Talk:SpaceX Starship

Success or Failure 20-Apr-2023

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

Did Starship succeed? Maybe

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

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

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

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

I think calling it a failure is ignoring what the intentions of launch was. However it definitely wasn’t a complete success. Are we allowed to make a partial success category though? Bugsiesegal (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

"Partial failure" was used by Boeing and NASA for the Boeing Starliner OFT-1 flight. I think that anyone who really cares will look more deeply than the labe we give it and learn about what actually happened. -Arch dude (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Completely reasonable. Though this page might influence the public’s views on the safety of starship in the future. Bugsiesegal (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of the companies "intentions," acrossed spaceflight Wikipedia pages, we treat all orbital flights the same, be them test flights of new rockets or the 1200 flight of a Soyuz. Doing so would break the consensus and consistence developed acrossed spaceflight Wikipedia. This is simply the nature of iterative design, you will fail. this was an orbital launch attempts, it was destroyed at 39 km. It's not close to a success in the way every other Wikipedia article about launch vehicles are done. This argument comes up many times a new rocket fails during launch, and people can't bring themselves to be unbiased and continue with consensus and precedent. Should we reconsider the first flights of the N1 rocket because they too were developmental test flights? Was Falcon 1 Flight 1 a partial success? This test is not partial, that not how we catalogue launches here. If an operational starship mission did the same, would it still be considered partial, even if it was crewed? If this test really is partial, then I expect the same people to push for changing N1 to partial as well. Otherwise it's clear that there's a deviation from precedent and consensus. And we gain nothing from changing definitions page by page. If this is the bar, it's essentially impossible for Starship to "fail". This sets the success criteria for Starship on this page going forward. So it needs to be consistent. Test flight's don't get special success categories, if this flight was carrying satellites to orbit, it would be nowhere near a partial. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

But it wasn’t carrying satellites. And hey if you want to change N1 to a partial success go for it. That rocket was cool. Bugsiesegal (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to change it because that's not objective and not inline with Wikipedia spaceflight consensus. Anything to hide the word failure from a SpaceX page.Jrcraft Yt (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a test vehicle, does wikipedia have the list of F9s that were lost in developing that vehicle too? No, so why is it here?

108.14.243.103 (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it should. 2603:8000:C200:C412:7D2F:BD9C:70C7:F6C2 (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. I agree 100%. I'm the user who cited the ArsTechnica link to verify that this flight was a failure (https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/04/so-what-was-that-was-starships-launch-a-failure-or-a-success/) and I cited it specifically because it states that the mission is failure by the original standards of successful separation, orbital flight, and successful landing. All orbital flights are treated the same by Wikipedia and this flight is no different. It's a failure. It's only "successful" in the limited sense of lifting off, but even that is only a partial success at best because it apparently damaged several engines in the process and experienced unscheduled engine-outs and thrust oscillation. The ArsTechnica article addresses the people wanting to talk about what went right while definitively stating this flight is still a failure because it was intended to be orbital. Full Shunyata (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

You cited an article that explicitly describes the event as both a success and a failure, but you then chose to unilaterally declare it is a failure. The entire point of the article, including its title, is that it can be viewed as both. The author, Eric Berger, is IMO a thoughtful journalist with a pro-space bias leaning slightly toward a SpaceX bias, but you should not unilaterally re-interpret the article. I think we need to explain both sides to our readers. This is similar to the situation when sources disagree, but it's in one source. -Arch dude (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I can choose a different article that's more suitable and leaves no ambiguity. One that would be more appropriate for a citation as a failure. Full Shunyata (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

And if you did that, you would be demonstrating that you are not a neutral editor, but instead are pushing your own POV. When there is a disagreement in the press, we are supposed to describe both sides. -Arch dude (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has consistent rules about classifying orbital launches, which this flight expressly was. If there is a reason this particular flight should be given a special exemption from Wikipedia's rules about orbital launches then it should be specified. There's nothing to disagree about when it comes to Wikipedia's rules. Someone would need to prove that this flight was not intended to be orbital in order to exempt this flight from being listed as a failure. Full Shunyata (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

According to other Wikipedia articles, the launch was a partial failure. So, in order to be consistent, it should be labeled a "partial failure" Redacted II (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, no. "Wikipedia" has no such rules. The highest level of "rule" is a formal policy, and there are only about 8 of them. You are referring instead to a set of conventions agreed on collaboratively by a set of editors interested in space-related articles (and which I generally agree with). However, the policies override these conventions, and one of the policies is that we must use reliable sources and that we must report on both sides when there reliable sources conflict. The flight was a failure, and it was a success. -Arch dude (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Good point. But to me a key consideration is this wasn't planned to be an orbital flight.

https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-first-space-launch

"The flight plan today called for... (a) planned partial trip around our planet... ending with a hard splashdown in the Pacific Ocean not far from the Hawaiian island of Kauai about 90 minutes after liftoff."

So I guess the question I have is do we treat sub-orbital flights the same as orbital?

I totally agree that we should be consistent across all wiki's. But sometimes it's a real head scratcher on whether we should look at what might have been, vs what the key objectives of the launch were. Idontno2 (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I suggest adding a footnote to the failure entry for clarification and to reduce back & forth changes. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

This was intended as an orbital flight, specifically a Transatmospheric Earth Orbit (TAO). Perigee was intended to be around 50 km, with apogee of 250 km. That is a type of orbit. An EFN footnote could be added. That would still make it consistent. I mean, if the bar for success or partial success of the first orbital launch attempt of a new rocket is just lift off from the pad, every single launch no matter the outcome would be at least partially successful. ABl's RS-1 was a failure, Rocket 3 F1 was a failure, Zhuque-2 was a failure, Japan's H3 was a failure. LauncherOne's F1 was a failure. Those aren't debated, and they're just as much a test launch with the explicit intent of reaching orbit as this Starship orbital launch attempt was.Jrcraft Yt (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. As a SpaceX project to generate engineering data, it succeeded. As a launch, it failed, unambiguously. Compare with the Energia/Polyus launch (which has also tri-stated on Wiki between failure/success/mixture), which successfully tested the booster, but failed to launch the satellite. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. It can be a success as a step in the overall development program but in terms of reaching its main test objectives, it failed. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 23:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we should avoid including this distinction. The current text succinctly explains what happened in the test and its objectives. 66.65.55.221 (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

This well-sourced Reuters article refers to the launch as a "successful failure", and reiterates that this is part of the company's testing strategy, so labelling the infobox possibly as a partial success or partial failure, or adding a note giving more context. LordDainIronfoot (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I have a compromise idea: Label this as a "prototype failure". Not a partial failure, nor a complete failure. I know it breaks Wikipedia standard, but it labels the launch about as accurately as possible. Redacted II (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

IMO we're here to provide information, not a wikipedian-selected value-laden characterization on something which is not clearly either. How about just put statements (with attribution) by SpaceX and an independent expert or two? Sincerely,. North8000 (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

But Musk himself gave it about a 50/50 chance of attaining orbit. There is a big difference between a standard expected full success, like an atlas launch or spacex space station supply mission, and a test flight where it is unknown how far it could fly. They learned some things and then had to hit the self-destruct button on this prototype. Apollo 13 was a successful failure and it was fully expected to go well. Prototypes are a different entity. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Considering this was a test launch, I feel it should be considered a partial success/failure in the Infobox since it launched and got near 1st [stage] separation. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

