlDPredator|CtrlDPredator]] ([[User talk:CtrlDPredator|talk]]) 13:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
::::"Inventing your own criteria"
::::The criteria I listed is what has been applied to every partial failure and failure I have found. If you can find one that violates this definition, please share it (and why it violates the criteria).
::::"arbitrary 15m/s"
::::The 15 m/s value is the difference between 100% success and 100% failure with reaching orbit being a requirement. I calculated the value using the [[vis-viva equation]].
::::"no matter how many similar examples or precedents are presented that the goalposts keep changing to try and fit Starship into Partial Failure"
::::I've also mentioned precedents and similar examples that support partial failure, so the goalposts have not moved.
::::"have discussed this over and over"
::::Agreed. Seven talk pages is ~five-six too many. And a 17 day debate is just ridiculous.
::::"No one is going to change their mind here"
::::So long as each side stubbornly (and everyone here is to blame for this, including you and me) insists on getting everything and refuses to make compromises, then no, I don't think anyone will switch sides.
::::However, I have offered to make compromises. These offers were ignored. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 13:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::The 15m/s is from your own calculations? Are you even applying it correctly? You don't even have all the variables. Others have calculated the perigee to be 1,700km ''below '' the surface of the Earth, another 15m/s won't be enough to raise to an orbit. [[User:CtrlDPredator|CtrlDPredator]] ([[User talk:CtrlDPredator|talk]]) 15:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::"Others have calculated the perigee to be 1,700km ''below'' the surface of the Earth, another 15m/s won't be enough to raise to an orbit"
::::::You are misinterpreting the 15 m/s value. That is the difference at 250 km between perigee of 50 km and 0 km, which seems to be the range allowed. It is not how much faster the vehicle needed to go (I've seen values between .8 and 1.2 km/s for that) [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 15:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::What range allowed? Starship didn't get to orbit and was a long way off getting to orbit. Starship wasn't at an altitude of 250km, it didn't have a perigee of 0km, so what is this invented range of yours meant to be? This is exactly what I am talking about with people inventing new criteria. [[User:CtrlDPredator|CtrlDPredator]] ([[User talk:CtrlDPredator|talk]]) 16:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::"Starship wasn't at an altitude of 250km, it didn't have a perigee of 0km, so what is this invented range of yours meant to be?"
::::::::The difference between 100% success (reaching exact desired trajectory) and 100% failure (according to your definition, not mine) is 15 m/s at desired apogee.
::::::::I never claimed that IFT-2 was 15 m/s away from the desired trajectory. I claimed that the range you have set for partial failure is about 15 m/s, and used that to state that said range is unreasonable.
::::::::"This is exactly what I am talking about with people inventing new criteria"
::::::::You have said that it had to reach orbit to be counted as a partial failure. Not me. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 16:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::That is absolutely ridiculous. I have never stated that or even implied any arbitrary speed range. We are talking about a launch that did not reach orbit and didn't reach orbit by a very large margin. Why should we make any special allowance for Starship when it wasn't able to get close to the bare minimum of an orbit? That we should bend the criteria because it is "too hard" for Starship to reach? [[User:CtrlDPredator|CtrlDPredator]] ([[User talk:CtrlDPredator|talk]]) 16:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::Absolutely not, but you are using SOME criteria to say that it was too far [[User:Fehér Zsigmond-03|Fehér Zsigmond-03]] ([[User talk:Fehér Zsigmond-03|talk]]) 17:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::It was a ''long ''way off orbit [[User:CtrlDPredator|CtrlDPredator]] ([[User talk:CtrlDPredator|talk]]) 17:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::How, can you show why it was SO long away to not be counted as partial? [[User:Fehér Zsigmond-03|Fehér Zsigmond-03]] ([[User talk:Fehér Zsigmond-03|talk]]) 07:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The perigee, the closest point in an orbit to the Earth, has been calculated at 1,700km ''below ''the surface of the Earth. It wasn't close to reaching orbit. [[User:CtrlDPredator|CtrlDPredator]] ([[User talk:CtrlDPredator|talk]]) 13:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::It was almost exactly 30 seconds from SECO, according to the official mission timeline.
::::::::::::::I think that qualifies as "close" [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 13:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::It it wasn't. Can't just keep redefining everything as "close" when it really wasn't. [[User:CtrlDPredator|CtrlDPredator]] ([[User talk:CtrlDPredator|talk]]) 14:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Then define close.
::::::::::::::::If you don't like the definition I've stated (fast enough to test reentry), then please, state your definition. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 14:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Getting to orbit is a prerequisite for achieving orbit.
:::::::::::::::::Having a perigee 1700km below the surface of the Earth is clearly sub-orbital.
:::::::::::::::::Have no idea why you are trying to distract the conversation about reentry, which is a mute point because it blew up preventing it from even being able to attempt that. [[User:CtrlDPredator|CtrlDPredator]] ([[User talk:CtrlDPredator|talk]]) 15:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::"Have no idea why you are trying to distract the conversation about reentry"
::::::::::::::::::The mission was to test reentry. If the vehicle doesn't go fast enough to test reentry, it's a failure. Otherwise, it's a partial failure/success (depending on the final trajectory/orbit).
::::::::::::::::::"Getting to orbit is a prerequisite for achieving orbit."
::::::::::::::::::Given that the difference in velocity between a perigee of 50 km and a perigee of -.001 km is very, very small (15 m/s), I have to disagree with that requirement for Transatmospheric flights. (And yes, I know it had a perigee of -1700 km. My point is that orbit shouldn't be a requirement for partial failure)
::::::::::::::::::"which is a mute point because it blew up preventing it from even being able to attempt that"
::::::::::::::::::The launch didn't destroy the payload (due to there being no payload), so I think the point does matter. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 15:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::You want to remove the orbital requirement, because Starship completely missed it.
:::::::::::::::::::You want to ignore the fact that it blew up so that you can try to discuss re-entry tests that it never was able to do.
:::::::::::::::::::I don't feel like you are acting in good faith here, you are bludgeoning the conversation with these repeated strawman arguments that just take everyone here around in circles again and again and again and again.
:::::::::::::::::::I am not going to engage with you in these conversation any more, don't assume that I am abandoning my position, it's that it is not healthy. [[User:CtrlDPredator|CtrlDPredator]] ([[User talk:CtrlDPredator|talk]]) 16:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::"I am not going to engage with you in these conversation any more"
::::::::::::::::::::Okay. I recommend unsubscribing to this topic, so you don't continue to get flooded by notifications.
::::::::::::::::::::"don't assume that I am abandoning my position"
::::::::::::::::::::Why would I? [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 17:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::"That is absolutely ridiculous. I have never stated that or even implied any arbitrary speed range. We are talking about a launch that did not reach orbit and didn't reach orbit by a very large margin"
::::::::::You never stated the range, I calculated it based on your (and other editors) statements.
::::::::::"Why should we make any special allowance for Starship when it wasn't able to get close to the bare minimum of an orbit? That we should bend the criteria because it is "too hard" for Starship to reach?"
::::::::::It's not a "special allowance". Same rules apply to any other rocket. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 17:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::What "rules"? There isn't written guidance on this topic and the "rules" being used are clearly not universally accepted. [[User:Sub31k|Sub31k]] ([[User talk:Sub31k|talk]]) 20:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::I'm not sure why you keep bringing up this 15 m/s range. No one arguing for 'failure' is advocating for that kind of arbitrary speed range. It is indeed a [[straw man]] and quite frustrating to have to deal with again. From the top:
:::::::::::What the MoS states counts for 'partial failure', and the standard applied to all other launch vehicles, is a '''usable orbit''', not "close to a usable orbit by some reasonable margin". The exact speed range for such an orbit to be usable is ''not relevant'', what matters is whether it's usable or not. If 15m/s is the difference between a usable vs unusable orbit on this particular flight, then so be it. That's not unfair to Starship, and is consistent with the standard all other launch vehicles are held to. Most missions heading to LEO would be considered a failure if they fell short by a similar small margin, including Astra's Rocket 3.2, which fell short of orbit by "just half a kilometer per second" (closer than Starship got) and is still uncontroversially classified as a failure. The velocity of [[Mars Climate Orbiter]] was wrong by less than 0.2 m/s, and its mission is unanimously considered a failure.
:::::::::::You ''are'' advocating for Starship to be given a special allowance. The rules applied to any other orbital launch attempt is that reaching orbit (and also not-blowing-up, another thing Starship failed to do) is the minimum requirement for a launch to get the 'partial failure' classification. The end, no allowances for "it's a prototype", no allowances for "it had no payload", no allowances for "it got close".
:::::::::::I think it's insane that a vehicle which explodes before reaching its target orbit could be classified as anything but a failure. ''No'' orbital rocket ''in history'' would be given that allowance. More importantly, it's misleading to readers. Although, we all implicitly know why Starship is being given this special treatment that no other launch vehicle would get. I've been refraining from saying it explicitly up until now, but I just have to call it what it is; the SpaceX fanboyism is really getting to me. [[User:Gojet-64|Gojet-64]] ([[User talk:Gojet-64|talk]]) 21:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::Sorry for the long, and probably disorganized, response.
::::::::::::"It is indeed a [[straw man]] and quite frustrating to have to deal with again"
::::::::::::That is not my intent.
::::::::::::"What the MoS states counts for 'partial failure', and the standard applied to all other launch vehicles, is a '''usable orbit''', not "close to a usable orbit by some reasonable margin""
::::::::::::The final trajectory was usable for testing the heat shield.
::::::::::::"If 15m/s is the difference between a usable vs unusable orbit on this particular flight, then so be it."
::::::::::::And that's what I'm objecting to. It could have tested the heat shield at it's final velocity, therefore, it's final trajectory was a "usable one".
::::::::::::"Most missions heading to LEO would be considered a failure if they fell short by a similar small margin, including Astra's Rocket 3.2, which fell short of orbit by "just half a kilometer per second" (closer than Starship got) and is still uncontroversially classified as a failure"
::::::::::::Astra 3.2's mission was to reach a stable orbit. There is a difference. If IFT-2 was planned to reach a stable orbit, we'd would most likely
::::::::::::"The velocity of [[Mars Climate Orbiter]] was wrong by less than 0.2 m/s, and its mission is unanimously considered a failure."
::::::::::::Launch vehicle vs. satellite. As with Astra 3.2, there is a difference.
::::::::::::"(and also not-blowing-up, another thing Starship failed to do)"
::::::::::::[[Crew Dragon In-Flight Abort Test|Crew Dragon In-Flight Abort Test's]] launch vehicle exploded (which was not planned, though it was expected). And it's counted as a launch success. So, an exploding launch vehicle can be counted as a success, so long as the payload isn't destroyed.
::::::::::::"The end, no allowances for "it's a prototype", no allowances for "it had no payload", no allowances for "it got close"."
::::::::::::First, I never said that it's prototype status impacts success v failure (though I probably said that during the IFT-1 debate, and other editors have stated that during this one). Second, IMO, not having a payload to lose does impact success v failure, as it expands the range allowed for the vehicle to be off the desired trajecory. And the "it got close" is simply "the final trajectory was usable for testing reentry, but not in the designated location".
::::::::::::"More importantly, it's misleading to readers."
::::::::::::I think labeling it as a failure would be misleading readers, but we can disagree.
::::::::::::"I've been refraining from saying it explicitly up until now, but I just have to call it what it is; the SpaceX fanboyism is really getting to me"
::::::::::::Please, avoid [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|personal attacks]]. [[Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia|We are all here to build and improve this encyclopedia]]. Just because we disagree doesn't mean one of us is a "SpaceX Fanboy" or "SpaceX Hater".
::::::::::::I understand your arguments. They are very valid, and me disagreeing with them doesn't mean that I'm "ignoring them".
::::::::::::And finally, I'm willing to compromise here. We can come to a final decision that both sides don't actively hate. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 22:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I apologize, "SpaceX fanboyism" was not meant to be directed at you specifically. Rather, I meant it regarding an overall trend I had been observing across Wikipedia in recent years; namely, an apparent trend of bias towards SpaceX. (But that is beyond the scope of this particular discussion)
:::::::::::::The arguments, however, are still going in the same circles as before. I feel I have little to add at this point, else I'll just be repeating myself again. I do hope a consensus/compromise can be reached, but I'm going to step back for a bit and let the other editors express their views. [[User:Gojet-64|Gojet-64]] ([[User talk:Gojet-64|talk]]) 00:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::This gotta end soon, it just cant go on [[User:Fehér Zsigmond-03|Fehér Zsigmond-03]] ([[User talk:Fehér Zsigmond-03|talk]]) 07:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::It really needs to. The intergalactic nuclear wars that inevitably erupt every time the Cult Of Musk invade comment sections to try to push their agendas using "alternative objectivity" and "alternative logic" are a pain to deal with. [[User:DASL51984|DASL51984]] <sup>([[User talk:DASL51984|Speak to me!]])</sup> 12:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::"Cult Of Musk invade comment sections to try to push their agendas"
:::::::::::::::Stop the personal attacks and accusations. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 13:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I accept your apology. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 12:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' - I've been watching the talk page for a while now (I've been [[WP:WikiHobbit|inactive]] on WP). I must be honest - I was quite disappointed when I saw this debate emerge again. It's clear that some people are against the consensus in regards to how the recent test flight should be classed in terms of their success, and I find this quite unfortunate. As editors, we should [[WP:CIVIL|cooperate]] with each other, but it appears that some edits aren't doing that here.

:[[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]], I've been watching the arguments you've been making and I must caution you to not [[WP:CPOVP|sealion]] in and [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeon]] discussions. Sometimes, things just don't go the way we go and sometimes we just need to [[WP:STICK|drop the stick]] and [[WP:GOI|move on.]] I get it, it's very frustrating when things don't go the way you want them to go, but this is how things have to be on Wikipedia with how we make decisions by consensus.