That's fine, if you want to set the bar this low, go ahead. There is no partial failure entry for an orbital launch attempt for a rocket on Wikipedia that didn't at least reach some sort of orbit. And that because "partial failure" implies most of the launch was successful, which is not true. It lifted off, causing major damage to it's launch pad, reached a sub-nominal max-Q and then blew up, not even halfway to space, and without accomplishing the majority of it's pre defined objectives. If getting this far for an orbital launch is success. Why was the case not made for Firefly's Alpha rocket's first flight being a partial failure (mostly successful) rather than a failure? Astra's rocket 3 launching Tropics must have been incredibly successful then. The Proton-M that flew upside down was still partial because it didn't destroy the launch pad. The bar has been set so that now if a company claims the probability of success is now, it's impossible to fail. This rocket could have blown up 5 seconds after launch, and this argument would still be made. It's irrelevant if they're test flights because that's the nature of test flight, they fail sometimes. And pretending they don't is incredibly disingenuous. If what happened during this previous orbital launch occurs during a cargo, tanker, or crewed flight. I fully expect them to also be labeled as at least partial success, you can't have both. Because if that's the bar you want, be prepared to stick with it. The amount of bias in this article and talk section is unbelievable, and most of the reasoning comes directly from SpaceX saying it may not be successful, and using them as the primary reason for this is a violation of Wikipedia:Independent sources. Not to mention the egregious violations of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view considering this was not a conversation even considered for launches of Firefly Alpha, Rocket 1, Rocket 2, Rocket 3. H-III, ZQ-2, ZQ-2, SS-520, Electron, LauncherOne, Nuri, N1, RS1, CZ-7A, etc. And most of those got further than this orbital launch attempt did. This argument did happen for Terran-1 and the outcome is as you'd expect from a non-bias and impartial editor (it failed). Musk also said the odds of the first Falcon Heavy were 50/50. That doesn't mean it can't fail. If Musk gave this orbital launch attempt 50/50 odds. It's exceptionably clear what side of the "50" it landed on. Bvbv13 (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you. Fine points but stating them sooner could have forestalled or shorten this discussion. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The main goal of this flight was to clear the tower. Everything else was secondary. So, since it succeeded in that goal, before failing, it can be at least considered a partial failure. All of your other examples failed launches had more ambitious goals then "make it off the pad". Therefore, they're completely irrelevant on the matter of "Did starship fail, partially fail, or succeed?". Redacted II (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Considering the vehicle is grounded by the FAA pending a mishap investigation (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/24/spacex-starship-explosion-spread-particulate-matter-for-miles.html) and that every other maiden launch that has failed to reach its main test objectives on Wikipedia has been categorized as a "failure" I don't see how any consistent argument can be made to classify Starship differently. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 22:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Because those other test flights had more ambitious goals. This didn't have a payload. The primary goal was to clear the tower. It cleared the tower. Therefore, since it failed at the secondary goal (reach orbit), it can only be called a partial failure. Calling it a failure would be misleading. Redacted II (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Calling it a "partial failure" would be far more misleading because it implies the vehicle successfully completed the majority of the test objectives set out before launch. It did not.

As user:Jrcraft Yt brings up, Wikipedia has a fairly consistent usage of the term across many articles and what you are proposing is not at all consistent with how the term is defined elsewhere. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 23:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Think about the definition of "partial failure". Part of the launch was successful. Part of it was a failure. They achieved some goals. They failed in others. This is quite literally a perfect case of partial failure. They cleared the tower (primary goal). They failed to reach orbit (secondary goal). Every single knowledgeable source (like SpaceX, the DearMoon astronauts, and Jared Isaacman, a Polaris III astronaut) is calling it a successful test flight. So the label "failure" shouldn't even be an option Redacted II (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

According to CNBC, Starship is currently grounded pending an FAA mishap investigation. There's a difference between saying "it contributed meaningfully and successfully to the overall vehicle development campaign" and "the flight was a success." – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 23:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Read the test goals. I don't know how many times I have to explain that. Redacted II (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Read user:Jrcraft Yt's reply. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 23:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Read the test goals.

PRIMARY: Clear the tower. Result: SUCCESS

SECONDARY: Reach orbit. Result: FAILURE Redacted II (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Fnlayson, Jrcraft Yt, CtrlDPredator, Bvbv13, and Full Shunyata: Just wanted to let you all know that Redacted II has deemed you all as having "abandoned" this discussion and believes this gives them the right to unilaterally edit the launch status in the infobar and edit war with anyone who attempts to change it. They have reverted me twice now for attempting to return it to the status quo.

Do you all agree there is a "consensus" to change the page status the way they have? – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 00:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

That's misleading. The one whose been doing an edit war is Jadebenn. I have been reverting their edits BECAUSE it violates the status quo, which is "partial failure". Redacted II (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

You've done a lot more than revert just my edits. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 01:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I've also reverted others edits, when they change it to "failure" Redacted II (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you have actually violated WP:3RR in doing so. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 14:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should call it as spacex called it. If it was a succes for them, then call it a succes. Thats why F1 launch 1 was a failure. It was classified by spacex as one. Starship was considered a succes, AND it was a prototype. The N1 was not a prototype, and was not supposed to fail, thats why it was a failure. But i can agree with partial succes too. Fehér Zsigmond (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Please, express that in the RFC! Redacted II (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Planned mission timeline

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

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

Let me provide some examples of actual partial failures for orbital launches, including some test flights:

Firefly Alpha flight 2, deployed payloads in too low an orbit.

Ariane 5 VA-241, Satellites reached orbit, but with substantial inclination deviations from what was intended.

Ariane 5 VA-142, Satellites delivered to a MEO rather than a GTO, one satellite was recovered, one could not be salvaged.

Angara A5/Persei F1, a test flight in which the Persei upper stage failed during the second engine burn, stranding the dummy payload in LEO.

Atlas V AV-009, Centaur shut down too early, deploying the satellite in a suboptimal orbit.

Long March 3B/E, satellites were deployed into a lower than intended orbit because of a third stage attitude control anomaly.

Soyuz-2.1a/Fregat, satellites deployed into wrong orbit due to issues with the Fregat upper stage.

Proton-m/Briz-M 935-34, Briz-M shut down 4 minutes too early due to engine damage. Satellites deployed into an incorrect orbit.

Falcon 9 flight 4, single engine failure on stage 1, resulting in the secondary payloads being deployed into a near useless orbit and subsequently lost after a short time.

Delta IV Heavy Flight 1, a test flight where both side boosters shut down 8 seconds too early, and the core stage shut down 9 seconds too early. The DCSS was unable to compensate fully and the satellites were deployed into a rapidly decaying orbit.

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

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

H3, second stage did not ignite. Vehicle later terminated by range, did not reach orbit. Failure

Electron, telemetry was lost and the RSO destroyed the rocket during second stage burn. Failure

Rocket 3, Failed during first stage burn, deviated from trajectory and destroyed by RSO. Failure

Terran-1, second stage failed to start. Failure

Launcher One, LOX line rupture, starving engine of oxidizer. Failure.

Firefly Alpha F1: Engine failure 15 seconds after launch, lost control authority at ~T+2:30, activating FTS and destroying the vehicle (remind you of anything?). Failure

Ariane 5 V88/501, first launch of Ariane 5, decided it was 90 degrees off course, deviating from trajectory and subsequently destroyed by RSO. Failure

Zhuque-2, Vernier engines failed, precluding any chance of reaching orbit. Failure

Zhuque-1, Attitude control failure on stage 3, failed to reach orbit. Failure

Soviet N1, started to drop engines shortly after liftoff, causing a fire in the first stage, all engines shut off at T+68 seconds. Failure

Falcon 1, Engine failure at T+33 seconds, vehicle destroyed. Failure

Proton-K, flew off course and exploded shortly after launch. Failure

Long March 7A, lost pressure in a side booster just before MECO. Failure

Zenit-3SL, failed to reach orbit due to a guidance problem. Failure

ABL RS1, all engines shut down shortly after liftoff. Failure

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

Every single one of your examples had the goal of reaching orbit. This one had the PRIMARY goal of getting off the pad, with the SECONDARY goal being orbit. Since the primary goal was achieved, but not the secondary, it must be classified as a partial failure. Redacted II (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

It was planned to exit the atmosphere and become sub-orbital. It didn't even get close to that. If we are being consistent then this is a failed launch, and there isn't anything wrong with that. Other SpaceX launches have failed. CtrlDPredator (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The primary goal was to get off the pad. It succeeded in that. So, partial failure is the right classification. Redacted II (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

That is inconsistent with other launches, as has been pointed out by several others here. CtrlDPredator (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

That's not true. For example, LauncherOne's first flight had expectations set by the company as "That moment of ignition of the NewtonThree, I would say, is the key moment in this flight,” Pomerantz said. “We’ll keep going as long as we can after that, potentially all the way to orbit, but we’re really excited about the data and about the moment of ignition and as far as we can get after that." Still a Failure

For rocket 3, "For this flight, our first orbital attempt, our primary objective is to achieve a nominal first stage burn. If we make it this far, we’ll be happy with our progress and be well on our way to reaching orbit within 3 flights. The more we accomplish, the more we learn, and the closer we are to reaching orbit." Failure

Terran 1, "Getting through Max-Q was a major goal for this launch to demonstrate the integrity of the rocket’s 3D-printed structure" Failure

The goals are clearly laid out by SpaceX, so enough with the "anything after liftoff is icing on the cake" because that's not an argument. All of these examples are objective and deal with the facts. Which is not what's happening here. It's irrelevant what the companies expectations were. This was an orbital launch attempt, and a test flight. It failed. We've delt with such things on Wikipedia countless times. Wikipedia is intended to be free of personal bias and misleading information.

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

Please see Wikipedia:Closing discussions, this article should be returned to the previous status quo. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

According to WP:Consensus, a consensus does not need unanimous approval. So far I have seen the vast majority of posts in the talk section of this page supporting the label of "partial failure". Therefore, it is safe to assume that there is a consensus. Redacted II (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how you can claim there is at all a consensus for "partial failure" in this discussion. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 22:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:Consensus. Because the majority are in approval of "partial failure". It doesn't have to be unanimous.

There are five for "failure", including you.

There are six for "partial failure", including me.

Six>five. Redacted II (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 23:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Remember, a consensus does not need unanimous approval. Given that the majority seem to be in support, and that the majority of EVIDENCE is in support, it can be assumed.

Right now, the ONLY people continuing this topic are you and me. This is a settled matter. Continuing this argument only weakens the article, and the entirety of Wikipedia as well. Redacted II (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

What weakens Wikipedia is trying to prematurely close contentious discussions with slim majorities in contravention of community guidelines. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 23:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

When no-one is arguing for a side but you, and everyone else has moved on, then your weakening Wikipedia. This has been settled. Redacted II (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Please review WP:THEREISNORUSH. There are dissenting comments made today, and the discussion has been active for less than a week. There is no consensus for a change to "partial failure" and therefore no justification for a unilateral change. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 23:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

There would be no change to "partial failure". It's already "partial failure". But that's irrelevant.

When the discussion has ended, consensus can be assumed. Everyone (with one exception) has accepted the results, and moved on. Redacted II (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Really? Because I see quite a few people who posted over the past few days saying that they disagree. Have you asked them if they've changed their minds? Or are you simply assuming it because that's convenient to your point of view?

I realize you're a new user to this site, but you need to understand that this behavior is not conducive to productive discussion. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 23:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Just because you've been editing for longer than me doesn't affect the validity of my argument. The discussion was abandoned by everyone else. So, unless someone (other than the two of us) revived this discussion, it's safe to assume that this is over. Redacted II (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Less than 24 hours elapsed does not an "abandonment" make. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 23:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

At the time they left, the current status of the page was "partial failure". Until the consensus changes, "partial failure" it will remain.

This entire discussion between us is just wasting space in the talk page. How about we wait a week? After all, WP:THEREISNORUSH. Redacted II (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to uphold the status quo until a new consensus is reached. Your edit warring is extremely tendentious. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 23:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Who's changing the status quo here? Before you edited, it was "partial failure". After, "failure". Disturbing the status quo. And how is the label "partial failure" tendentious, when it's the majority view?

So, follow your own advice. Stop the edit war by not changing the status until (and only until) a new consensus is reached.

I also think that my idea of waiting a week for others to begin discussion is fair. It stops this needless stream of posts from both of us, and proves whether the conversation has been abandoned or not. Redacted II (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

it's not your idea, it's Wikipedia policy that I stated above. Second, you stated:

There are five for "failure", including you.

There are six for "partial failure", including me.

Need I remind you of this WP:NOTDEM rule. 5 to 6 is absolutely not consensus, and Wikipedia does not hold votes for things in talk pages. So any atempt to use taht to further your argument or ram through changes is null and void. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, I'm still participating in this discussion, and will continue to do so. Anyone claiming that I have abandoned this is incorrect. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I assumed that you weren't. It was a reasonable assumption, given that your contributions stopped suddenly.

Until a new consensus is reached, the article should remain as is. I believe that's fair. And that several other editors would agree with me here.

(Also, my idea of waiting a week for other editors, such as you, was based on Wikipedia policy) Redacted II (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Please post the Wikipedia policy that's state's I have abandoned this discussion after 24 hours. I'm genuinely curious. If you want to inquire if someone has abandoned something, you can always leave them a message in the talk page. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I made an assumption, that, given how often you were posted, your pause meant you had left. I was wrong.

I don't see how my assumption affects what the proper label is. Redacted II (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

As they say, assuming makes an a** out of you and me.

If we would like to get into what "status quo" is, the sidebox had Failure as the outcome from the first edits after the msision until, what? The 23rd? I believe that using "status quo" to freeze a classification in a favourable condition, when the existence of such a status quo is very much debatable, is not the best choice. Sub31k (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

A potential compromise would be to label the launch as none of the three existing options. Given that B7/S24 were prototype vehicles, one could argue that a partial failure, success, or failure of the vehicle doesn't count as a launch of the SpaceX starship. Redacted II (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I haven't abandoned my position just because I haven't been able to reply for 24 hours. CtrlDPredator (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Currently, the discussion has shifted over to the "New Sidebar Proposal section"

I admit I made an assumption then, and I was wrong. Let's not have that dominate the rest of this discussion, as that would severely inhibit the entire point of this discussion. Redacted II (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

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

It's primary goal was to clear the tower. The reason all but Terran 1s first flight are failures is that the payload was lost. With Terran 1, it should have been regarded as a partial failure, for the same reasons as Starship should be regarded as a partial failure.

But for all of the other launches, there was a payload, and it was lost. And your definition of partial failure is, IMO, incorrect. Partial Failure is a mixture of failure and success. It can mostly fail, but have some success, or mostly succeed, and have some failure.

However, there is still my compromise option. Since Grasshopper's explosion isn't regarded as a failure of Falcon 9, B7/S24s flight shouldn't be regarded as anything in relation to the SpaceX starship vehicle. This has precedent in Wikipedia, going back at least a decade (probably more).

So what do you say?

We label it as a prototype failure (like Grasshopper), or we just continue this argument for the foreseeable future?

(Also, scooting it over really helped with being able to read your points. Thank you for that) Redacted II (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

If having no payload means that something is subject to different rules, than N1/6L should be considered a partial failure, too, since that had a dummy Soyuz 7K-LOK and LK. It was also a flight of an unproven vehicle simply attempting to achieve orbit.

I also disagree with the idea that the primary goal is to clear the tower. Such a thing is based on an informal comment, not an actual testing schedule. The testing schedule posted had a great number of flight objectives, almost all of which were not met. Flight plans were submitted to regulatory agencies. Should not these more formal definitions take priority over casual statements? Sub31k (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

No problem, it was getting quite small. It's akin to Falcon 9 V 1.0 than grasshopper to F9 B5. There's no reason IMO to break Wikipedia precedent, but if you have one, I'm all ears. I have a compromise, however. Direct your attention to the Falcon 9 Wikipedia page Falcon 9 and glance at the sidebar. Part of the categories for launch statistics are broken up into versions of the vehicle (V1.1, V1.0, FT, B5, etc). If you want to separate this early version of starship out from the more planned, operational ones. We do it that way. (nextspaceflight does something similar for their starship page). The sidebar would be broken up into sections just like the F9 page, which would be precedent. Say "prototype" "tanker" "crew" "HLS lander" etc. That way, the later versions are separate, and it's clear that a prototype version failed. It would loke almost identical to the way CRS-7 looks in that page's sidebar. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

That fits the objective, unbiased, the precedent, and "the should / should-not-be" parts of the arguments here.Jrcraft Yt (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

If some of you think this compromise is worth considering, I am happy to create a prototype sidebar with those changes, and put it here. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Your compromise is, so far, the best option I've seen. Can you add a "prototype" of the sidebar here, so we can discuss any changes before it's added to the article? Redacted II (talk) 11:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I would also be fine with separating the vehicle out this way, for what it's worth. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 01:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

+1 to separating the test flights from the final vehicle record. We should indicate clearly this was an exploratory prototype. The final starship might look significantly different once the prototype phase is complete. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

(shifting left for readability):

Maybe a new topic should be created to discuss the four options: partial failure, failure, prototype failure, or test launch?