:I also think we need to turn down the temperature in here too. I've noticed a lot of [[WP:PA|personal attacks]] directed between editors of different opinions on how the successful the recent launch was. We need to remain civil even if we get frustrated by the opinions of other people. Regards, [[User:Yasslaywikia|Yasslaywikia]] ([[User talk:Yasslaywikia|talk]]) 18:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
::"It's clear that some people are against the consensus in regards to how the recent test flight should be classed in terms of their success, and I find this quite unfortunate"
::Well, we do have the right to disagree. And the right to voice our opinion on the talk page during a debate.
::"As editors, we should [[Wikipedia:CIVIL|cooperate]] with each other, but it appears that some edits aren't doing that here."
::Which is why I have (multiple times) offered to work on a compromise option.
::"Sometimes, things just don't go the way we go and sometimes we just need to [[Wikipedia:STICK|drop the stick]] and [[Wikipedia:GOI|move on.]] I get it, it's very frustrating when things don't go the way you want them to go, but this is how things have to be on Wikipedia with how we make decisions by consensus."
::This isn't going to be a repeat of IFT-2. Once this RFC has concluded (almost certainly for the side of failure), I'm done (not with Wikipedia, but with this debate).
::"I also think we need to turn down the temperature in here too. I've noticed a lot of [[Wikipedia:PA|personal attacks]] directed between editors of different opinions on how the successful the recent launch was. We need to remain civil even if we get frustrated by the opinions of other people"
::I cannot express just how much I agree with this. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 19:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}
'''Closure challenge: ''' {{re|CactiStaccingCrane}} I'm not sure your closure is appropriate per [[WP:CLOSE]]. A new option "remove" has been proposed and was just added in the last few days and collecting support. Also I don't think you should be the one closing. Your closure summary isn't a very fair summary of the discussion and you just seem to be pushing your own "view" (and vote in past votes?) and accusing contrary votes of misbehaving. This is the second time this topic has ended in a disastrous RfC. Let's do this right or it will come up again in 2 weeks with the next launch. Please revert your closure and let's follow [[WP:CLOSE]] next time. <span style="color:#AAA"><small><nowiki>&#123;{u&#124;</nowiki></small>[[User:Gtoffoletto|<span style="color:darkGreen;font-weight:bold">Gtoffoletto</span>]]<small><nowiki>&#125;}</nowiki></small></span>  <sup>[[User talk:Gtoffoletto|'''talk''']]</sup> 15:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
:They didn't vote in the current or previous RfC. They are also not wrong on the lack of civility and the bludgeoning and sealioning that has taken place both here and in the previous RfC.[[User:CtrlDPredator|CtrlDPredator]] ([[User talk:CtrlDPredator|talk]]) 03:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
:Agreed. The closer shouldn't be someone involved in the previous debate, to avoid bias.[[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 15:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
::I don't give a damn on whether both IFTs are a failure or not. Failure, after all, is a subjective thing and based on previous discussions no one will be willing to change their mind. In the RfC is obvious to see that the consensus that IFT-2 should be categorized as a failure and this "failure/no-failure" debate has been ongoing since IFT-1 because of a few regulars here. [[User:CactiStaccingCrane|CactiStaccingCrane]] ([[User talk:CactiStaccingCrane|talk]]) 15:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:CactiStaccingCrane|CactiStaccingCrane]] I don't think that answers my points above. Do you agree to revert the closure? <span style="color:#AAA"><small><nowiki>&#123;{u&#124;</nowiki></small>[[User:Gtoffoletto|<span style="color:darkGreen;font-weight:bold">Gtoffoletto</span>]]<small><nowiki>&#125;}</nowiki></small></span>  <sup>[[User talk:Gtoffoletto|'''talk''']]</sup> 18:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
:::"I don't give a damn on whether both IFTs are a failure or not"
:::Good. I still would prefer someone else as the closer (just to establish the precedent, as while you may not be biased, this could come up again).
:::"Failure, after all, is a subjective thing"
:::Agreed, especially with prototypes.
:::"based on previous discussions no one will be willing to change their mind"
:::I wish I could disagree with you on this.
:::"In the RfC is obvious to see that the consensus that IFT-2 should be categorized as a failure"
:::The majority of editors do think it is a failure. However, when a new option is added to the RFC, waiting a week before closing it seems reasonable.
:::""failure/no-failure" debate has been ongoing since IFT-1 because of a few regulars here."
:::The IFT-1 debate had been dead for several months. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 20:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
:::"Failure, after all, is a subjective thing and based on previous discussions no one will be willing to change their mind. " This is exactly the argument for removing the field. I personally support "success" but removing the field is an acknowledgment that there are valid reasons to disagree. I HAVE changed my mind.
:::"In the RfC is obvious to see that the consensus that IFT-2 should be categorized as a failure" If the comments are tallied as [[WP:VOTE]]s perhaps. Most of them repeat the same subjective opinions. They don't contradict the non-failure camp.
:::"this "failure/no-failure" debate has been ongoing since IFT-1 because of a few regulars here" It's contrary to undisputed source material to call it a failure, not just to the people stating those here. So of course people familiar with the situation are going to bring it up over and over. It's contrary to how people involved with and adjacent to the program see things. [[User:Foonix0|Foonix0]] ([[User talk:Foonix0|talk]]) 23:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
:::If it is then why not circumvent having to call it anything by not calling it anything? And we cant judge something with a description that has subjective meaning, therefore just dont do it. I myself always considered what the people saying failure argue, but i cant agree. Hopefully the same with them. There is no other way around this, if we cant agree even considering what the other said. [[User:Fehér Zsigmond-03|Fehér Zsigmond-03]] ([[User talk:Fehér Zsigmond-03|talk]]) 11:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
::::This is a dead debate at this point. I recommend moving on. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 11:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::Are you saying this to me or Foonix? [[User:Fehér Zsigmond-03|Fehér Zsigmond-03]] ([[User talk:Fehér Zsigmond-03|talk]]) 07:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::I'm saying it to both of you. If we waste our time here, it makes other editors much less likely to work with any of us in the future. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 12:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Alright, im just sad that when we finally seemed to get closer to a consensus it was closed. This will surely come up again at some point, and it would have been good to have a way to quickly be able to deal with it… I may take a bit of a break untill then [[User:Fehér Zsigmond-03|Fehér Zsigmond-03]] ([[User talk:Fehér Zsigmond-03|talk]]) 12:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


== Years in history subsections ==
== Years in history subsections ==

Revision as of 19:35, 12 December 2023

Former good articleSpaceX Starship was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 14, 2021Good article nomineeListed
September 24, 2021Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 11, 2021Peer reviewReviewed
October 12, 2021Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
October 21, 2021Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 21, 2021Good article reassessmentKept
December 2, 2021WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
January 24, 2022Peer reviewReviewed
March 12, 2022Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 17, 2022Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 6, 2022Peer reviewReviewed
June 16, 2022Good article nomineeNot listed
January 13, 2023Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 9, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that SpaceX's reusable Starship launch vehicle has twice as much thrust as the Apollo program's Saturn V?
Current status: Delisted good article

More up to date images

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

As you all have probably seen, many articles like SpaceX Starbase have out-of-date images. I am looking on gaining access on more recent pictures that we could use to illustrate various recent developments at Boca Chica. Here is what I'm thinking of sending to Maurico from RGV Aerial Photography (I just drafted this in 5 minutes so any grammar-related things would be appreciated :))


Hi Mauricio

I am writing on behalf of the Wikipedia community focusing on the coverage of SpaceX-related developments concerning the SpaceX Starship at its launch site in Boca Chica.

As you have probably seen from images currently used as part of the articles, many lack details and date back to several years ago. We are looking to get access to some pictures (maybe up to a few months old) depicting various things [need some ideas for what to list there]

[Could tell him to disclose it or put it on Wiki Commons itself]


Any thoughts?

Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: in square brackets are just my own comments. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ping people for their thoughts @Redacted II, @Gtoffoletto, @CodemWiki, @CactiStaccingCrane, @Jarrod Baniqued Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a bit optimistic, but worth a try. Ideally we'd need someone to drive down to Boca Chica and take pics for Commons. Unfortunately I'm a student on the other side of the pond. CodemWiki (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're desperate for pictures! I can't drive there either :-). If anyone has any other ideas or has been to Boca Chica before, we'd love to get some up-to-date pictures for commons! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Though as the Starship program progresses (and as long as quails don't nest to close to the pad), NASA involvement is inevitably going to bring at least a few copyright-free pictures one way or another. CodemWiki (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Can't wait for that, especially to get some good HLS pictures!! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can ask NSF, but that probably won't work... Redacted II (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! You could try that! I guess we could also try What About It? and Lab Padre or even Starship Gazer, they have some pretty good pictures too. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of them are copyrighted. CodemWiki (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know! But what if they accepted to disclose a few? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still worth a try, at least. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely CodemWiki (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what I sent:
Dear Mauricio,
I am writing on behalf of the Wikipedia community working on the coverage of the development of everything that is related to SpaceX Starship at its launch site in Boca Chica.
As you have probably seen from images currently used as part of the articles, many lack details and date back to several years ago.
We are doing our very best at updating the pages with appropriate images, but getting our hands on licensed-free images that show recent developments for the readers has been quite hard. We are looking to get access to some pictures depicting various things, like the Starfactory, a picture of S25/B9 stack and the new High Bay, or even an aerial shot of the layout of the production site (they do not need to be too recent).
We would of course completely understand if that is something that is not possible for you.
However, if you would like to give us a hand, you can always feel free to upload some pictures on Wikimedia Commons, where the community would be more than glad to add more content on Wikipedia.
If you have any questions, feel absolutely free to reach out!
Thank you in advance, and have a beautiful Star-day,
Cocobb8, editor on the English Wikipedia.
Feel free to copy that email to send to other photographers you can think of!
I will let you all know once/if I get a reply. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, good letter. I'd also suggest reaching out to Jenny Hautmann (https://instagram.com/jennyhphoto?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== )if she's got any recent pics, which she definitely does. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 07:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on it. Emailing her right now. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @Jarrod Baniqued
Here are the other photographers that might have great images too:
  • Yes Sent @Cocobb8 - RGV Aerial Photography
  • Yes Sent @Cocobb8 - What about It!?
  •  Task complete. @Jarrod Baniqued - Jenny Hautmann
  • ✗ Fail: No response as of November 3 Jarrod Baniqued - Space Scout
  • Yes Sent @Cocobb8 - Starship Gazer
  • Yes Sent @Cocobb8 - NSF
  • Can't find email... @Cocobb8 - Lab Padre
If you would like to send en email, please do so by changing the appropriate status template on my comment above. Please only start working on those with a blue checkmark. Also feel free to add more people there! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 10:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, still working on it. I'm glad to say that Ms. Hautmann has given me a trove of images from March and April this year via Gmail and Google Drive, however, she's pointed out that I'd need to contact her employer Supercluster to see if they can release them into the Creative Commons. I'll copy Mauricio's email soon, and I'm replying to Jenny right now with a link to this talk page topic. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thumbs up Great! I just emailed What About It!? as well. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I've written:
Hello, I’m a member of the Wikipedia community. I’ve been authorized (refer to the last link below) to see if your leadership can release images by Jenny Hautmann (specifically, I have chosen images 7633, 7683, 7894, 6326, 6456, 2161, and 2062 for maximum informational value) to the Creative Commons to allow for their potential display on Wikipedia. She has given them to me of her own accord.
I am requesting that their licenses be changed to CC-BY-SA 4.0 (
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode.en
), which constitutes most of Wikipedia’s content.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1177764583&title=Talk:SpaceX%20Starship#More_up_to_date_images
My colleagues and I totally understand if you don’t want to release them into the CC. We thank you for your time. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! It's good to mention under which license they should be released. I'll use your email as a template if I get any answers back from other people. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Redacted II Did you email NSF? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. Redacted II (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I emailed their business main email. Would you like to also try one person specifically? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not really.
Thanks for emailing them, though. Redacted II (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have a suggestion, Space Scout: https://www.spacescout.info/?s=SpaceX
They're a news site of almost all volunteer photographers. I will start emailing them using almost the same email meant for Mauricio. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 09:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, go for it. Redacted II (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got a response from them: they didn't have any applicable photos. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 04:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go, I got a reply from What about It:
Felix Schlang
11:57 AM (0 minutes ago)
to me
Thank you so much for reaching out! I hope everything is going smoothly on your end! We are totally on board with supplying everything you need!
I do want to share a little concern we have - it seems that we’ve had a bit of difficulty establishing a page on Wikipedia, which has been a bit disappointing. It appears our page was not considered notable enough, even though we’ve noticed smaller reporters with local news stations have been able to secure their own pages.
Perhaps we can find a mutually beneficial solution? If it would be possible to help us establish a page on Wikipedia, we’d be more than happy to provide all the images you require! What do you think? Could this work for you?
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and finding a way to make this collaboration fruitful for both parties!
Best regards,
I don't really know about that though. I was planning to work on an article on Wikipedia, but I suppose it would be against the rules to do that like this? Any thoughts, @CodemWiki, @Jarrod Baniqued, @Redacted II? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could also tell him that his page couldn't be created because of COI and that I'd be more than glad than to help him publish it. What do you guys think? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and tell him what you just wrote.
As for me, I still haven't heard back from Supercluster. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm considering invoking WP:NONFREE and WP:NFURG and using a historical importance rationale since there's been little action. I won't do it now: I'll wait till Monday Eastern Time to hear back from them on whether they agree with the license or I should act on it. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rush. Please, wait at least another week. Redacted II (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there is no deadline. We can easily give her a week or two. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good news: Got a response from Jenny. Medium news: She and her employers are not quite sure how to go about adding the CC license. I've explained to them their options (add the license info to HTML, or upload to Wikimedia Commons/Flickr/500px and let them handle it). I also sent them the CC organization's mission statement and more info about the licenses. I’ve just told them that they can take as much time as they want and can consult legal or technical counsel if necessary. Everything's smooth sailing from here Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, how is everyone else handling this? In my case, the trove of photos was shared as Google Drive folder URLs, so the upload process might be quite tetchy (there’s still uncertainty over whether it will be me or her actually uploading the images; if me, then should I upload a screenshot of proof of them appending the license?). Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, you can go the full way with using what wikipedia wrote here. Though a note stating you have permission from the author with a link to a screenshot of the proof e.g. like you said, is plenty enough IMO CodemWiki (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
About the images we are given, I don't know how many images they sent you, but PLEASE only upload a selected few to wikimedia, not more that you'll use on articles (so i.e. I would avoid a gallery, which is also what advises WP:GALLERY). Any image with the CC license is absolutely GOING to be used by other entities, youtube channels, etc to make profit, and for a long time. Think of all the Elon Musk/Starship-focused AI-generated automated bullshit channels on youtube. It's just going to happen, as images with that license are going to move up Google Image's algorithm because of their license and relevance, and are going to be scraped automatically by algorithms in the intent to make money. I really don't think a media news/small company/whatever won't to be reminded everyday that other people are making money using their work just because they were kind once. So keep it limited, relevant, and simple. So that at least if when the other entities do that, they only have a handful of images to work with and get tired quickly. And also the company will recognize the images just by seeing them since they're always the same few ones. The CC license is powerful. CodemWiki (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is great news! Yes, if you have written permission then you can go ahead and upload a few. As for me, I haven't heard back from WAI. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cocobb8@CodemWiki Thanks for the advice, but I didn’t need to follow through on them. Turns out she uploaded them herself. Let’s take our picks! There are fourteen in total, which may be too many (I had the final say over the number, so if anything happens re: illegal copying, it’s partly my responsibility and I apologize in advance), but I think it was an appropriate amount to show the diversity of the infrastructure. There are also August 2021 pictures for historical purposes in case anyone wants them. Here’s the link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/JennyHPhoto&ilshowall=1
It’s go time. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is awesome! Time to update those articles :) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok then CodemWiki (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sending the emails CodemWiki (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think WAI should have a dedicated article. It's definitely notable. I'm quite shocked that it doesn't already.
You have my support for creating a WAI article/draft, but I'd like to consult and Admin first, so we don't get in trouble if it does violate some rules. Redacted II (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia works in a disaggregated ways and editors who review article creations are not likely to be the same to contribute on similar articles, and not proceeding that way might be considered a conflict of interest (which could result in penalties for the involved users). Although helping Wikipedia is unfortunately not a valid criteria for article creation, we could however create a draft for What about it!? and see if we can get a better chance at getting it accepted than him, in a legit way. CodemWiki (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'll tell him that we're starting work on a draft and will keep in touch of any further developments. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Sent Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:What_About_It!%3F Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I recall a time where I created an article just by moving it; is that something we could do too? I don't think we'd have to go through the whole AfC process, would we? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have to go through the process when making SpaceX Super Heavy. Redacted II (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The AfC process guarantees the page not to be deleted in the future if you're not sure your article is okay for Wikipedia. But yeah, it's true that not all pages have to be drafts first. CodemWiki (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm yeah that makes sense. As long as we get good sources we should be fine. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I heard back from Space Scout, and they're sending photographers not only to Boca Chica for the lunar eclipse next week, but also to Kennedy for the Psyche launch. Expect 10 or so images from each event. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
20 images total?! Wow! Redacted II (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, Space Scout didn't follow through on the side trip to Boca Chica, but they did succeed with the KSC launch. However they did not append CC notices. You're welcome to comment on their pages https://www.spacescout.info/2023/10/psyche-and-starlink-set-records-on-the-space-coast/ and https://www.spacescout.info/2023/10/capturing-the-ring-of-fire/ but I think the launch photo for the current page is fine as is. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CodemWiki@CodemWiki@Redacted IIWell, I tried emailing SpaceX. I mean, wouldn't it be in their best interest to have what they are doing as updated as possible on Wikipedia? Anyways, we'll see what this does :/ Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anything from them? Its been some time Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, much unfortunately. I emailed their media relations inbox: can you think of any other mail address we could try too? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, ive got no idea, but we did get pictures from wai, right? Perhaps that will be enough. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I followed up with WAI but they never got back to me. Do you want to try it yourself? They seemed on-board with providing pictures if we also helped them publish a page on Wikipedia. whataboutit.contact@gmail.com Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying I should email them? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You do.
uhhh… not sure, what else could i tell them? That their wikipedia page is under work? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Idk it's just if they're not responding to me maybe from someone else it'd work? But aguess it's fine Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they are just busy…
but every time a company/large team ignores emails it prolly wont be answered. About me messaging them. Im nowhere near perfect in formal english, and dont know much about how wikipedia works other then editable articles. And it would probably raise some question at my parents if they see who im mailing. Lets just hope they answer. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 23:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ngl that was NOT what i expected as a reply. Also, back to wai, they now have orbital photography, something tells me some people would really crave such images. Maybe we could ask them about it, cuz its in partnership with some other company, so not sure if they allow that to be used. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anything new? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope :/ Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well it seems like they forgot about you or i dont know. Perhaps email the again about an update about their articles Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already followed up once or twice Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No idea then Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing new? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move of the early Starship design history to SpaceX Mars ambitions

CactiStaccingCrane is a well-known users on space- and spaceflight- related pages, he tends to pretty boldly reshape articles. Sometimes for the worse, sometimes for the better. My biggest problem with him is that he often deletes a lot of information with sparse justification, so it's hard to see through his reasoning (even if the reasoning is legitimate).

Here are the changes that have been made for now. I completely agree with his decision to move early Starship dev history to the SpaceX Mars page, the information has greater relevance there and was making this article significantly longer than what Wikipedia advises. I have not had time to review the rest of the changes yet. See if you can point out changes that might need a discussion. CodemWiki (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend changing the title of this topic, as it feels accusatory. Redacted II (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. CodemWiki (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CoastRedwood You disagree with the move of early designs to another article (which is fine). What other part of the article should have been moved in order to reduce the article size around 100kB in your opinion? CodemWiki (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do not put the payload capacity above the infobox. I can’t find any other launch vehicle/spacecraft system article with this kind of statistics above the infobox. Not the Soace Shuttle or the Saturn V. Nothing. All these stats go in article sections or the infobox. Doing so shows an attitude that is biased towards Starship, by emphasising the payload capacity. Why did you do that? Also, a super heavy lift launch vehicle is not just a 150 ton payload to LEO vehcile. That’s wrong. Why did you undo my edits regarding that? CoastRedwood (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lack of time. Will not happen again, sorry. CodemWiki (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the early designs should be summarised on the main article. Again, have a peek at the Saturn V and Soace Shuttle articles. There is a little information about early designs, but it doesn’t go into such detail about the material and thrust like in the previous revision. It simply gives important details of the designs. CoastRedwood (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe create a separate article, similar to Space Shuttle design process? Redacted II (talk) 11:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great comparison. I think that's a decent idea. CodemWiki (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We used to have an article just for Starship development but I believe consensus was reached to merge it to this article: why create it again? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the article is huge. 139,254 bytes is simply too big. Redacted II (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Starship development" is still too vague in my opinion, and too broad. There isn't even any equivalent article for the Shuttle. Where does it stop, to the stages, the launchpad? It's bound to become a clusterfuck of everything and it's much more standard to just have a page for every piece of the program. "SpaceX Starship design process" on the otherhand is a title that does cover precisely the extent of what was removed, and what would need to be done is only a move from SpaceX ambition of colonizing Mars#Prior launch vehicle proposals to this new article. Who's with on that idea?

CodemWiki (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added a dedicated topic for this discussion Redacted II (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raptor engine picture

If im correct its a raptor1, wich is the oldest and most complex of them. We should get a picture about raptor 2 or 3 if possible. But thats just my idea Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 11:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, but perhaps we should use multiple images showing the time progression Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thats also possible, but that would drag put the article, wich we really dont want right now Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 08:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Try using Template:Multiple image, you might be able to fit two of them in the same horizontal row Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 09:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Id rather wait for more feedback regarding this Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also im pretty new, dont know these codes and stuff, id rather just bring it to light and let others do it. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Starship Design Process Article

Due to the size of this article, I mentioned the possibility of creating a separate article, called "Starship Design Process", based on a similar article about the Space Shuttle. To quote CodemWiki,

"SpaceX Starship design process" on the otherhand is a title that does cover precisely the extent of what was removed, and what would need to be done is only a move from SpaceX ambition of colonizing Mars#Prior launch vehicle proposals to this new article. Who's with on that idea?" Redacted II (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, iam currently working on future design changes in the history section, perhaps we could move that to that too.? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 06:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just remember NPOV. Redacted II (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made it a redirect for now, consistent with a namesake section on its current article : SpaceX Starship design process CodemWiki (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 10:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flight unsuccessful

The flight success rate should be changed to better reflect the RUD of both stages during IFT-2. I believe as the flight made it pass the Karman line before RUD, it should be declared partially successful instead of fully successful. Spaceman2288 (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

see the topic above Redacted II (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to call it successful. Litmus test: in retrospect would SpaceX have preferred to have scrubbed and launched next week instead of what actually happened. Clearly not, ergo successful mission. Seehart (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Successful as a test, but not successful as an orbital launch. Our tables generally cover the latter. --mfb (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True, but mfb is also right Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through other launch lists, they suggest that it doesn’t matter if it made it to the Karman Line, completing the actual mission is what counts. The Falcon 1 second flight (which made it higher than Starsships) is listed as failure. CoastRedwood (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well then it was around 80% suucesful Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 11:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't true Feher. Including liftoff as an objective, it achieved 4 of it's stated objectives in it's FAA mission plan, partially achieved one, and failed to achieve 9. That's not 80%.
Please see Falcon 1, Atlas 1, and Delta. I mean come on; there's an Atlas I launch where the rocket entered orbit, with a payload, and we still marked it as a failure! Not a partial failure, just a failure. Why? Because the payload was so far outside of it's planned orbit it was useless.
That's how strict the precedent is for failure vs success vs partial failure. These have traditionally been well defined things on Wiki Spaceflight, and only with Starship has this caused any controversy, for reasons that are pretty apparent to me but I won't get into for all of our sakes (though I admit I find myself somewhat frustrated on occasion here). Chuckstablers (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The goal was to reach suborbit, splashdown hawaii. The burn was somehwat complete, splashdown didnt happen. Even if its not 80, most certainly was complete. If you say staging was the only goal its 100% Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The atlas 1 example you gave i think perfectly describes whats the difference between the two. If it were close to the intended orbit, it would be partial failure, because it did not its failure. Makes sense. Staship completed most objectives (non required doesnt matter), but still failed, makeing it partial failure. I dont know why you say we treat it as special. I could def say its a full on succes, wich WOULD be treating it as special. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 2nd Falcon 1 launch is very similar to the second Starship launch. Both had separation but failed during their 2nd stage. For the Falcon 1, SpaceX didn't have high expectations for that launch, and publicly declared afterwards that it completed 95% of their objectives, but here it is still a launch failure.
The second Starship launch is no different to that 2nd Falcon 1 launch, but if we class the outcome of the launch differently, even by saying it was a partial failure, then we are treating it as special and are applying different standards to Starship than all other launch vehicles. CtrlDPredator (talk) 08:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, if 95% done, in my opnion would def be partial failure. Also spacex was running low on money, and couldnt really afford a failure. Wether they used the same iterative design changes is debatable. Id say that should be partial failure too, if we apply the same logic. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 08:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what the financial state of the company has on the actual outcome of a launch.
There are lots of times a company or agency has said positive things about their launch despite the fact it wasn't successful, and I am not just talking SpaceX, but also the USSR and even NASA for the Apollo 6 launch.
Falcon 1 was not a partial failure, it was just a launch failure, same with Starship. CtrlDPredator (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What point say for you that it is failure exactly? What was its goal? Orbit? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well not blowing up during launch for a start, that is a non-negotiable. I can't find any other launches where the launch vehicle was lost during launch being classed as something other than failure.
If it gets to orbit (without blowing up), but the orbital characteristics are incorrect and it effects it's ability to complete all of it's mission, then it is a partial failure. That is roughly what other launches are held to. CtrlDPredator (talk) 10:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think actual launch and test flight are a bit different scenarios Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore, for test flights, we should look at goal/launch milestones to rate if it failed. A non test flight launch blowing up means losing payload, aka failure Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 11:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But we haven't done that in the past. The N1 launches were tests. So many other flights had boilerplate payloads just to simulate launch mass. Yet here people are suggesting to treat Starship differently. CtrlDPredator (talk) 11:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We dont N1 clearly didnt achive anything other then liftoff. And this “new” way shouldnt only be applied to the past Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Starship, autocorrect sucks Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Falcon 1 set their success point as orbit for every test flight. That has not been the case with Starship. Ergzay (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The flight plan for both Starship launches has been to reach a TAO orbit. CtrlDPredator (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the second came quiet close, ending the burn too fast, and exploding after, no payload was lost though. Id say its appropriate since it came so close to call it partial failure Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 10:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same as the Falcon 1 second launch, it didn't reach orbit and the vehicle was lost. That is just a failure, it isn't even close to other partial failures. CtrlDPredator (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter Feher. It didn't achieve orbit. Chuckstablers (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It wasnt going to achieve orbit, it came just wrong of its planned suborbit Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was always planned to be an orbital flight, just a transatmospheric orbit, where the perigee is inside the atmosphere. That is still orbital, not a sub-orbital flight. CtrlDPredator (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, but it still came pretty close to the target speed/altitude. And everything else was fine. So why exactly do you call this failure level miss? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was a fair way off it's target speed and altitude when it exploded, so no it wasn't close and it didn't reach orbit. CtrlDPredator (talk) 10:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Under 1km/s. And it would have reached an orbit, just lower. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1km/s is a lot, that is more than 10% of it's target speed. CtrlDPredator (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
800m/s supposedly Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 12:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would not have reached an orbital trajectory, as it's perigee would be within the atmosphere. Redacted II (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So orbit. AND it carried some payload no? And that was lost. Loosing a payload is automatic failure, no? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And also number one and two didnt come very close to orbit Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 10:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fehér Zsigmond-03 @CtrlDPredator
This is just embarrassing levels of Bludgeoning. I woke up today to find over 20 notifications. 16 of them were from you two. So, my recommendation is this: take a break to cool down, maybe for a day or two. There is no Rush. Redacted II (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have been having a conversation, I am not trying to bludgeon Fehér Zsigmond-03, they are asking questions directed to me and I am giving my reply.
As for the number of notifications, @Redacted II you have left 43 comments in these launch status discussions, Fehér Zsigmond-03 has 26, and I have only left 17. We are all waking up to a large number of notification. CtrlDPredator (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
fair.
I was just trying to give a warning. Redacted II (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many appear to have really strong opinion's about this. I think inevitably it was a failure because it didn't achieve all of its goals, not even the majority. Then in the very end both parts were lost a total failure. 120.22.209.92 (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've said this before: it did achieve the vast majority of it's goals.
According to precedent established by Falcon 9, landing/recovery (including the boostback burn) isn't a requirement for success.
So, at worst, it failed 2 of the mission goals: SECO and entry interface. And I would count entry interface as a part of the second stage landing.
Meanwhile, for the goals it reached, that includes staging, MECO, MAX-Q, and liftoff.
It also almost completed the second stage burn, with premature cutoff 30 second early. The under performance is small enough to make it count as a partial failure. Redacted II (talk) 13:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is that not majority Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2 failed, 4 success. That is a majority, for success, not failure. Hence, partial failure. Redacted II (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of this entire discussion? If you personally think it's successful or unsuccessful, that's fine, but there is a whole lot of talk about personal opinions on an issue without consideration to whether or not it's relevant to how it should be covered on Wikipedia. Sub31k (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ship failed to even reach SECO, let alone the mission goal of splashdown off the coast of Hawaii. From SpaceX themselves the vehicle self destructed because it was not going to make it. That alone constitutes a full failure designation. Only scenario where "partial failure" could be applicable is if the ship made it through reentry but suffered a failure during atmospheric descent to the surface which would be somewhat akin to ending up in a wrong, but still usable orbit like Atlas V's partial failure. Brooklindevil (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Splashdown isnt something “active”, where the ship is actively doing something. And yes. Seco was somewhat failed, it shut down a bit early. The thing is. It was a BIT early, if it werent for safety zone it would have been probably fine. Splashdown isnt really a goal, but rather the finish line in this sense Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 10:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Landing doesn't matter for success v failure (when uncrewed, for obvious reasons). This has been established by dozens (I haven't bothered to count) of Falcon 9 failed landings.
Success is Transatmospheric earth orbit.
Partial failure is second stage underperformnce.
Failure is the ship failing a bit before it actually did, or any kind of RUD during the boosters ascent phase. Redacted II (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We could also have to look at the examples the people who say classify it as fsilure say, because many are similar situations, yet classed as failure. But thats for after we have a concensus. But how could we reach it? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Establishing common ground, and making compromises. Redacted II (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We were trying to show why we think it was bad or bettter, convincing the other was kinda a side effect. And i think the def also includes useless, or smth wich id say our convo wasnt Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will note.
"Chuckstablers (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)" states 'it achieved 4 goals totally and failed 9', which is not over half its not even half.
Also most of the launches being used to claim this was a success or partial success use SpaceX's equipment to justify these claims. Without looking at any older datapoints of the NASA or Soviet launches.
Lastly the use of a Falcon 9 launch to justify a 'partial failure' further supports my statements in my opinion. 120.21.2.81 (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The failed 9 stat is false and violates consistency with Falcon 9, as the remaining 7 failures are with the landing procedure, which doesn't count for failure. Therefore, 9 becomes 2. Redacted II (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the best way to describe the launch is this: Starship failed, but Starship didn't. Redacted II (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While that may be confusing to some, i think it describes the situation well Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 06:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