This would be so we don't have to scroll through 90% of the talk page before responding. Redacted II (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Done below {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 21:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Recent Edit Revert

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

Read through the section above here concerning WP:Consensus. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Lets not start an edit war here. Given that the majority of posters in the talk page (including both of us) are in support of the label "partial failure", then one could arguably say consensus has been formed, especially when multiple sources have been added that call it a partial failure. Redacted II (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Redacted II: I think you have the wrong editor here. My only edit was a single revert of an anon IP (120.18.150.63) removing links. So you may want to strike that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. I'll see what I can do. (EDIT: FIXED ISSUE) Redacted II (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

New Sidebar Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I have tallied the votes and extracted the best performers from this discussion. Please comment in the section after this discussion to try to achieve consensus on one of them {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Proposal A

(A) Starship

Launch history
Total launches	0 List of SpaceX Starship flight tests Second stage tests: 9 Full vehicle orbital tests: 1 - did not achieve orbit

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

How about something like the sidebar on the right? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

That's exactly what I proposed earlier! While I believe the label of partial failure is best, I'd support this option over Jrcraft Yt compromise. Redacted II (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you go into more detail about how you are interpreting this compromise? I'm not sure we are all on the same page. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 20:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jadebenn we had a slight edit conflict. I was reformatting to make things clearer. The proposal is on the right. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 21:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The idea of this compromise is that starship has had 0 operational flights, 9 second stage flight tests (if Hopper counts, otherwise 5), and 1 full stack flight test, which will simply be regarded as having not achieved orbit. This removes the entire success/partial failure/failure debate, as none of these are used in the sidebar. Redacted II (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the inclusion of sub-10km hops in the launch history section. After all, Falcon doesn't have Grasshopper flights on its page. (The ship hops feature roughly the same OML as the "complete" second stage but are totally different in capability, profile, etc., and are not representative of the complete system.)

Also, might want to find language a bit more standardised than "full stack", which is something seldom seem outside this program.

I still maintain that informal comments by individuals do not override formally defined flight goals, in writing, which all point towards an orbital flight as part of the objectives. Sub31k (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I just included them as a proof of concept. We can decide what to actually include but right now we are not linking that excellent article (List of SpaceX Starship flight tests) which is a pity {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

They were starship prototypes. They can arguably be included.

However, I can also see reasons to not include them. Redacted II (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Does Hopper count as a second stage flight test, given how dissimilar it was to the current starship spacecraft? Different steel thickness (12.5 mm v.s 3 mm), different engines (1 r1 v.s 3 r2 and 3 (eventually 6) r2vac), different size, no nosecone, no flaps, different landing legs (three immobile legs v.s none).

One could say the same about sn5 and sn6. No nosecone, and no flaps. Redacted II (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support - see first post {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
• SUPPORT- so long as "full stack" is replaced with "integrated vehicle" in the sidebar Redacted II (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Considering also other comments by Sub31k how about "Full vehicle orbital test"? It's shorter {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

That also works. Redacted II (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Outside of issues with interpretation of outcome, it's confusing and contradictory to list both zero and one launch simultaneously, in close quarters with one another. This lacks clarity and is definitionally predicated on forcing a change to outcome classification. Sub31k (talk) 12:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose mostly for the same reason as Sub31k, either a flight is a launch and it should be included in the sum, or it isn't. C9po (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Those are not launches of the final vehicle though. They are launches of exploratory and partial prototypes so they should be clearly indicated as such. For example: this prototype did not possess the capability to carry any kind of payload (no payload bay or cabin has been designed), or to land as no landing legs were installed (it was scheduled to crash in the ocean). So it could NOT be a full success under any circumstance as it was not capable of performing a full mission (vehicle is designed to land). This is not an ordinary rocket and the basic expendable rocket template is insufficient to describe it. The "final starship" doesn't exist yet and will be very different from those prototypes. Hence: Starship launches = 0 - Prototype orbital launches = 1. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

OPPOSE as articulated by Sub31k and C9po. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

OPPOSE as articulated by Sub31k. Zae8 (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal A2

(A2) Starship

Launch history
Total launches	0 List of SpaceX Starship flight tests Second stage tests: 9 Attempted orbital tests: 1 - did not achieve orbit

• Other ways of tweeking this sidebar proposal:

"Launch history: Attempted orbital test flights: 1 (did not reach orbit)"

"Previous test flight: 20 April 2023". 2001:2020:32F:A3C0:38BB:99D2:BDC4:C435 (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

That sounds very similar (but not identical) to the option being discussed above this one. With your permission, I'll move your post over to that discussion. Redacted II (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - I would stick to Proposal A as every test is an "attempt". No need to say it {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose As it just predicates another debate, for both A and A2.
• Oppose Same argument as for A. Zae8 (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal B

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

(B) Starship

Launch history
Total launches	30 Prototype: 3 · Tanker: 20 · Crewed: 5 · HLS: 2
Success(es)	27 Prototype: 2 · Tanker: 18 · Crewed: 5 · HLS: 2
Failure(s)	3 Prototype: 1 · Tanker: 2 · Crewed: 0 · HLS: 0
First flight	20 April 2023

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

Nevermind the previous edit, I'm an idiot and didn't read (it's also 2 am where I am, lol). This is fine by me. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 06:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I can settle for this. If we decide on that, I'm good with it. Bvbv13 (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure it's a good alternative. As long as we clearly indicate this was a test prototype. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm a little confused on the implementation here. In your new infobox I see "3" prototype launches. I see "2" prototype successes and "1" prototype failure. Given that most here seem to feel this last prototype launch was both a success and a failure (partial success), how would it be numbered in your infobox? Would you list it in both success and failure slots? Also, while the average reader will understand the terms prototype, crewed, and tanker, they will not know what the heck HLS is. For an infobox that is bad. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

They're just showing what it could potentially look like after a few years. If that proposal was implemented, only one launch would be present Redacted II (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I fully understood it was just an example, but the terms must be understood before we should say yea or nay. How would this launch be applied in the infobox? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, it would just show under failure(s):

1

Prototype: 1

And under success(es):

0

Prototype: 0 Redacted II (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

So we don't solve the problem of a "partial success", we just move it under a new heading and still call it a failure? We'd be right back to square one with more than 1/2 the editors understandingly upset with the nomenclature, and our readers still scratching their heads. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Which is why I think the option above this one is better. Redacted II (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Just saying, either way, there's about an even split in favour and opposing definition as a failure/success. There isn't any agreement either way. Sub31k (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I tried simulating how it would look with current data. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Support - That's the best proposal I think. It includes all the stats in that space, which is great. I'm good if we end up choosing that one! Cocobb8 (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Starship

Launch history
Total launches	1 Prototype: 1
Success(es)	0
Failure(s)	1 Prototype: 1
First flight	20 April 2023

I do not think that this kind of Falcon 9 style infobox makes sense, as falcon 9 was already flying when they started testing booster landings. With starship, there is only the promise of future tanker, crewed and HLS versions, so I don't see a reason to already list those versions in the Infobox at this point in time. C9po (talk) 09:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

RGV aerial has begun to spot HLS components at Starbase (the upper engine rings). So it's not a "promise of future HLS versions". Redacted II (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

These future variants can be included as they begin to materialise. For now, just what exists - the prototypes. Sub31k (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

We will want to separate b9/s26s flight with b7/s24, as they are vastly different vehicles (similar to how grasshopper and F9 1.0 are different vehicles).

Maybe we can use prototype dev1 and prototype dev2 to differentiate? Redacted II (talk) 11:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

This is why I would simplify with the proposal above that keeps all the prototypes in a separate launch counter. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Partial support - Proposal A or C simpler and more clear with current data {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support - This is the option with the greatest clarity and the greatest extensibility. It avoids jargon, as well. Sub31k (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

OPPOSE- While this is a good option, the other options do better at portraying the flight as a "partial failure". Redacted II (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Fully support As other's said, this option reduces the complexity, technical jargon, and overcrowding of the sidebar. It's the one easiest to add to when new iterations come out because it doesn't impose a limit unto itself. It's the cleanest, and follows Wikipedia's quality standards as well as spaceflight Wikipedia precedent established for well over a decade. --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - not necessarily on concept, but in implementation. Just putting the prototype launch under failure is against sourcing. And I don't think most here feel that is the proper categorization. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

SUPPORT Option B. To make my stance clear, I will not support any proposal that does not count the test launch as a vehicle failure, as to do otherwise would be blatantly inconsistent with its usage elsewhere on the wiki. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Splitting out the status is completely pointless and not a "compromise" when the whole reason the proposal was done to begin with was to add context to the failure. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Proposal C

(C) Starship

Launch history
Total launches	0 Successes = 0 Failures = 0 Partial = 0 Test launches: 1 Successes = 0 Failures = 0 Partial = 1 List of SpaceX Starship flight tests

(C2) Starship

Launch history
Total launches	Operational launches: 0 Successes = 0 Failures = 0 Partial = 0 Prototype launches: 1 Successes = 0 Failures = 0 Partial = 1 List of SpaceX Starship flight tests

(C3) Starship

Launch history
Total launches	Operational launches: 0 Successes = 0 Failures = 0 Partial = 0 Prototype launches: 1 (did not achieve orbit) List of SpaceX Starship flight tests

(C4) Starship

Launch history
Total launches	Operational launches: 0 Successes = 0 Failures = 0 Partial = 0 Prototype launches: 1 Orbital = 0 Suborbital = 0 Atmospheric = 1 List of SpaceX Starship flight tests

(C5) Starship

Launch history
Total launches	Operational launches: 0 Successes = 0 Failures = 0 Partial = 0 Prototype launches: 1 Orbital Success = 0 Suborbital Success = 0 Suborbital Failure= 1 List of SpaceX Starship flight tests

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

• Starship
• Full launches 0

  Crewed 0
  Uncrewed 0

  Successes = 0

  Failures = 0

  Partial = 0

• Test launches 1

  Successes = 0

  Failures = 0

  Partial = 1

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

I think that's an excellent option Redacted II (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Now I don't know how to tweak "infobox rocket" to make something like this. The parameters don't give much room to manipulate so someone with the ability to tweak that template might be needed (or an offshoot template created). And my wording might not be kosher with how you guys usually handle things here. I'm just passing through because of my lifelong love of spaceflights starting with my dad working on the engines of the mercury, gemini, apollo, and spaceshuttle crafts at Rocketdyne. I want the discussion here to end in success with everyone at least "partially" happy with the outcome so when I see the final product it's truthful and understandible by all our readers. I usually handle Wikiproject Tennis issues but always dip my toe in items I have a passion about. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

OPPOSE. Option B fits better with existing infoboxes and generally is a visually more "clean" template. Also, with variant proliferation, it will not take up so much vertical space as this one will, which may become relevant in the future.

Also, agree with @Jrcraft Yt and @Jadebenn in that the discussion of failure/partial failure/partial success/success should be split from the sidebar formatting. Sub31k (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

You prefer option B but would this be an acceptable compromise? If yes maybe vote "Partial Support" so that your position is clearer. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• Partial Support - A bit more intricate than proposal A though (which I prefer over this one). And I would change label to "Prototype launches" rather than "Test launches". {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  Full support for option C2 or C3 {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• SUPPORT- This is an excellent option, for similar reasons as OPTION A. Redacted II (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

SUPPORT - I think more informative to separate prototype launches from operational launches. Finlaymorrison0 (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

SUPPORT - informative. 2001:2020:309:A924:D150:F4F9:1A5C:BF2 (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

OPPOSE, Potential to support - This one is ok. Though I disagree heavily with the "partial" classification. I've already made my points on that. (The point to separate out prototypes was so that they're failures would be cataloged separately). If that were to change. I will give my backing to this version instead of my own proposal immediately. I prefer C over C2, but both would Jrcraft Yt (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jrcraft Yt: A query then. Under prototype would you simply list number of launches? Absolutely no successes/failures/partials? No outstanding/satisfactory/below average? Just a number of prototype launches only? I don't really disagree with you in concept since it's often rare that a prototype is 100% successful except the last few, and often the early models have abysmal failure rates as the scientists learn. However, if in prose on those prototypes it gets written that they were successful or failed or had mixed results, usually on wikipedia an infobox would state what's in prose. That can create a bit of a conundrum with people who edit these space articles all the time. They want to summarize the prose in the infobox for easy access. So would we also leave out the mention of success, failure, or partial even in the main body? Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Sure. I would yield that if necessary to form a consensus. Though the point of separating them was to separate their reliability statistics, which would be removed by this. That's why I prefer sidebar 2, because that's *super duper* easy to implement into statbars, and is expandable. See List of Ariane launches for example. How wonderfull would that be? Jrcraft Yt (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

When I look at proposal B (which is what I assume you mean by No. 2) I see the same issue you bring up here... Labeling prototypes into successes and failures. B does the exact same thing. And it's a bit more cluttered with tankers and Human Landing systems included. I think the worst attribute of B is that it focuses the sections of successes and failures rather than focusing on the mission type. I guess to each his own on esthetics. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

How about C2? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Would you be willing to support my "C4" option? In the prototype section, it sorts it into three categories: Orbital, suborbital, and atmospheric. This removes the labels of success, failure, and partial failure from that flight. Redacted II (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

C3 and C4, those could work. Prototype tests aren't really classified as pass/fail/partial as much as they are data collecting. The queries on those choices would be: C3, how do we write it after four prototype launches where 2 don't reach orbit and 2 do reach orbit? And with C4 (which is kind of a cool compromise), I assume there would be no designation if the test was fully supposed to take place in the atmosphere or only made it to the atmosphere? Likewise if the prototype is supposed to make it to orbit and orbit 7 times, and two prototypes have that designation while going up, one of them does it and one of them blows up on orbit 4. Would we just list them the same? Just trying to think of contingencies so there are no surprises a year from now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Problem with C4 is all tests from now on should be orbital. So that designation doesn't really make sense. As soon as one goes orbital there is no need to point out the old prototypes blew up. With C3 we can switch to something like: "Prototype launches: 4 (achieved first orbit on XX/XX/XXXX)" {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

{{u|Gtoffoletto}} you have some valid concerns. Allow me to clarify.

"Problem with C4 is all tests from now on should be orbital.": With C4, a prototype flight isn't put into it's planned "destination". After all, then the first flight would be in the orbital section, which is not where it belongs. Instead, here are the guidelines for flight labels:

If a prototype "fails" below 100 km, it goes into "atmospheric".

If a prototype does not achieve orbit, but "fails" above 100 km, then it goes into "suborbital".

If a prototype achieves orbit, then it goes into "orbital".

And, Fyunck(click), here' are my answers to your questions:

"I assume there would be no designation if the test was fully supposed to take place in the atmosphere or only made it to the atmosphere?": Such a flight would be designated '"atmospheric"

"Likewise if the prototype is supposed to make it to orbit and orbit 7 times, and two prototypes have that designation while going up, one of them does it and one of them blows up on orbit 4. Would we just list them the same?" I think both would fall into orbital, maybe a "partial orbital" category could be created if the need existed. Redacted II (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the answers. They satisficed my curiosity. Also, with the C4 thought that they should all be orbital from now on.... true for this rocket and this infobox, but that may not be the case for other prototypes in the future. We would want a multi-use infobox that we could use for other companies and other spaceships. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

OPPOSE for the same reasons as Jrcraft Yt. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

This whole debate is over the classification of the launch. Splitting out the status changes nothing if we are merely continuing the incorrect and inconsistent "partial failure" categorization. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I also don't like how we are conflating to issues here. It feels misleading. There should be one discussion as to whether this is a failure or not, and following that, a discussion how to contextualize it. Not this mixture of sidebar options and debate that's hard to read and follow if you do not already understand what is being discussed. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

We're deciding between various options.

Anything is better than a digital screaming match (which is what we had before) Redacted II (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose too cluttered, and I don't support a partial label. Bvbv13 (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The other options are equally, if not even more, cluttered than this. And C4 doesn't label the flight as failure, partial failure, or success.

So, does this objection apply to C4, or just c-c3? Redacted II (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Support C3 C3 seems the most accurate and avoids the debate of whether the vehicle failed or succeeded and leaves that to the article itself to describe. There is lots of nuance that needs to be discussed so summarizing that simply is impossible in the infobox. After we have a number of future Starship launches, how to categorize this launch will become much more apparent to most editors. At such time we can replace the infobox with a new version. Ergzay (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer to not use an interim sidebar, as that would only lead to another debate in the future. It's much better to settle that now. Redacted II (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal D

(D) Starship

Launch history
Total launches	1
Success(es)	0
Failure during flight	1
First flight	20 April 2023

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

• Support I think that your D2 option has merit. Maybe change it to "prototype failure" instead? That clarifies the status of that vehicle. Redacted II (talk)
• Support This makes most sense. A reader reading about a spaceship designed for reaching orbit having X launches expects them to be orbital launches, not including limited tests near the ground. There were 1 (planned) orbital launches. 0 of them reached orbit.Zae8 (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Now that the chart has been created this is the worst chart I think. We don't know if it is an operational flight or a test flight. And failure in flight doesn't really add anything to simply failure. You'd have to also include a "successful launch" if you have a "failed in flight", and I'm not sure that's worth it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

(D2) Starship

Launch history
Total launches	1
Vehicle failure during flight	1
First flight	20 April 2023

We don't know if it is an operational flight or a test flight.