If we can, we should get a photo of starship in flight, the videos were gorgeus Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've yet to see anyone freely release their photographs/videos they took of the launch, which would be an issue as they'd own the copyright and it'd violate the image use policy. Eventually we'll probably find one, might take a while though. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thought id say Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current infobox image is fine. User:Osunpokeh has some photos on Commons Sub31k (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they look stunning Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it looks like I'm the only one taking free pictures down at the launch site. I still have some photos of the vehicle on the pad that I need to get around to uploading at that point. Pleased with how this flight turned out, got much better photos than the last one [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 06:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The IFT-1 mishap investigation was performed by SpaceX

The rewrite of the mishap investigation paragraph is incorrect. The CNBC source says "The FAA oversaw the SpaceX mishap investigation while NASA and the National Transportation Safety Board served as official observers." That's because it was SpaceX doing the investigation. Admittedly, the wording in the article is ambiguous, but it is clear from FAA statements that the investigation was conduced by SpaceX.

"Following the launch, the FAA, [...] required SpaceX to conduct a mishap investigation in accordance with its approved mishap plan under FAA oversight. [...] The FAA has been provided with sufficient information and accepts the root causes and corrective actions described in the mishap report. Consequently, the FAA considers the mishap investigation that SpaceX was required to complete to be concluded." Foonix0 (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah am fine with it. Glad we have sourcing for it now. Chuckstablers (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Foonix0 Do you plan to add this wording in? Ergzay (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on infobox flight status

Enough bickering. The general consensus here and all other previous discussions/RfCs is to classify the first/second orbital launch attempt as a failure. It should be noted that some editors that challenge IFT-1 and IFT-2 launch's failure status have engaged in sealioning and bludgeoning behaviors, and thus, have not being receptive to other editors' arguments. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the SpaceX Starship IFT-2 launch be categorized as "failure" or "partial failure" in the infobox? – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove

  • Remove: This discussion has been an endless source of bikeshedding. The actual usefulness of the field is minor compared to the level of effort on this talk page. There is non-trivial diagreement amoung WP:RS sources. There is little consensus among editors. The two other options presented by this RFC cannot and will not "settle" the issue because it cannot and will not reflect a consensus amoung sources. Trying to call it a failure flies in the face of statements from SMEs like Chris Hadfield and the actual stakeholders of the Starship development program. If people insist that the defintion of the field is so inflexible that it can't be anying but "failure", then it's time to remove it because it is a drastic oversimplification that obfuscates important nuance of the program and neglects what it means to the actual stakeholders. If IFT-3 doesn't either explode on the pad or complete %100 flawlessly, then we're all going to be right back here bikeshedding about this again. Foonix0 (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)— Foonix0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • REMOVE: Prototypes (not a production vehicle) have never been counted in the Infobox. With one exception: Starship. Putting IFT-1 or IFT-2 in the infobox is like putting Grasshopper in the Falcon V1.0 infobox. Same goes for IFT-3, regardless of the outcome. So long as SpaceX is launching Integrated Flight Tests, then they shouldn't be counted in the infobox (though, S29-S32 may be similar enough to be a production version).
    Redacted II (talk) 12:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In light of the (surprisingly excessive) discussion on this subject, there seems to be no consensus on how these Starship flight outcomes should be classified. You're absolutely right that, if IFT-3 does anything between "explode on the pad" and "execute every mission objective flawlessly", a long-winded discussion like this is just going to drag on again. Without a consensus on how these flights should be counted, the only thing we can really do (at least for now) is just not count them at all. Thus, I'm inclined to again agree with the earlier suggestion to remove the listings (Success, Partial Failure, Failure) from the Starship infobox, at least until it starts flying payloads.
    It's not the solution I would prefer (mainly on the basis that no other launch vehicle on Wikipedia has been treated as such) but I do feel it's the best compromise we can come to at the moment. Gojet-64 (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A potential compromise would be a system similar to Atlas.
    It would show 0 failures, and "show", with two prototype launches shown under that.
    This avoids misleading users, as both launches can be shown to have failed, but readers won't see those flights as flights of the actual rocket? Redacted II (talk) 12:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Iam fully on board with this idea👍
    I belive it represents what happened well, AND isnt treating starship differently Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with this suggestion, because the whole point of this compromise is due to a lack of consensus/agreement on what counts as success or failure for these launches. Counting these launches instead with "prototype success" or "prototype failure" would just have the exact same issue (and has been suggested before in earlier talks). This is especially a problem if the judgment of success/failure depends on company objectives, which makes it inherently inconsistent, and thus impossible to use just a simple contextless number to accurately inform readers of how such launches actually went.
    Essentially, the core premise of the "remove" position is Wikipedia shall make no judgment on whether the Starship IFTs are "successful" or "failure" (There shall be no judgment of "prototype success" or "prototype failure" either, because that has the same issue which is trying to be avoided; namely the lack of consensus on what those classifications should be defined as)
    To be clear however, this isn't a suggestion for permanency going forward. My intention with this compromise is that this would be temporary until, in separate discussion, a consensus is reached on defining success/partial failure/failure (Or until Starship becomes operational). Gojet-64 (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I belive we would only say prototype launch, this way further conflict can be avoided, and it doesnt represent what happened any worse then saying failure or succes Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 06:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Failure

  • Failure: The infobox documentation has defined "partial failure" to allow for a consistent meaning across Wikipedia as per MoS guidelines. Unless the definition changes, the policy-based action is to determine if IFT-2 meets the current partial failure criteria predicated on reaching orbit.
IFT-2 failed to reach orbit, so it doesn't meet the "partial failure" definition or standard used across other launch vehicle articles. Redraiderengineer (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Failure: A couple of things. Firstly: listing some form of "flight successful" or obscurism through removal of the box would be at odds with a supermajority of published independent media reports, which variously describe a test flight failure. And a test failure needn't be of any shame: don't they call this a fail-fast program, anyway? Apart from that, the test did not meet the objectives set for it and for which substantial preparation was made. I see a lot of increasingly specific definitions of success/failure being made here so that this recent test flight just barely falls on the "win" side. I'd also like to clarify that the infobox is not some kind of scoreboard. It's just a way to show flight outcomes. Sub31k (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've made my statements before, but will summarize here. Every rocket gets treated the same acrossed all of Wikipedia, with perfect consistency & consensus except for Starship. I'm not going to pretend the issue isn't a small group of loud people who feel attacked if SpaceX is criticized with industry norms in any way. I;ve been here long enough to know that. Test flights aren't given special treatment anywhere else, for any other company and I know most of you arguing for "partials" would all classify the first Vulcan launch as a failure if Centaur's FTS activated during it's first burn. Don't pretend you wouldn't. A quick test flight recap for you guys:
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
Notice how there wasn't raging discussions about those (Are some of you going to push for N1's test flight to be counted as partials) because they failed to reach orbit on test flights. Why is Starship different? Why does it and only it get to be special and not allowed to fail? An orbital (Transatmospheric orbit) flight that is destroyed before reaching even an initial orbit is a failure. Don't sight SpaceX's definitions of success because that's a first party source. Wikipedia must retain it's unbiased and neutral POV, and giving only ONE rocket a pass on everything is clear and consistent bias. If this gets classed as a "partial" I may push for some N1 flight to be reclassed alongside a chunk of those above. And I'd expect every one of those in favor of partials to do the same. --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This rocket is evidently different from all of the ones indicated above. This is an incomplete prototype. The design has even radically changed from one launch to the other (hot staging). The approach is totally different from what has been attempted by the industry so far. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 19:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And its gonna change even more with v2 Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we then count it as failure but, when it's significantly upgraded, count it as a different vehicle or at least a different version and separate the stats? That seems like the most honest/responsible way to do this. It is almost indisputably a full failure, but it's an *expected* failure, so it would be a shame if it taints future reliability numbers once it's more polished up. TheSpaceGoat (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(this belongs in discussion, but with that out of the way):
"Can we then count it as failure but, when it's significantly upgraded, count it as a different vehicle or at least a different version and separate the stats?"
I think Partial Failure is the right classification (see Partial Failure for my reasoning), but I agree, it it's counted in the infobox, it needs to be separate from "actual"/production/v2 vehicles. Redacted II (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Failure. This was a failed launch (it did not complete objectives), while being a successful test. This isn't even controversial; there's a statement to the effect that when NASA has a launch failure, you get congressional hearings, when SpaceX has a launch failure, you add something to the blooper reel. IFT2 provided lots of test data, and is an addition to the blooper reel. Tarl N. (discuss) 18:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moved. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Failure - Other similar flights, speficially the Electron 1 launch, were all classed as failures and we shouldn't be treating Starship differently by moving the goalposts around to squeeze it into partial failure. It doesn't matter how much test data they successfully collect, the launch was still a failure.
CtrlDPredator (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Failure: All other orbital launch attempts that do not reach orbit have been classified as "failures" on Wikipedia; it doesn't matter how close it got, or whether it had a payload, or what was the expectation of the company/organization launching it. If it was attempting to reach orbit, but failed to reach orbit, that's a clear-cut failure (note that "attempting" and "expecting" are different things). Classifying IFT-2 as a "partial failure" would be grossly inconsistent with how any other launch outcome is classified on Wikipedia, and would likely mislead readers into believing IFT-2 reached orbit when it did not, as reaching orbit is the minimum requirement for "Partial failure" for any other orbital launch attempt. We have to classify these launches clearly and consistently, and not give any special treatment to Starship just because "it's a prototype" or "it got close". Gojet-64 (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    we once again, do not treat starship differently, and many similar flights that were classified as failure, should have been the same partial failure. Spacex new way of testing isnt the same as for any other company, therefore should be differently classified then other ways of testing. Would you classify an overpressure tank test as failure? Likely not Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really sure what your argument is. In the very same post, you said "we ... do not treat starship differently" and "[Starship] should be differently classified". You can pick one, but not both. Regarding your example of a tank test; no that would not be considered a launch failure because it wasn't a launch attempt. And that's what the infobox entries are based on: launch outcomes, not test outcomes. If SpaceX considers the test to be successful, then good for them, but the launch is still a failure. And as mentioned previously, whether it's a prototype or developmental vehicle is irrelevant. The N1 launches were also iterative vehicles which had substantial changes between launches, yet there is no controversy in calling all of those launches failures. Plenty of other examples are also given in the discussion section below. What matters is clearly communicating to the reader what the outcome of an orbital launch attempt was, and if an attempt to reach orbit failed to do so, then the clearest way to communicate that is by classifying it a "failure". Gojet-64 (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant that we dont treat starship specifically differently, but rather similar scenarios too. The N1 is a REALLY poor example, because the lack of quality engines made it so they had no choice but fly it. Starship isnt as similar to the n1. Some barely lifted off, some exploded during first stage burn, not accomplishing much. This is different from ift1, where the only goal was to not destroy the pad, wich it very much didnt fully do. Communicating failure would miss the development that happened to the second launch, and not reflect what starship had achieved. As i said, this isnt a working non-prototype rocket, therefore it doesnt have the same goals. At the very least we could separate these two, to better reflect what flew, and what it achieved. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 13:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are talking about the milestones that Starship has passed as measures of success, not the launch itself. You are advocating for Starship to be treated differently when it isn't any different to other test launches that have occurred before. CtrlDPredator (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is, other “test” launched arent expected to fail, many carry payloads, and arent changing with every launch Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Failure. The rocket did not do what it was supposed to do. It didn't complete any of the stated objectives; therefore, using the same criteria used to judge other rocket launches, we can safely classify it as what it objectively is: a failure. This is not something that has absolutely ANY room for any shade of grey whatsoever, and trying to move the goalposts around to sugarcoat the outcome is not how reality works. DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 12:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How did it not complete anything exactly? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 08:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Failure. The spacecraft and booster terminated mid-flight and were unable to achieve their goals, that is to return to the launch pad or reach orbit, re-enter the Earth's atmosphere and splashdown in the ocean. It's misleading to say that the launch was a partial failure or success as the launch vehicle was unable to achieve the aforementioned main objectives set out by SpaceX. Yasslaywikia (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Partial failure

  • Partial failure. We do have a general criteria, which means partial failure would only be applicable if a payload is placed in an incorrect orbit. This is for actual production launches. We don't have such a criteria for test flights. As per my comments in the above section, I believe this should be a partial failure as it made it past the Karman line before the Starship vehicle was lost. I believe test flights should be separated from actual launches.
However, it now also seems that the general convention is that test flights like the IFTs aren't included in the count. No other launch vehicle has test flights included in the success/failure count. Starship is still in its prototype stages and we can start using the count once Starship is in full production, and then we treat Starship with the usual criteria. Therefore, as an alternative, remove the IFTs from the counts entirely. 87.200.147.139 (talk) 06:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to some other comments I've seen with articles including test flights into the count. These test flights uses the actual production launch vehicle, not a prototype. Starship is still a prototype and not the final vehicle. A lot has already changed between IFT-1 and IFT-2, and probably again for IFT-3. But no other article has prototype test flights in the count. 87.200.147.139 (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are test launches that use boilerplate or mass simulator payloads, and test launches that don't use any payloads at all.
For the first Electron launch it was literally called "It's a Test" and still included in the launch infobox. It too had no payload, same as Starship, and it too was destroyed after first stage separation, just like Starship. CtrlDPredator (talk) 08:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but please read the comment above. What I'm saying is that prototypes like this (rapidly evolving, trial by flying) aren't usually considered. The Electron launch you mentioned is a test flight but not the same nature. 87.200.147.139 (talk) 11:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please take this argument to the discussion section. Redacted II (talk) 12:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that removing the prototype flights seems unlikely, I'm switching to Partial Failure, as IFT-2 satisfies all of the requirements (payload/crew not lost, vehicle entered usable, but not the intended trajectory). EDIT: PLEASE IGNORE THIS STATEMENT, NOW THAT MORE PEOPLE ARE JOINED "REMOVE" Redacted II (talk) 12:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of RfC

Pinging editors that have previously participated in the discussion: Arch dude, Bugsiesegal, C9po, CtrlDPredator, Ergzay, Finlaymorrison0, Fnlayson, Full Shunyata, Fyunck(click), Galactic Penguin SST, Gtoffoletto, Idontno2, Jrcraft Yt, LordDainIronfoot, North8000, Redacted II, Sub31k, Tarl N., and mfb. Please list your position above in addition to any discussion you make in this subsection. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Partial Success a category? There is no difference between Partial Success and Partial Failure. Redacted II (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both point to a failure in the end, so there should only be partial failure Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We can't waste all this time for every launch. We should decide a rule to apply to all launches. Not decide on a case by case basis. I think given SpaceX's unique modus operandi in which they test partially incomplete prototypes as part of their development program we should distinguish between test launches and launches with an operational payload. With a clear method of understanding what a "success" is that is consistent across all vehicle types. Otherwise the infobox won't make any sense. This is probably a more centralised discussion rather than something we should decide in the article talk page of a single rocket. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 13:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, prototypes should be separate from fully capable vehichles Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Due to SpaceX's unique testing practice marking these test launches as failures for Starship would cause a lot of confusion if Starship enters common use. Bugsiesegal (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that prototypes/test flights should have separate criteria from full production launches, but again there should be a general criteria for each, instead of a case by case basis. 87.200.147.139 (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a general criteria:
Is the crew killed/payload destroyed: if yes, failure, if no...
Is the final trajectory usable, if no, failure, if yes...
Is the final trajectory the intended one, if yes, success, if no, partial failure. Redacted II (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring that the vehicle was lost before achieving orbit. You are trying to hand-wave that since there was no "payload" that it doesn't matter that it blew up, but that was never applied before now. As well as using "trajectory" instead of orbit to try and get around that it didn't physically get there because it blew up. We shouldn't be trying to twist and change these statuses to fit Starship into partial failure. CtrlDPredator (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Launch vehicles that exploded have been counted as successes before, such as the Crew Dragon In-Flight Abort Test. Redacted II (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is completely disingenuous, was not an orbital flight and was destroyed to successfully test the in-flight abort system of the dragon capsule. CtrlDPredator (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was not destroyed to test the in-flight abort system. It's destruction was expected, however.
And a launch is a launch, orbital, suborbital, or atmospheric. Redacted II (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its also different scenario then other test flights, since the design process, iteration is different, and isnt expected to survive. So is it not surviving really a failure? Wouldnt say so. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 12:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gtoffoletto take discussion to this section of the RFC.
Also, that user has indicated that they aren't going to be convinced, no matter what you or anyone else says. Trust me, I tried. Redacted II (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yasslaywikia
"The spacecraft and booster terminated mid-flight and were unable to achieve their goals, that is to return to the launch pad or reach orbit"
First, in a 100% nominal flight, the booster would not have returned to the launch pad. Second, failure to land doesn't count for failure v.s success, as has been established on the Falcon 9 article.
"re-enter the Earth's atmosphere and splashdown in the ocean."
Same as with the booster. That is part of the mission, not the launch. Redacted II (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Despite what the rest of the mission entailed, both Super Heavy and Starship were terminated mid-flight, so I wouldn't call this a successful launch. I stand by what I said in my original comment as I think that it's applicable in regards to the launch. Not meaning to look into a crystal ball here, but I don't think that we should categorise the success of each launch until Starship exits its prototype phase, that is if it starts launching payloads into orbit, however, this is beyond the scope of the RFC. Regards, Yasslaywikia (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Despite what the rest of the mission entailed, both Super Heavy and Starship were terminated mid-flight, so I wouldn't call this a successful launch."
That is a good point, however, vehicle explosion doesn't actually mean failure. Crew Dragon In-Flight Abort Test is an excellent example of this.
"I stand by what I said in my original comment as I think that it's applicable in regards to the launch"
For the booster, everything past MECO doesn't matter when defining success v failure. And once the ship has completed it's ascent phase (and payload deployment), then it is also irrelevant for success v failure.
"Not meaning to look into a crystal ball here, but I don't think that we should categorise the success of each launch until Starship exits its prototype phase, that is if it starts launching payloads into orbit, however, this is beyond the scope of the RFC."
There is a category for that: "REMOVE" Redacted II (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should've rephrased that slightly. What I meant is that we should classify the prototypes under a different category if Starship starts to launch payloads into space, as commercial launches will be different in how we determine that they're successful compared to the prototype flights.
For the Crew Dragon test, that was meant to explode as the objectives of the launch were different. For the reasons I've stated, I think that failure is the best way to describe how successful IFT-2 was, however, I am somewhat open to describing the launch as a partial failure, but I stand firmly on describing it as a failure. Regards, Yasslaywikia (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"What I meant is that we should classify the prototypes under a different category if Starship starts to launch payloads into space"
I agree, I just think we should start doing that now, instead of later.
"For the Crew Dragon test, that was meant to explode as the objectives of the launch were different"
Well, actually, it was expected to explode post-abort, but it's destruction (and please, correct me if I'm wrong) was not intentional. FTS didn't explode it, aerodynamic forces did. Redacted II (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove that assessment from the infobox Infoboxes are only useful for slam-dumk certain factoids. The are problematic for everything else; the don't have the space for the necessary nuanceing, explanations, attributions etc. for cases like this the oversimplified "answer" is inherently WP:OR and controversial. In this case it leads to the many quandaries of subjectively deciding which of the many meanings of the words "success" and "failure" to use. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An amendment to this: remove it for the Integrated Flight Test's only. Once Starship is flying operationally, and not as a test vehicle, failure v success v partial failure should be much clearer and included in the infobox. Redacted II (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just like Grasshopper wasn't a Falcon 9, IFT-1 and IFT-2 shouldn't even be considered Starships. Different second stage design, different gimbling mechanism (booster on IFT-1, both ships), no payload bay door (they were sealed around a year or so ago) and probably a host of other factors that none of us know about.
By including them at all in the infobox, we are misleading everyone who reads this article. Redacted II (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? Sub31k (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes, and this belongs in the discussion section. I'll be moving my comments in failure down there shortly Redacted II (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Practically everyone, including SpaceX themselves, call these vehicles Super Heavy and Starship. That is not your determination to make. Frosty126 (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And? Prototypes aren't included in the infobox for every vehicle except Starship. Redacted II (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see prototypes in the info box, where exactly is this? Frosty126 (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It took me a bit of time to realize what you meant, the only similar scenario I know of is with Enterprise and the ALT tests, the main difference is that IFTs are testing the entire system, not just Starship or Super Heavy. Frosty126 (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"the main difference is that IFTs are testing the entire system, not just Starship or Super Heavy."
I think that's irrelevant. Both stages were prototypes, so the only difference is that it was two prototypes instead of one that flew.
If you want, I could probably get a dozen sources that call the IFT-1 and IFT-2 stacks prototypes. Redacted II (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide examples of entire system prototypes being excluded from the launch count? I acknowledge that they are prototypes, but they should still be included in the count as they are still flights of the Starship stack. Frosty126 (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a counter-example, I'll point to the page for SM-65 Atlas, which lists the prototype SM-65A Atlas in its count. Sub31k (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There really haven't been a lot of entire system prototypes, so no.
Would you include the S8-Sn15 flights on the SpaceX Starship (spacecraft) article?
@Sub31k excellent example, however, the SM-65A wasn't constantly changing (unlike the Starship prototypes), it was a full up version, with each missile being essentially identical. If you have a source that says otherwise, please share it. Redacted II (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find Atlas books in my library, so cannot ascertain, but this post https://www.drewexmachina.com/2015/06/11/first-atlas-tests/ is pretty clear on there being substantial article-to-article changes between SM-65As.
That aside, it really seems like you search for any way in which historical flights are at all different to SpaceX Starship to justify a different treatment, starting from a position (Starship is different!) and working backwards from there. I don't think this is going to result in any meaningful resolution. Sub31k (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the article you linked, and I don't think the changes were as substantial as the ones between B7/S24 and B9/S25 (removed engine skirt and additional engine shielding, compared to the previously mentioned changes for starship), but I'll read it a few more times to make sure.
"That aside, it really seems like you search for any way in which historical flights are at all different to SpaceX Starship to justify a different treatment."
I do go through every example failure listed to see what differences there are, and if they are enough to justify IFT-2 being a partial failure, and not a failure. So that might be what's causing it.
"I don't think this is going to result in any meaningful resolution."
I do have some compromise ideas that may satisfy both sides, but some of these were denied during the IFT-1 debate, so I'm not sure how it will go. If you want me to list them, I can do that.
Finally, let's take this to the discussion section instead. Redacted II (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SpaceX's development approach is "different" for the space industry. See for example this Oxford case study examining those differences: [1]. The "platform" approach described in this paper is not "compatible" with our current success/failure infobox. I think @North8000's idea is probably the best solution for the moment until we can find something better. We can't have this discussion for every launch. This is clearly controversial and a huge time waste. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 01:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Ansar and Flyvbjerg study was published in the Oxford Review of Economic Policy, and public policy is the focus of the study's theory.

A timeless question arises whether public policy responses to big societal problems should occur in big bold leaps or in small repeatable steps.
— Ansar, A., & Flyvbjerg, B., How to Solve Big Problems: Bespoke Versus Platform Strategies

It's not a technical examination of SpaceX, and if this exception is applied, SpaceX's competitors will also qualify.