The point is to avoid making placements altogether, because there is extensive disgreement about how that should be done, if at all.

And failure in flight doesn't really add anything to simply failure.

In my opinion, the wording contributes a lot. It shifts the meaning from being mission failure, something shrouded in controversy and subject to the non-consensus of sources, to vehicle failure, which is broadly accepted as having happened by media. Perhaps it would be more amenable to omit the success parameter altogether for now, and to change to it "Vehicle failure during flight?"

Also, I am very curious as to why you placed @Zae8's statement in strikethrough. Sub31k (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The strikethru was a complete error on my part. Sorry about that. The problem is the chart gives us these choices: Total launches, Success(es), Failure during flight, and First flight. What if it's a failure during launch? How do we know if it's a prototype or an operational flight, since design changes happen all the time with prototypes. Is it a first operational flight or a first prototype test? It doesn't seem like that chart helps readers in the way we need it to. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

No worries about the strikethrough, then. It's not always easy to read through dense wikitext. Personally, I had been hoping to avoid addressing the prototype-operational distinction altogether, because I had been afraid it would have been a pain point. In D2.1.1 and D2.1.2 I've put together some stuff that makes a distinction, though, with D2.1.2 mocked up for some point in the future with arbitrary values. Also, first flight is just used to list when the first time the vehicle flew was. Ultimately, my objective is to try and make something that reflects the sources - which for this test flight may mean rephrasing the question of vehicle failure or success. Given that Musk is already downplaying the odds of success for the next flight, it's likely that such a category will see more use in the future, as reporting will likely continue to be mixed about fail/success. Sub31k (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sub31k: You know there's a lot of semantics used that are hard to apply to a prototype test flight when compared to an operational flight. Test flights and mishaps from Mercury to Starship are a lot different than having a mishap such as the Challenger disaster. Obviously the full prose can be more detailed, but this test flight is better described as the launch itself being successful, with the end result being malfunction/early self destruct. We know those items and the rest has scientists all over the map when applying a grade. That's tough to convey in an infobox without giving readers wikpedia opinion or original research. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I would say that describing the launch as successful wouldn't accurately reflect the state of reporting and sources, which definitely do not have consensus on success. Rather, they are thoroughly mixed. You mentioned early space mishaps - I'll bring up the Atlas A prototypes, which have their fair share of parallels to last week's flight. (incomplete propulsion, early design very dissimilar to production, declared by some as a successful outcome despite reporting of failure based on negative results). That one is tabulated as Failure on two pages and as Partial Success on another, not that it changes things, just something a little fun to throw out there.

Anyway, were it based on delivering what I believed was correct, I would be vouching for unqualified Failure, still. But since none of the original options have basis in the reporting, I believe that avoiding the subject and shifting meaning, as some of the biggest, most relevant, and most reputable media outlets did, is the way to go. Sub31k (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Again that's more semantics. Whatever you would like to call the liftoff and clearing of the tower... that was successful for the rocket. I simply called that part the launch. And your atlas example is a good one. Failure/success does not really convey to our readers, or adhere to the sources, what happened. We are misleading which we shouldn't do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It can be argued that none of failure, success, partial success, or partial failure are adequate, because of the broad spread of the sources and the extreme variation between them.

Personally, between them, I prefer "failure", because in the past, launches which are claimed as "learning experiences" are still categorised as failure when they fail to make their goal of reaching orbit, even if the failure was expected or if expectations were played down. Examples include Terran 1, Firefly Alpha and the List of Astra rocket launches. A rocket failure doesn't imply a disaster in the calibre of STS-51L.

That being said, the sources are far more important than precedent. Strictly following reporting of the launch, I believe that declaring that the vehicle (not the mission) suffered a failure allows the infobox to say something that all the reporting agrees on. I don't believe that's misleading readers, especially if more context is available on hover. Sub31k (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

We'd still have the same issue with "vehicle." yes it suffered a failure but it was not a complete failure when talking prototype. And hover has an issue in that some systems accessing this site don't have hovering ability. Hovering should be used only to augment meaning where the meaning can stand by itself even without hovering. If it said mixed results, that would be accurate even without hovering, and hovering would give the better context. Saying failure is inaccurate unless you hover and see the full context popup that tells readers that partial successes are also classified under failure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Which is why I think C4 is the best option. It categorizes this flight not by outcome (like failure/partial failure/success), but by where the flight "ended".

As for usage of hover, it is rarely checked by readers, even when they can check. So, an alternative is needed. Redacted II (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I find that with C4 it's possibly confusing since the categories could correspond to flight goals instead. i.e. "atmospheric" is easily interpreted to mean something similar to 2020-2021 test flights whose scope was restricted to atmospheric. It also downplays the fact that vehicles like that of 20 April 2023 are still intended to reach orbit and reenter, even if the expectations of success are low (similar to the maiden flight of Terran 1). Sub31k (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe a "c5" option is desirable, with atmospheric and suborbital replaced with "suborbital intended" and suborbital unintended"?

This should reduce the "downplaying" of the desire to reach orbit. Redacted II (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

That'd be logical. However, it is also a little MOS:EUPHEMISMistic, in my opinion. Generally, though, it's factually accurate. My main gripes are that it's a little clunky (in terms of formatting) and again the euphemistic nature of such a categorisation - it's something on the level of "rapid unplanned disassembly". Sub31k (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe "suborbital prototype failure" could work? Redacted II (talk) 11:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

But then it runs in the issue of sounding like the maximum objectives were suborbital, when this was marketted and advertised as an "Orbital Flight Test" before being renamed to IFT or SFT or whatever. Sub31k (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

How about "prototype failure in suborbital flight"? Redacted II (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

yes it suffered a failure but it was not a complete failure when talking prototype

This is the point of the wording "vehicle failure during flight." Taking a good look at sources, they are unequivocal about this - that the vehicle indeed suffered a failure that terminated the mission. It's by no means the same thing as outright "Failure" (even though I think that the latter is still accurate).

That doesn't convey to our readers the proper outcome when you leave it as only those two choices; success or vehicle failure during flight. You would need the two to be labeled; "vehicle success during all facets of flight" and "vehicle failure during any point of flight". That might convey the situation better to our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Why? A successful mission is by default one which achieves its objectives through. A failure is (during operational missions) anything that leaves the mission unable to be completed. The creation of this new category is an in-between meant to remediate the fact that this launch is "grey" in its reporting. Also, there are more than just those two options for the future; please take a look at D2.1.2, which is from a little earlier. This category, if it pleases everyone, can be reserved for such "grey" prototype flights, depending on reporting. Sub31k (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I must have missed that press release on what constitutes a "successful mission." I don't think you and I will ever come very close on this issue, so I'm not going to keep wasting space here in figuring out your logic on this. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

partial successes are also classified under failure

This would only be true if it were widely agreed that the launch constituted a partial success in reporting, which is not the case. In most many such a claim is placed in "quotes" and in some the launch is directly states as failure. And of course a lot of reporting tends to focus on events rather than outcome, because of the confusion surrounding outcomes anyway. Sub31k (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Why? You're using failure when it is not widely agreed the launch was a failure in reporting. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The point of this is to shift the meaning away from "launch was a failure" to "the vehicle failed and the mission was not completed", which is reported by almost all outlets, with the failure usually pinned on booster separation failure. The presence of the word "failure" does not automatically imply that all has been for naught. Sub31k (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Generally,it is preferable to have something for which there stands strong agreement for among secondary sources. Giving context through the popout, I hope, can provide additional context that elucidates the nature of events. That text can be changed if desired to be more accurate or representative. Sub31k (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Sub31k (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

(D2.1.1) Starship

Launch history
Total launches	1
Vehicle failure during flight	Prototype: 1
First flight	20 April 2023