We’ll focus here on just one company, SpaceX, but its competitors are sharing the same experience.
— Ansar, A., & Flyvbjerg, B., A platform approach to space exploration, Harvard Business Review

Redraiderengineer (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as second option to partial failure. Remove the classifications for the IFTs only, and add those once Starship is in full production and is no longer in its prototype stages. Or, we should list these prototypes separately, but that was discussed before. 87.200.147.139 (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
please move this to Partial Failure Redacted II (talk) 13:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jadebenn Success is my vote. You're missing the option of "Success". This launch and even IFT-1 were "Successes" because they were test flights with end goals of eventual vehicle destruction. Once this is all done we're going to have to have another RFC to relabel all the test flights as successes and then have a separate category for operational launches. What we're talking about is the equivalent of Grasshopper test flights right now, of which only the last one was a failure because they were not intending to test the vehicle to destruction. For Starship test flights all vehicles are intended to be tested to failure. Ergzay (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IFT-1 lost control and broke up, IFT-2 was terminated. The final objectives of both flights were successful re-entry of Starship. When did SpaceX ever state these were destructive tests? Frosty126 (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Launch and mission are separate, as has been established by Falcon 9. Failure/Partial Failure/Success distinctions end for the booster at Stage Separation and SECO for the ship.
(Though, in the mission plan, SpaceX clearly indicates both vehicles would be destroyed in a nominal scenario) Redacted II (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Frosty126 SpaceX stated during the live stream and before both tests that the goal of IFT-1 was to "not destroy the pad" by blowing up the vehicle on the pad and the goal in IFT-2 was "to get through staging". Ergzay (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Success for SpaceX and Success by Wikipedia standard are very different things. Redacted II (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe we can work on changing Wikipedia's definition to allow for SpaceX's industry standard violating definitions that involve iterative development, something not performed elsewhere in the industry. Ergzay (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion is for Project Spaceflight (or Rocketry), not here Redacted II (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone other than SpaceX would ever consider an unintentional loss of vehicle a success. While getting through hot-staging was the main objective for IFT-2, it was not the final nor only objective. A successful test would be expected to verify all components of the system for operational flight. Frosty126 (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to ignore anything past SECO for the ship and anything past stage separation of the booster when referring to launch success.
Anything past those two milestones for the respective vehicles is referring to the mission, not the launch. Redacted II (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to the test as a whole, which I'm pretty sure means the whole mission. Frosty126 (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This RFC is referring to the Launch, and not the mission. So using parts of the mission to determine success of the launch is misleading. Redacted II (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the launch only, the vehicle was lost before orbital insertion, meaning the launch was still a failure. Frosty126 (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but how fast did Starship need to go in order to test reentry? That would be the definition of the "usable orbit" required for partial failure.
And previous flights have shown suborbital trajectories (similar to the final trajectory of IFT-2) are sufficient for testing the heat shield of orbital reentry vehicles. Gemini 2 and Atmospheric Reentry Demonstrator demonstrate this very well. Redacted II (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if the orbit was usable, however loss of vehicle is what made this a failure. Frosty126 (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it inserted the payload (in this case, itself. Does starship count as a payload?) into a usable orbit, then it's a partial failure. Redacted II (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ift1 wanted to lift off, ift 2 wanted to test staging. Spacex never stated this would survive, wich is similar to it Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, completely remove the section as @Redacted II presented above, which is also for some reason not an option in your poll.Ergzay (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


RfC Statement: @Jadebenn, based on the existing discussion and for greater clarity, it's preferrable to modify the statement. The current wording of the question results in voting on multiple options, which is discouraged.
I recommend: "Should the SpaceX Starship IFT-2 launch be categorized as "failure" or "partial failure" in the infobox?" This question is specific, neutral, and brief. If this RfC doesn't resolve additional points of contention, we can create further RfCs to address these points. Redraiderengineer (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, the current RFC description is neutral and is specific enough for the current debate. Redacted II (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Modified accordingly. Can someone separate the discussions out of the position listings? They're supposed to make it clear which editors hold what position. The actual discussion of said positions should be confined to the section here. I'd do it myself but it's very difficult to do the edits from a phone. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 18:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start moving mine out. Redacted II (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jrcraft Yt
Read the previous discussion. There are reasons for almost all (but not all, like the Electron launch. I'd support reclassification of that to "Other Outcome") of the example launches to be a failure.
H3 first flight: Desired orbit: LEO. Final "orbit": Very suborbital. Failure
Rocket 3: LEO attempt, failed to get past staging. Failure
Terran 1: No second stage ignition. Failure
Launcher One: First stage engine failure, didn't reach staging. Failure
Ariane 5: Didn't even make it to staging. Failure
Zhuque-2: Wasn't a prototype vehicle, and was almost twice as far from the desired orbit as IFT-2 was at the end of their respective flights.
Zhuque-1: Desired orbit: LEO. Was slower than IFT-2 near staging. Failure
N1: Not prototype vehicles, never made it through first stage burn. Failure
Falcon 1: Failed to make it through stage 1 burn/stage 2 issues much farther from desired trajectory than IFT-2/engine destroyed by first stage residual thrust. Failure
Proton K: It flew off course very early on in the flight (although we might be referring to different flights). Failure
Long March 7a: didn't make it to staging. Failure.
Zenit-3sl: didn't reach orbit on what seems like a GEO launch. Failure
ABL RS1: Engines failed right after liftoff. Failure
And, for the two Starship launches:
IFT-1: didn't make it near the karman line, much less TAO. Failure
IFT-2: made it past staging, less than 1 km/s from desired orbit. Was going fast enough to test reentry (Atmospheric Reentry Demonstrator, Gemini 2). Partial Failure Redacted II (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notice how you structure each one of those around Starship. You're making Starship the baseline. In effect, saying getting close but not as close as Starship IFT-2 is failure. "Too slow" "not as far downrange." Incredibly flawed analysis. The baseline for an orbital launch is orbit, not "as close or closer than Starship got." Let's be serious. --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(amended descript)
H3 first flight: Desired orbit: LEO. Final "orbit": Very suborbital. Failure
Rocket 3: LEO attempt, failed to get past staging. Failure
Terran 1: No second stage ignition. Failure
Launcher One: First stage engine failure, didn't reach staging. Failure
Ariane 5: Didn't even make it to staging. Failure
Zhuque-2: Wasn't a prototype vehicle, stage 2 (3? Zhuque-2 does switch engines) issues with over 2km/s left.
Zhuque-1: Desired orbit: LEO. Stage 3 issues with over 2km/s left. Failure
N1: Not prototype vehicles, never made it through first stage burn. Failure
Falcon 1: Failed to make it through stage 1 burn/stage 2 issues with over 2km/s./engine destroyed by first stage residual thrust. Failure
Proton K: It flew off course very early on in the flight (although we might be referring to different flights). Failure
Long March 7a: didn't make it to staging. Failure.
Zenit-3sl: didn't reach orbit on what seems like a GEO launch. Failure
ABL RS1: Engines failed right after liftoff. Failure
And, for the two Starship launches:
IFT-1: didn't make it near the karman line, much less TAO. Failure
IFT-2: made it past staging, less than 1 km/s from desired orbit. Was going fast enough to test reentry (Atmospheric Reentry Demonstrator, Gemini 2). Partial Failure Redacted II (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring the first Electron launch which was also a failure, despite having no payload, being a test and completing 1st stage separation. And just stating a list of other failed launches doesn't make IFT-2 a partial success. CtrlDPredator (talk) 06:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's because I objected to the first Electron Launch being a failure. The failure was of the ground system, not the vehicle itself.
But, if you insist:
I don't have it's final velocity anywhere, but it seems like it was at least 2-3 km/s from the desired final trajectory (and over 270 km from the desired altitude). And for a 500 km orbit, that's more than enough to make it a failure. Redacted II (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It could be argued the terran 1 launch is succes because they wanted to test the strenght of the printing Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(moved from failure discussion):
Reaching orbit gives a 15 m/s window, while the velocity needed to test the heat shield is probably in the 5.5-6 km/s range (see Gemini 2). Redacted II (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rocket 3.0 on 15 December 2020 got, by your own definition, closer to orbit (short by 0.5 km/s). The only failure that could be realistically sent to partial on the merits of reaching orbit was the June 21 1985 Zenit launch. 2nd stage engine blew up near end of burn, sending some fragments of the vehicle into orbit. Back to "discrediting everything else but Starship" as I said before, demonstrating my argument. 18:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)) --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, using logic to explain why your examples weren't partial failures, while using the same logic to say IFT-2 was a partial failure, is "discrediting everything else but Starship"?
Rocket 3 (again): failed to reach orbit, desired orbit was 390 km circular (if I am wrong, please correct me and List of Astra rocket launches). Failure, as orbit wasn't stable.
I don't think your being serious with the June 21 1985 Zenit Launch, but in case you were,
Zenit-2: Failed to reach orbit, lost payload.
IFT-2 did not lose the payload (only because there was no payload), and the final trajectory was usable for testing reentry.
Edit: Having saw your "Failure is my end state" message, I'll stop trying to convince you otherwise.Redacted II (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tarl N. Completing all mission objectives is not required for a successful launch. The only launch milestone not met was SECO (Anything with the Booster after stage separation isn't required, as has been established by Falcon), which it missed by a minute while going fast enough to test the tiles. Redacted II (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Redacted II Where is it written down that this is the definition of launch success? Personally I don't even consider IFT-2 a "launch" but a "mission". The IFT-2 mission was to test multiple aspects of the vehicle with success of that mission set at the point the of staging. The point of success for IFT-1 mission was leaving the pad (it could be argued the mission for IFT-1 was a partial failure because of the unintended damage to the pad). Ergzay (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thats partially your way of seeing things, but it certainly makes sense Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The definition is from established precedent on every single rocket's infobox. Redacted II (talk) 12:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mfb In order for the "orbit" to be usable, it needed to be going fast enough to test the tiles (on this launch). Gemini 2 and the Atmospheric Reentry Demonstrator both tested orbital reentry vehicles on suborbital trajectories. So, it was going fast enough.
And if the "orbit" is usable, it counts as a partial failure. Redacted II (talk) 12:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't loss of vehicle make this a failure, regardless of whether the orbit was usable? Frosty126 (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, as the Dragon 2 In-Flight Abort vehicle was destroyed (though this was expected, and after payload "deployment") before the FTS went off. Redacted II (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that Starship is part of the launch vehicle and payload, as it puts itself into orbit. Loss of Starship would be comparable to the loss of Dragon 2 or the Space Shuttle orbiter, not the loss of the booster. Frosty126 (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Loss of Starship would be comparable to the loss of Dragon 2 or the Space Shuttle orbiter, not the loss of the booster."
Is it? Starship is a second stage, which deploys a payload into the desired orbit. Just because it returns from orbit doesn't make it the payload. Redacted II (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is, they are all spacecraft, and the orbiter and Starship just happen to be part of the launch vehicle.
"Just because it returns form orbit doesn't make it the payload." My point was that it being put into orbit does. Frosty126 (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Yes, it is, they are all spacecraft, and the orbiter and Starship just happen to be part of the launch vehicle."
"My point was that it being put into orbit does"
Centaur upper stages are put into orbit. Are they spacecraft? No, they aren't. So why is Starship a spacecraft? It deploys the payload, and (with the exception of crewed starships and HLS, but neither have flown) doesn't carry a crew. Redacted II (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Spacecraft considers Starship as such.
"Centaur upper stages are put into orbit. Are they spacecraft? No, they aren't." My point was being put into orbit made them payload. Frosty126 (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, the Centaur is part of the payload of the Atlas V? I don't think it i.
The S-IVB isn't counted as part of the TLI payload of the Saturn V, as another example. Redacted II (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "them" was referring to was Starship and the Space Shuttle orbiter, they can be considered payload because they are operational spacecraft. Frosty126 (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Starship counts as a payload, but I can confirm that shuttle doesn't. Look at the payload capacity listed on it's article: 27550 kg (204 km LEO). The dry mass of the lightest orbiter is 78000 kg. As 78000 is more than 27550, the space shuttle is not counted as a payload on it's article.
So why should Starship be any different? Redacted II (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the context, when talking about what the system puts into orbit, the orbiter and Starship can be included. However, in most cases it refers to cargo of the spacecraft to be payload. Dragon carries cargo and Starship carries cargo, while both are spacecraft, Starship is part of the launch vehicle. The only reason I made that distinction is because Starship isn't just a stage, but a spacecraft with a very large (projected) cargo capacity. Frosty126 (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see your argument, but I have to disagree with you.
This debate has occurred before: here is one example. I
The final decision was that the Shuttle is part of the launch vehicle, and not part of the payload. During every flight, it was the orbital insertion stage, so (technically), the shuttle was a two stage launch vehicle.
Given that Starship is much closer to being a full launch vehicle than the shuttle was, then it shouldn't be considered a payload. Redacted II (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't test the tiles, and it never had a chance to test them without reaching its target orbit (which it failed to do). --mfb (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple examples of suborbital trajectories being used to test heat shields of orbital vehicles (Gemini 2, Atmospheric Reentry Demonstrator). So it was in a usable "orbit" for the end goals of the mission. (though it's debris didn't reenter in the exclusion zone).
Reaching the target orbit is a success (such as Starship reaching orbit but burning up)
Reaching a usable trajectory is a partial failure (IFT-2)
Not reaching a usable trajectory is a failure (IFT-1). Redacted II (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The heat shield wasn't tested because communications were lost and the thing exploded. That should be important to note if you use heat shield testing as a criterion for a viable orbit. Again it seems like you're going with the minimal viable definition that includes IFT2. Sub31k (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The heat shield wasn't tested because communications were lost and the thing exploded."
Is it confirmed that it exploded because comms were lost? I thought comms were lost because it exploded. If you have a source that says otherwise, please share it.
"That should be important to note if you use heat shield testing as a criterion for a viable orbit."
A viable orbit is one that allows for heat shield testing, but testing the heat shield is part of the mission, and not the launch (the divider is really weird for vehicles like Starship and the Space Shuttle).
"Again it seems like you're going with the minimal viable definition that includes IFT2."
For me, it seems like you (not just you) are going with the opposite, throwing in requirements to exclude IFT-2.
But the definition I used is identical to the definition used for every other vehicle: it must enter a (somewhat) usable trajectory, and not cause the death/destruction of the crew/payload.
IFT-2 had no payload, so the second part does not apply. And it did enter a usable trajectory, thus satisfying the first part. Redacted II (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I've been of the opinion that since independent reporting is saying test failure, then the infobox would do fine mirroring that. Everything else is just throwing in opinions to arguments that others have brought up.
It's nice to have physical criteria, but given how subjective under interpretation they clearly have been, it's not something I'm very interested in. And anyway, two different events will always have differences in the details. But one has to avoid "splitting hairs". Everything is an exception to the norm in its own way. Sub31k (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Personally I've been of the opinion that since independent reporting is saying test failure, then the infobox would do fine mirroring that"
Well, for IFT-1, the majority of sources called it a success or partial failure (If I remember correctly), and not failure. I am not saying IFT-1 needs reclassification, and will oppose any push to label it as a partial failure.
"It's nice to have physical criteria, but given how subjective under interpretation they clearly have been, it's not something I'm very interested in."
If something meets the criteria to be a partial failure, then why shouldn't it be a partial failure?
"And anyway, two different events will always have differences in the details. But one has to avoid "splitting hairs"."
Yes, different events will always have differences. And those differences, if major enough, can result in different classification. I don't think pointing them out constitutes "splitting hairs", but, as you have said many times, "Interpretations vary".
"Everything is an exception to the norm in its own way."
Agreed. Redacted II (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It did not reach a usable trajectory for a heat shield test. It was programmed to blow up if it doesn't reach its target orbit. A test at lower velocities was never an option. --mfb (talk) 07:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because safety margins, if it werent for that, it very well could have done it. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know if it was safety margins that destroyed the vehicle. Redacted II (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Im not saying we do, im saying that its a likely reason for the activation of the explosives Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 13:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Im not saying we do, im saying that its a likely reason for the activation of the explosives"
Here's a quote from you that contradicts this:
"Yes, because safety margins, if it werent for that, it very well could have done it."
Don't say it was safety margins as a fact when the actual cause is still unknown to everyone (with the exception of everyone who actually works for SpaceX, and even then, they still might not have figured it out yet, cause it's only been 12 days). Redacted II (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are examples of suborbital trajectories being used to test Orbital Reentry Vehicles (Gemini 2, Atmospheric Reentry Demonstrator). So "A test at lower velocities was never an option" is completely wrong. Redacted II (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing Starship, not these other vehicles. Starship was programmed to blow up if it can't get fast enough to deorbit near Hawaii. It couldn't get fast enough, so it blew up. Testing the heat shield at lower velocities was never an option for this flight of this vehicle. The general ability to get data about a heat shield at 6.5 km/s in a flight is irrelevant. --mfb (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Starship was programmed to blow up if it can't get fast enough to deorbit near Hawaii."
It wouldn't deorbit during a nominal flight. If it had to, that would be a complete failure (accidentally reaching a stable orbit)
"The general ability to get data about a heat shield at 6.5 km/s in a flight is irrelevant."
The mission was to test entry. It was going fast enough to test entry. However, it was not fast enough to reenter in the designated area, so it exploded. So, the ability to get data at that velocity is very relevant. Redacted II (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are roughly five arguments the small but vocal group of editors opposing the classification of IFT-2 as a "failure" are making.