(D2.1.2) Starship

Launch history
Total launches	1
Success(es)	Prototype: 2 Operational: 6
Vehicle failure during flight	Prototype: 3
Failure(s)	2
First flight	20 April 2023

(D3) Starship w. booster rocket

Launch history
Total launches	Total launches: 1 First launch: April 2023 Last return of spacecraft: Wreckage fell to Earth in April 2023

• "Total launches: 1
  First launch: April 2023
  Last return of spacecraft: Wreckage fell to Earth in April 2023"
  
  (It has been put [simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship&oldid=8800294 in the sidebar on another] English-language Wikipedia.) 2001:2020:32F:ECE9:E58F:B3E4:6A45:413B (talk) 04:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

I feel that [[user:Gtoffoletto[[ should be urged to make a sidebar-thingy, that is relevant for today's status.--That sidebar-thingy should preferably be shown on this talk page, first. Thanks 2001:2020:32F:A3C0:80E:FC2C:BB98:750A (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

They already have. Look right above this section of the discussion. Redacted II (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

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

As user @Jrcraft Yt pointed out, listing the recent starship launch as a success would be inconsistent with the standards applied to other launches. No orbit on an orbital flight, no success. There is precedent for marking an suborbital flight of a large Rocket a success (Ares I-X), but that one had an inert boilerplate upper stage and no goals beyond stage separation were set.

The current standard is imo consistent, while I don't see, how the "at least it left the launchpad"-definition could be consistent without basically eliminating the "failure" category. C9po (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Let's put it this way. I do not care one iota about how other launches have been handled here. If I look at this launch on this article at Wikipedia, and I I here what has been reported in nay sources, then it is a disservice to our readers to write it in a pov direction. All I care about is getting it right and telling our readers what happened using sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Well said, Fyunck(click).

And C9po, the argument of "it left the pad, therefore partial failure", only applies to test flights. If the primary goal was to clear the pad, (which it was in this case), then it should not be labeled as a failure.

But please, let's try to keep the arguing to a minimum. Redacted II (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It is a disservice to readers of the article to apply different standards in regards to launch status in this article than in other articles on other launch vehicles. Being consistent here would not be a POV issue for myself. CtrlDPredator (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Consistency is important, and it's my perspective that formal, written objectives are not nullified by informal statements made in the interest of damage control. Sub31k (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Lets not set off this debate (again), when we're closer than ever to a consensus Redacted II (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems you are in support of the other option. Redacted II (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

That depends on how this new sidebar is handled. You said yourself "the majority of posters in the talk page are in support of the label 'partial failure'." Whether we use partial failure or partial success is no matter, but putting it under "failure" alone would go against what you said the majority wanted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The other sidebar option has the label of 0 launches, as the SpaceX Starship orbital test flight was not a flight of the actual system. Just as a prototype flight that "did not achieve orbit". Redacted II (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

By this standard, we might be compelled to view things like SM-65A Atlas's in-flight failures as "less-than-failures", because they were less than full fidelity prototypes aimed at getting the SM-65 into service by iterative development.

There is plenty of documentation for 20 April's flight objectives, provided through the website, through the FAA filing, etc. Almost all were not met. Sub31k (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand the whole discussion here. Across Wikipedia we always used a consistent scheme: If it was intended to reach orbital velocity (the company publishing a timeline where it does is definitely an indication of that) and did not then it's a failure. If it reaches an orbit but not the intended one (within reason) or if only some payloads make it then it's a partial failure. We have done this with every rocket, no matter how much people expected from the flight, and no matter how much the company tried to manage expectations. Why does this flight trigger so much discussion? --mfb (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

It's a test launch of a prototype (not even close to an "operational" vehicle). The primary goal was for it too clear the tower. The secondary goal was for it to reach orbit. 1 success and 1 failure in the goals means partial failure.

However, several compromise options are being discussed. That's how Wikipedia is managed. As far as I'm aware, simply labeling this flight as a partial failure or a failure would be impossible, as a consensus would never form. Redacted II (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, Apollo 13 was expected to land people on the moon. The company also published a timeline for every item, which I have somewhere. It failed to land those two guys on the moon, but it was far from a failure per NASA. It's not so hard to understand why some would look at a prototype, that had a great launch but failed in separation, might be looked at differently. The company said it only had maybe a 50/50 chance at getting to orbit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I do not agree with this analogy. The Apollo 13 failure occured long after the Saturn V had any impact on the mission. It is not inaccurate to categorize it as a successful Saturn V launch. It was not a successful mission, but that's not what's being counted here. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 02:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you'd be wrong because the "successful-failure" mission of Apollo 13 is well documented. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Apollo wasn't the launch vehicle though... CtrlDPredator (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The Saturn V was the launch vehicle for Apollo 13, it's launch was a success. The issues with the SM are not related to the launch.

Apollo 6's launch however was a partial failure. Engine No.2 failed in the second stage, but the control wiring intended for that engine actually went to engine No.3 so when the signal to shutdown No.2 was sent, it instead shut down a good working engine No.3, resulting in a lower than intended orbit despite a longer burn. The third stage engine was used to correct the orbit, but then failed to restart for TLI. They then changed to an alternate backup plan for the remainder for Apollo 6 and complete other objectives.

NASA said it was "a good job all around, an excellent launch, and, in balance, a successful mission ... and we have learned a great deal" but also more importantly that "will have to be defined as a failure". CtrlDPredator (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I am admittedly getting quite rankled that the objective of some seems to be to avoid any listing that has a variation of "failure: 1," regardless of its accuracy. I am willing to add context that it was the failure of a prototype vehicle on a test launch (and thus not wholly unexpected) but any proposed solution or compromise that does not accurately categorize it as the failure of a vehicle seems hard to reconcile with the usage of the term across the entire rest of the wiki's spaceflight articles. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 02:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't get rankled. Everyone is doing their best to express what they read with what we put here on Wikipedia, you included. Sometimes people just disagree, and sometimes sources disagree. This prototype didn't explode on the pad in a fireball. If it winds up going under some "partial failure" header or "mixed results" header, as long as it conveys to readers what happened all should be well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

But we have other failed test launches that completed more mission objectives than Starship that are still classed as failures.

The Terran 1 launch just last month that passed max q and completed stage separation, but the second stage didn't ignite. That is marked down as a launch failure, because it is. We shouldn't treat Starship any differently. CtrlDPredator (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

How we at wikipedia have listed items in the past really doesn't concern me as much as getting the correct info to the population that reads it. I'm sure we could go tit for tat of partial failures. Apollo 6 was a partial failure. It planned to go to the moon per all the paperwork. The first stage fired but the second stage lost a couple engines... this resulted in a poor low orbit insertion. They went ahead to fire up stage three for moon departure and zip... no ignition. It's considered a partial success. For more optimistic goals than the starship prototype. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

We do need to be consistent and impartial else we are misleading people reading these articles. Saying that you don't care about how other launches are categorised and wanting to apply a different standard to Starship launches is straying outside neutrality and pushing a POV. I don't think that is a valid reason to treat this launch differently to all others. CtrlDPredator (talk) 09:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

You are twisting my words. We do need to be impartial, on that we agree. We use sources and we go from there. I don't care how other launches get categorized on wikipedia if they are wrongly categorized. Your words above are POV if you don't go by sources. We treat this launch like everything else, backed by sources. If the other articles are wrong we would look at each, check the sources, and correct them if they are also POV and not backed by sources. You seem to want to follow a script even if it's a bad script. I don't follow that mantra nor do I agree with it. I am helping with this article right now, not a bunch of others that could be wrong if I decided to look at them also. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree and I am sharing those concerns. I feel that the push to avoid listing it as a launch "failure" is a bit of a POV concern. CtrlDPredator (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