  • Argument 1: Starship is a prototype with an iterative development process.
First, numerous launch vehicles include non-operational launches (e.g., prototypes and test vehicles/flights) in the infobox launch count. Angara, Antares (rocket), Electron, Epsilon, GSLV, LVM3, Saturn I, Saturn IB, SSLV, Zhuque-2, Falcon Heavy, and notably Falcon 1, which had a commercial launch, all include non-operational launches in their infobox launch count.
Second, the iterative development process isn’t unique to Starship or SpaceX. It's at the core of the engineering design process. SpaceX has adopted a rapid iteration approach (i.e., “move fast, break things”) known as iterative and incremental development. The accepted tradeoff of this process is “failure in the development phase.”
  • Argument 2: List the prototypes separately.
Once a new version of Starship has flown, consensus may change. Future versions will likely be listed in a similar format to the Falcon 9 infobox. However, that discussion is beyond the scope of this RfC.
  • Argument 3: IFT-2 satisfies the “partial failure” criteria.
For an orbital launch, the “partial failure” criteria are predicated on reaching orbit. Orbit is used synonymously with the term trajectory in some replies.

There is a general criteria:
Is the crew killed/payload destroyed: if yes, failure, if no...
Is the final trajectory usable, if no, failure, if yes...
Is the final trajectory the intended one, if yes, success, if no, partial failure.
— User:Redacted II 13:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

While an orbit is a trajectory, the term specifically refers to a trajectory (in this case) around Earth. IFT-2 failed to reach orbit and doesn’t meet this criteria as applied on other launch vehicle articles.
  • Argument 4: Ignore anything past SECO.
CRS-1 is listed as a partial failure in Falcon 9 infobox. Dragon, the primary payload, successfully reached its orbit. However, the secondary payload couldn’t reach its intended orbit after SECO, and the launch was declared a partial failure.
  • Argument 5: IFT-2’s mission was to test re-entry.
The IFT-2 article states the mission’s primary objectives. Further, during the SpaceX stream, the objectives (as viewed by SpaceX) were discussed. Re-entry wasn’t the standard set by SpaceX.

So, let’s talk about some objectives for today. The primary goal for flight one was to clear the pad. We did that, and we got amazing data that helped us to improve the vehicle and pad that you see right there. Today, this time on flight two, we’re hoping to get all the way through stage separation where we will try to perform this hot staging maneuver. In the bigger picture, ascent is the most critical objective today, and everything else is learning.

Redraiderengineer (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"First, numerous launch vehicles include non-operational launches (e.g., prototypes and test vehicles/flights) in the infobox launch count"
All the examples you listed flew production vehicles. Test launch does not equal prototype launch.
"Once a new version of Starship has flown, consensus may change. Future versions will likely be listed in a similar format to the Falcon 9 infobox. However, that discussion is beyond the scope of this RfC."
How is it outside of the scope of this RFC? It's titled: "RFC on Infobox Flight status".
"While an orbit is a trajectory, the term specifically refers to a trajectory (in this case) around Earth. IFT-2 failed to reach orbit and doesn’t meet this criteria as applied on other launch vehicle articles."
So, your back to the 15 m/s range. Which is ridiculously small, given that other flights (with payloads and even crew) have much larger ranges for success, much less partial failure.
"CRS-1 is listed as a partial failure in Falcon 9 infobox. Dragon, the primary payload, successfully reached its orbit. However, the secondary payload couldn’t reach its intended orbit after SECO, and the launch was declared a partial failure."
It wasn't inserted into the intended trajectory. This doesn't violate "IFT-2’s mission was to test re-entry."
"So, let’s talk about some objectives for today. The primary goal for flight one was to clear the pad. We did that, and we got amazing data that helped us to improve the vehicle and pad that you see right there. Today, this time on flight two, we’re hoping to get all the way through stage separation where we will try to perform this hot staging maneuver. In the bigger picture, ascent is the most critical objective today, and everything else is learning."
So, primary objective was hot staging (though this logic has been rejected (by people who want failure, not partial failure). Which was successful. So this argument falls apart. Redacted II (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Argument 1: Starship is a prototype with an iterative development process.

All the examples you listed flew production vehicles. Test launch does not equal prototype launch.
— User:Redacted II 22:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The list includes numerous launch vehicles with non-production/operational launches. Falcon 1, the first launch vehicle developed and built by SpaceX, is on that list. You would be hard-pressed to call it a production launch vehicle (at least for the first four vehicles). SpaceX considers it a prototype, and all five Falcon 1 launches are included in the infobox launch count.

Falcon 1, SpaceX’s prototype rocket, is the first privately developed liquid-fueled rocket to orbit Earth
— SpaceX Press Kit

  • Argument 2: List the prototypes separately.

How is it outside of the scope of this RFC? It's titled: "RFC on Infobox Flight status".
— User:Redacted II 22:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The RfC statement/question is the focus of the discussion. Separating the prototypes is a valid topic of discussion, but the goal of this RfC isn’t to reach a consensus on that point.

Should the SpaceX Starship IFT-2 launch be categorized as "failure" or "partial failure" in the infobox?
— User:Jadebenn 13:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  • Argument 3: IFT-2 satisfies the “partial failure” criteria.

So, your back to the 15 m/s range. Which is ridiculously small, given that other flights (with payloads and even crew) have much larger ranges for success, much less partial failure.
— User:Redacted II 22:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a straw man argument. It's your unsubstantiated calculation of Δv based on arbitrary parameters. Your calculation isn't generalizable across orbital launches.
  • Argument 4: Ignore anything past SECO.

It wasn't inserted into the intended trajectory. This doesn't violate "IFT-2’s mission was to test re-entry.".
— User:Redacted II 22:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The second stage was capable of delivering the secondary payload to the intended trajectory. It had a 95% probability of completing the second burn, but the required probability of failure was less than 1%. As a result, the burn was aborted. CRS-1 is an example, but the rebuttal is focused on the shortcomings of the anything past SECO doesn't impact success v failure standard you've stated.
  • Argument 5: IFT-2’s mission was to test re-entry.

So, primary objective was hot staging (though this logic has been rejected (by people who want failure, not partial failure). Which was successful. So this argument falls apart.
— User:Redacted II 22:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a rebuttal to your claim of partial failure that is predicated on re-entry as the primary objective and factor in determining the usability of an orbit. (See your reply: ...how fast did Starship need to go in order to test reentry? That would be the definition of the "usable orbit" required for partial failure.) The arguments made in the "failure" section don't depend on re-entry.
  • Reaching a consensus

So long as each side stubbornly (and everyone here is to blame for this, including you and me) insists on getting everything and refuses to make compromises, then no, I don't think anyone will switch sides.
— User:Redacted II 13:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The outcome (and therefore consensus) of this RfC isn't difficult to predict when examining the current arguments in the "failure" and "partial failure" sections, and it aligns with the outcome of previous RfCs. Eventually, there's a risk of gaming the consensus-building process and stonewalling when one or two insistent editors repeatedly push their viewpoint.
Redraiderengineer (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"You would be hard-pressed to call it a production launch vehicle (at least for the first four vehicles)"
Except they were production vehicles
"The RfC statement/question is the focus of the discussion. Separating the prototypes is a valid topic of discussion, but the goal of this RfC isn’t to reach a consensus on that point."
Fair.
"This is a straw man argument. It's your unsubstantiated calculation of Δv based on arbitrary parameters. Your calculation isn't generalizable across orbital launches."
First, do you want me to show you the math? Cause I can do that.
Second, it's a rejection of your orbit requirement, and an explanation as to why it falls apart for TransAtmospheric.
"The second stage was capable of delivering the secondary payload to the intended trajectory. It had a 95% probability of completing the second burn, but the required probability of failure was less than 1%. As a result, the burn was aborted. CRS-1 is an example, but the rebuttal is focused on the shortcomings of the anything past SECO doesn't impact success v failure standard you've stated."
First, where did you get the 95% probability. Same for required probability of failure being less than 1%. If this is regarding CRS-1, then it still doesn't violate my "Anything past SECO doesn't impact success v failure"
"The outcome (and therefore consensus) of this RfC isn't difficult to predict when examining the current arguments in the "failure" and "partial failure" sections, and it aligns with the outcome of previous RfCs. Eventually, there's a risk of gaming the consensus-building process and stonewalling when one or two insistent editors repeatedly push their viewpoint."
Are you likely to get your way? Yes, there is a near-certain probability that the debate closer (is that the right term?) will side with you. But that doesn't negate the right of everyone who believes IFT-2 was a partial failure to try to push for it.
Finally, how did you color in your quotations of my responses? Redacted II (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good summary of the arguments and I feel it rightly shows how there is an attempt to redefine partial failure to fit the last Starship launch, instead of evaluating the launch for what it was. CtrlDPredator (talk) 09:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the reply of Redacted II? He basically counters every argument against it. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I don't feel like they did. Inventing your own criteria around an arbitrary 15m/s and presenting it as some sort of agreed upon threshold isn't countering the argument. We have discussed this over and over and it is clear that no matter how many similar examples or precedents are presented that the goalposts keep changing to try and fit Starship into Partial Failure. No one is going to change their mind here. CtrlDPredator (talk) 13:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Inventing your own criteria"
The criteria I listed is what has been applied to every partial failure and failure I have found. If you can find one that violates this definition, please share it (and why it violates the criteria).
"arbitrary 15m/s"
The 15 m/s value is the difference between 100% success and 100% failure with reaching orbit being a requirement. I calculated the value using the vis-viva equation.
"no matter how many similar examples or precedents are presented that the goalposts keep changing to try and fit Starship into Partial Failure"
I've also mentioned precedents and similar examples that support partial failure, so the goalposts have not moved.
"have discussed this over and over"
Agreed. Seven talk pages is ~five-six too many. And a 17 day debate is just ridiculous.
"No one is going to change their mind here"
So long as each side stubbornly (and everyone here is to blame for this, including you and me) insists on getting everything and refuses to make compromises, then no, I don't think anyone will switch sides.
However, I have offered to make compromises. These offers were ignored. Redacted II (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 15m/s is from your own calculations? Are you even applying it correctly? You don't even have all the variables. Others have calculated the perigee to be 1,700km below the surface of the Earth, another 15m/s won't be enough to raise to an orbit. CtrlDPredator (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Others have calculated the perigee to be 1,700km below the surface of the Earth, another 15m/s won't be enough to raise to an orbit"
You are misinterpreting the 15 m/s value. That is the difference at 250 km between perigee of 50 km and 0 km, which seems to be the range allowed. It is not how much faster the vehicle needed to go (I've seen values between .8 and 1.2 km/s for that) Redacted II (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What range allowed? Starship didn't get to orbit and was a long way off getting to orbit. Starship wasn't at an altitude of 250km, it didn't have a perigee of 0km, so what is this invented range of yours meant to be? This is exactly what I am talking about with people inventing new criteria. CtrlDPredator (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Starship wasn't at an altitude of 250km, it didn't have a perigee of 0km, so what is this invented range of yours meant to be?"
The difference between 100% success (reaching exact desired trajectory) and 100% failure (according to your definition, not mine) is 15 m/s at desired apogee.
I never claimed that IFT-2 was 15 m/s away from the desired trajectory. I claimed that the range you have set for partial failure is about 15 m/s, and used that to state that said range is unreasonable.
"This is exactly what I am talking about with people inventing new criteria"
You have said that it had to reach orbit to be counted as a partial failure. Not me. Redacted II (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is absolutely ridiculous. I have never stated that or even implied any arbitrary speed range. We are talking about a launch that did not reach orbit and didn't reach orbit by a very large margin. Why should we make any special allowance for Starship when it wasn't able to get close to the bare minimum of an orbit? That we should bend the criteria because it is "too hard" for Starship to reach? CtrlDPredator (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not, but you are using SOME criteria to say that it was too far Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was a long way off orbit CtrlDPredator (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How, can you show why it was SO long away to not be counted as partial? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The perigee, the closest point in an orbit to the Earth, has been calculated at 1,700km below the surface of the Earth. It wasn't close to reaching orbit. CtrlDPredator (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was almost exactly 30 seconds from SECO, according to the official mission timeline.
I think that qualifies as "close" Redacted II (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It it wasn't. Can't just keep redefining everything as "close" when it really wasn't. CtrlDPredator (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then define close.
If you don't like the definition I've stated (fast enough to test reentry), then please, state your definition. Redacted II (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Getting to orbit is a prerequisite for achieving orbit.
Having a perigee 1700km below the surface of the Earth is clearly sub-orbital.
Have no idea why you are trying to distract the conversation about reentry, which is a mute point because it blew up preventing it from even being able to attempt that. CtrlDPredator (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Have no idea why you are trying to distract the conversation about reentry"
The mission was to test reentry. If the vehicle doesn't go fast enough to test reentry, it's a failure. Otherwise, it's a partial failure/success (depending on the final trajectory/orbit).
"Getting to orbit is a prerequisite for achieving orbit."
Given that the difference in velocity between a perigee of 50 km and a perigee of -.001 km is very, very small (15 m/s), I have to disagree with that requirement for Transatmospheric flights. (And yes, I know it had a perigee of -1700 km. My point is that orbit shouldn't be a requirement for partial failure)
"which is a mute point because it blew up preventing it from even being able to attempt that"
The launch didn't destroy the payload (due to there being no payload), so I think the point does matter. Redacted II (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You want to remove the orbital requirement, because Starship completely missed it.
You want to ignore the fact that it blew up so that you can try to discuss re-entry tests that it never was able to do.
I don't feel like you are acting in good faith here, you are bludgeoning the conversation with these repeated strawman arguments that just take everyone here around in circles again and again and again and again.
I am not going to engage with you in these conversation any more, don't assume that I am abandoning my position, it's that it is not healthy. CtrlDPredator (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"I am not going to engage with you in these conversation any more"
Okay. I recommend unsubscribing to this topic, so you don't continue to get flooded by notifications.
"don't assume that I am abandoning my position"
Why would I? Redacted II (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"That is absolutely ridiculous. I have never stated that or even implied any arbitrary speed range. We are talking about a launch that did not reach orbit and didn't reach orbit by a very large margin"
You never stated the range, I calculated it based on your (and other editors) statements.
"Why should we make any special allowance for Starship when it wasn't able to get close to the bare minimum of an orbit? That we should bend the criteria because it is "too hard" for Starship to reach?"
It's not a "special allowance". Same rules apply to any other rocket. Redacted II (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What "rules"? There isn't written guidance on this topic and the "rules" being used are clearly not universally accepted. Sub31k (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you keep bringing up this 15 m/s range. No one arguing for 'failure' is advocating for that kind of arbitrary speed range. It is indeed a straw man and quite frustrating to have to deal with again. From the top:
What the MoS states counts for 'partial failure', and the standard applied to all other launch vehicles, is a usable orbit, not "close to a usable orbit by some reasonable margin". The exact speed range for such an orbit to be usable is not relevant, what matters is whether it's usable or not. If 15m/s is the difference between a usable vs unusable orbit on this particular flight, then so be it. That's not unfair to Starship, and is consistent with the standard all other launch vehicles are held to. Most missions heading to LEO would be considered a failure if they fell short by a similar small margin, including Astra's Rocket 3.2, which fell short of orbit by "just half a kilometer per second" (closer than Starship got) and is still uncontroversially classified as a failure. The velocity of Mars Climate Orbiter was wrong by less than 0.2 m/s, and its mission is unanimously considered a failure.
You are advocating for Starship to be given a special allowance. The rules applied to any other orbital launch attempt is that reaching orbit (and also not-blowing-up, another thing Starship failed to do) is the minimum requirement for a launch to get the 'partial failure' classification. The end, no allowances for "it's a prototype", no allowances for "it had no payload", no allowances for "it got close".
I think it's insane that a vehicle which explodes before reaching its target orbit could be classified as anything but a failure. No orbital rocket in history would be given that allowance. More importantly, it's misleading to readers. Although, we all implicitly know why Starship is being given this special treatment that no other launch vehicle would get. I've been refraining from saying it explicitly up until now, but I just have to call it what it is; the SpaceX fanboyism is really getting to me. Gojet-64 (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the long, and probably disorganized, response.
"It is indeed a straw man and quite frustrating to have to deal with again"
That is not my intent.
"What the MoS states counts for 'partial failure', and the standard applied to all other launch vehicles, is a usable orbit, not "close to a usable orbit by some reasonable margin""
The final trajectory was usable for testing the heat shield.
"If 15m/s is the difference between a usable vs unusable orbit on this particular flight, then so be it."
And that's what I'm objecting to. It could have tested the heat shield at it's final velocity, therefore, it's final trajectory was a "usable one".
"Most missions heading to LEO would be considered a failure if they fell short by a similar small margin, including Astra's Rocket 3.2, which fell short of orbit by "just half a kilometer per second" (closer than Starship got) and is still uncontroversially classified as a failure"
Astra 3.2's mission was to reach a stable orbit. There is a difference. If IFT-2 was planned to reach a stable orbit, we'd would most likely
"The velocity of Mars Climate Orbiter was wrong by less than 0.2 m/s, and its mission is unanimously considered a failure."
Launch vehicle vs. satellite. As with Astra 3.2, there is a difference.
"(and also not-blowing-up, another thing Starship failed to do)"
Crew Dragon In-Flight Abort Test's launch vehicle exploded (which was not planned, though it was expected). And it's counted as a launch success. So, an exploding launch vehicle can be counted as a success, so long as the payload isn't destroyed.
"The end, no allowances for "it's a prototype", no allowances for "it had no payload", no allowances for "it got close"."
First, I never said that it's prototype status impacts success v failure (though I probably said that during the IFT-1 debate, and other editors have stated that during this one). Second, IMO, not having a payload to lose does impact success v failure, as it expands the range allowed for the vehicle to be off the desired trajecory. And the "it got close" is simply "the final trajectory was usable for testing reentry, but not in the designated location".
"More importantly, it's misleading to readers."
I think labeling it as a failure would be misleading readers, but we can disagree.
"I've been refraining from saying it explicitly up until now, but I just have to call it what it is; the SpaceX fanboyism is really getting to me"
Please, avoid personal attacks. We are all here to build and improve this encyclopedia. Just because we disagree doesn't mean one of us is a "SpaceX Fanboy" or "SpaceX Hater".
I understand your arguments. They are very valid, and me disagreeing with them doesn't mean that I'm "ignoring them".
And finally, I'm willing to compromise here. We can come to a final decision that both sides don't actively hate. Redacted II (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, "SpaceX fanboyism" was not meant to be directed at you specifically. Rather, I meant it regarding an overall trend I had been observing across Wikipedia in recent years; namely, an apparent trend of bias towards SpaceX. (But that is beyond the scope of this particular discussion)
The arguments, however, are still going in the same circles as before. I feel I have little to add at this point, else I'll just be repeating myself again. I do hope a consensus/compromise can be reached, but I'm going to step back for a bit and let the other editors express their views. Gojet-64 (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This gotta end soon, it just cant go on Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It really needs to. The intergalactic nuclear wars that inevitably erupt every time the Cult Of Musk invade comment sections to try to push their agendas using "alternative objectivity" and "alternative logic" are a pain to deal with. DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 12:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Cult Of Musk invade comment sections to try to push their agendas"
Stop the personal attacks and accusations. Redacted II (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I accept your apology. Redacted II (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've been watching the talk page for a while now (I've been inactive on WP). I must be honest - I was quite disappointed when I saw this debate emerge again. It's clear that some people are against the consensus in regards to how the recent test flight should be classed in terms of their success, and I find this quite unfortunate. As editors, we should cooperate with each other, but it appears that some edits aren't doing that here.
Redacted II, I've been watching the arguments you've been making and I must caution you to not sealion in and bludgeon discussions. Sometimes, things just don't go the way we go and sometimes we just need to drop the stick and move on. I get it, it's very frustrating when things don't go the way you want them to go, but this is how things have to be on Wikipedia with how we make decisions by consensus.
I also think we need to turn down the temperature in here too. I've noticed a lot of personal attacks directed between editors of different opinions on how the successful the recent launch was. We need to remain civil even if we get frustrated by the opinions of other people. Regards, Yasslaywikia (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"It's clear that some people are against the consensus in regards to how the recent test flight should be classed in terms of their success, and I find this quite unfortunate"
Well, we do have the right to disagree. And the right to voice our opinion on the talk page during a debate.
"As editors, we should cooperate with each other, but it appears that some edits aren't doing that here."
Which is why I have (multiple times) offered to work on a compromise option.
"Sometimes, things just don't go the way we go and sometimes we just need to drop the stick and move on. I get it, it's very frustrating when things don't go the way you want them to go, but this is how things have to be on Wikipedia with how we make decisions by consensus."
This isn't going to be a repeat of IFT-2. Once this RFC has concluded (almost certainly for the side of failure), I'm done (not with Wikipedia, but with this debate).
"I also think we need to turn down the temperature in here too. I've noticed a lot of personal attacks directed between editors of different opinions on how the successful the recent launch was. We need to remain civil even if we get frustrated by the opinions of other people"
I cannot express just how much I agree with this. Redacted II (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closure challenge: @CactiStaccingCrane: I'm not sure your closure is appropriate per WP:CLOSE. A new option "remove" has been proposed and was just added in the last few days and collecting support. Also I don't think you should be the one closing. Your closure summary isn't a very fair summary of the discussion and you just seem to be pushing your own "view" (and vote in past votes?) and accusing contrary votes of misbehaving. This is the second time this topic has ended in a disastrous RfC. Let's do this right or it will come up again in 2 weeks with the next launch. Please revert your closure and let's follow WP:CLOSE next time. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 15:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't vote in the current or previous RfC. They are also not wrong on the lack of civility and the bludgeoning and sealioning that has taken place both here and in the previous RfC.CtrlDPredator (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The closer shouldn't be someone involved in the previous debate, to avoid bias.Redacted II (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't give a damn on whether both IFTs are a failure or not. Failure, after all, is a subjective thing and based on previous discussions no one will be willing to change their mind. In the RfC is obvious to see that the consensus that IFT-2 should be categorized as a failure and this "failure/no-failure" debate has been ongoing since IFT-1 because of a few regulars here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane I don't think that answers my points above. Do you agree to revert the closure? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 18:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't give a damn on whether both IFTs are a failure or not"
Good. I still would prefer someone else as the closer (just to establish the precedent, as while you may not be biased, this could come up again).
"Failure, after all, is a subjective thing"
Agreed, especially with prototypes.
"based on previous discussions no one will be willing to change their mind"
I wish I could disagree with you on this.
"In the RfC is obvious to see that the consensus that IFT-2 should be categorized as a failure"
The majority of editors do think it is a failure. However, when a new option is added to the RFC, waiting a week before closing it seems reasonable.
""failure/no-failure" debate has been ongoing since IFT-1 because of a few regulars here."
The IFT-1 debate had been dead for several months. Redacted II (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Failure, after all, is a subjective thing and based on previous discussions no one will be willing to change their mind. " This is exactly the argument for removing the field. I personally support "success" but removing the field is an acknowledgment that there are valid reasons to disagree. I HAVE changed my mind.
"In the RfC is obvious to see that the consensus that IFT-2 should be categorized as a failure" If the comments are tallied as WP:VOTEs perhaps. Most of them repeat the same subjective opinions. They don't contradict the non-failure camp.
"this "failure/no-failure" debate has been ongoing since IFT-1 because of a few regulars here" It's contrary to undisputed source material to call it a failure, not just to the people stating those here. So of course people familiar with the situation are going to bring it up over and over. It's contrary to how people involved with and adjacent to the program see things. Foonix0 (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it is then why not circumvent having to call it anything by not calling it anything? And we cant judge something with a description that has subjective meaning, therefore just dont do it. I myself always considered what the people saying failure argue, but i cant agree. Hopefully the same with them. There is no other way around this, if we cant agree even considering what the other said. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a dead debate at this point. I recommend moving on. Redacted II (talk) 11:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying this to me or Foonix? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying it to both of you. If we waste our time here, it makes other editors much less likely to work with any of us in the future. Redacted II (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, im just sad that when we finally seemed to get closer to a consensus it was closed. This will surely come up again at some point, and it would have been good to have a way to quickly be able to deal with it… I may take a bit of a break untill then Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Years in history subsections

I know that it was helpful to include the years of each stage of development in the sub-sections for the history section, but as more and more things are happening in individual years, it might be time to remove them. Scu ba (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simplifying them is probably better. That level of detail should be it's own article Redacted II (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, simple yet effective is the way Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 11:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RVAC Isp uncited

Does anyone have a source for the 363 second number for RVAC isp? Redacted II (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From the SpaceX Raptor article, the Rvac specific impulse is from a presentation made by Tom Mueller.[1]

References

  1. ^ Belluscio, Alejandro G. (March 7, 2014). "SpaceX advances drive for Mars rocket via Raptor power". NASASpaceflight.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SpaceX_Starship&oldid=1189585227"