This section is way too long so I haven't read it completely but I'm not so concerned with the near term value of whether this is a failure or a success but more concerned with how this will be treated in the long term. This flight is a non-revenue flight, without a payload (or even a payload bay), without landing functionality and without refueling capability. It will be a functionally completely different vehicle from the Starship vehicle that just flew. I'd argue thus that this vehicle that just flew and that eventual vehicle would neccessarily have different article pages, in the long term, and thus this failure wouldn't count against the failure count of that eventual vehicle. Maybe this can help to resolve the argument. Part of the problem here is that Spaceflight has never been done this way before so we don't have the right words, not just as wikipedia editors, but in the spaceflight community as a whole on how to describe this flight. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Ergzay (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll tell you this. For this launch and even Terran 1, they are discussing some of the same things at the NASA forum and in other places on the internet. No one is quite sure how to categorize these launches. However, wikipedia does not make the news... we are not a source. We simply report the facts the sources give us. Sources are certainly not calling this launch a success, but sources are calling this launch a failure, a partial failure, and a partial success. heck it's even being debated by overseas space agencies. Space experts in mainland China are calling it a failure. But space experts in Hong Kong are calling it a moderated success given the company main goals were to "clear the launch pad, collect data, and get ready to go again". So the fact we are arguing about how to categorize it is really no surprise. No matter what we have in the infobox we "must" be informative and lay out the failure to partial success sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors historically have done a lot of original research and synthesis on many spaceflight articles just to fill in basic statistics so we may eventually have to do the same here again at some point. Maybe some kind of splitting of this and future test launches into a separate category from the "operational" starship launches. In that case I'd just omit any statistics on "failure" or "success" or "partial success" as it's a test, and simply describe the outcome of the test and what occurred without labeling it success or failure. If we had to pick a term though I'd actually prefer to use the word "pass" here rather than labeling it a success or failure, if I had to pick a term, as that's what you use with tests. Ergzay (talk) 10:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ergzay I think you views are in line with my proposal A above. Separate clearly this launch as a "Prototype launch" and not a launch of the final vehicle {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds like a good idea. Ergzay (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ergzay Express your support then :) {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I just did didn't I? Ergzay (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Above this "discussion" subsection, you can provide support to any of several options by typing: SUPPORT, followed by listing your reasons.

I hope this was a helpful clarification. Redacted II (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

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

I'd like to add one more thing to this discussion, as Wikipedia is not a source, we should look at how other organizations are cataloging this launch. Some of the most notable ones in no particular order:

Gunter's space page: Failure. (https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/starship-s24.htm).

Nextspaceflight: Failure. (https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/6754)

Rocketlaunch-live: Failure (https://www.rocketlaunch.live/launch/full-stack-test-flig)

Jonathan McDowell's Space Report: Failure (https://www.planet4589.org/space/jsr/latest.html)

Space Launch Schedule: Failure (https://www.spacelaunchschedule.com/launch/starship-integrated-flight-test/)

Please add more if you find them. but at this point, it's a clear POV & original research problem to declare partial. That's be more than enough sources to show consensized failure. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Really?, this is a rather biased list of yours, and I don't think very helpful.

Hong Kong Laboratory for Space Research: Moderated success (https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3217893/chinas-space-enthusiasts-debate-elon-musks-starship-explosion-expensive-failure-or-partial-success)

New Scientist: not a complete failure (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2370122-spacexs-enormous-starship-rocket-finally-launched-and-then-exploded/)

Singularity Hub: Partial Success (https://singularityhub.com/2023/04/21/spacex-starship-launch-hailed-as-a-success-despite-exploding-mid-flight/)

Itf Science Space and Physics: Partial Success (https://www.iflscience.com/spacexs-starship-lifts-off-and-explodes-in-space-68557)

Asronomy.com: Partial Success (https://astronomy.com/news/2023/04/spacex-starship-explodes-minutes-after-launch)

Gulf News: Partial Success (https://gulfnews.com/world/elon-musks-starship-successfully-lifts-off-then-explodes-in-rapid-unscheduled-disassembly-1.1681987094424)

UK Telegraph: considered a win (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/04/20/spacex-starship-rocket-launch-watch-live-elon-musk/)

The Space Review: it may be years before we know whether to count this abbreviated test flight as a success or not (https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4572/1)

Aerospace consultant Linda Forczyk: “a partial success, or a successful failure.” (https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/science-verify/was-the-spacex-explosion-a-success-or-a-failure-a-little-of-both-starship/536-c2def0fe-6cc0-42b9-93a6-7a0ce3d8141a#:~:text=Aerospace%20consultant%20Laura%20Forczyk%2C%20in,the%20atmosphere%2C%E2%80%9D%20she%20said.)

USA Today: Partial Success (https://ustoday.news/the-explosion-of-the-spacex-spacecraft-was-intentional/)

CBC News Canada: Partially Successful (https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/spacex-starship-success-1.6823172)

Los Angeles Times: Successful Failure (https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-04-25/elon-musk-spacex-starship-nasa-moon-landing)

I think it would be even more POV and original research to declare this launch a failure. There are plenty of sources on all sides but to simply plop this into the fail category is quite wrong based on sourcing. Listings such as yours and mine are pointless and non-helpful at this point of discussion, but for you to say that using "partial" is clear POV & original research is completely wrong and you may owe an apology to those that are arguing the other side of the issue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Let's not get into moral issues, now. Sub31k (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, many sources, mostly Musk friendly space enthusiasts or because of lazyness, are just repeating Musk's wording of a "partial success" uncritically. But obviously the launch was a failure. Even the self-destruction mechanism failed. If NASA had done this, no serious person would have called it a "partial success", the big failure would be all over the press. And "getting valuable data" does not make it a success. Wikipedia should be neutral, no Musk spin. Zae8 (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Don't insult each other's arguments by labeling it as "POV" and "Original Research". They're not. All the two of you are doing are making fools of yourselves.

We are this close (darn lack of emoji's) to reaching a compromise option. Don't let your bickering ruin that.

So please, let's scale this back to a civil discussion, okay? Redacted II (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

"Partial Failure" in the infobox is not a useful compromise, as it compromises, what the intended purpose of a spaceflight infobox is. "Failure" "partial failure" and "success" have different definitions in this context, than they might have to SpaceX. Of course, this launch attempt was useful for SpaceX and further Starship development, see the sources @Fyunck(click) listed.

But "the company learned something" isn't the definition, by which a launch is counted in the infobox. The infobox definition of failure is "rocket failed before achieving important flight goals", and there is no doubt, that starship did. The sources @Jrcraft Yt listed are enough evidence for that.

The only solution that is consistent with the facts, the sources, and minimizes POV issues, is listing the launch as a failure in the infobox and mentioning in the article, that SpaceX and media considered the flight (partially) successful at gathering data. C9po (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

While partial failure is, IMO, the best label, we can disagree on that.

There are also several compromises that don't list partial failure in the sidebar. Look at options B and C4. B labels it as a "prototype failure", which is more accurate than just "failure", and C4 labels it as an "atmospheric flight", as it never left the atmosphere. Redacted II (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

No problem labelling this a "prototype failure". I have a problem with calling this just a "failure" as this was not the final vehicle by any means. Several proposals above make this distinction and in my view work fine. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

C9po, Good summary of the facts and situation. Zae8 (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• Do we need sources to tell us that
  
  1+1 ≠ wreckage (booster) + wreckage (spacecraft)
  ?
  
  
• Total launches, booster-with-spacecraft: 1
• First launch: April 2023
• Latest return of spacecraft:
  Wreckage fell to Earth in April 2023
  
  

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

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

What versions got the most support?

We have a lot of support here but the discussion is too long. We should select the best options and run a formal approval from scratch to see what editors think. I think we have support to fix this. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, that would violate the consensus. Redacted II (talk) 12:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? What consensus? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The consensus for a label of failure. Redacted II (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Most of the proposals here label the flight as a failure. The point is to say it was a failure but providing more context. So it would not violate that consensus. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I dont support failure at all, at minimum prototype failure. Fehér Zsigmond (talk) 10:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

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.

Final sidebar proposal vote

I've tallied the results of the discussion above to identify the best performers to try and reach a final consensus. I think we can extract those two final candidates keeping in mind the consensus that the flight test should be labeled as a failure and not a partial failure. The infobox should provide context but not change the outcome of the flight. So let's see if we have consensus for one of those options! {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Option B got: 7 supports and 3 oppose

Option B Best Performer (preview)
Starship Launch history Total launches 1 Prototype: 1 Success(es) 0 Prototype: 0 Failure(s) 1 Prototype: 1 First flight 20 April 2023

Options C also got: 8 supports an 2 opposes

Option C Best Performer (preview)
Starship Launch history Total launches Operational launches: 0 Prototype launches: 1 Successes = 0 Failures = 1 List of SpaceX Starship flight tests

Support or Oppose below:

• SUPPORT C and Partial Support B: I think C is superior . It provides context while maintaining a clear indication that the flight was a prototype flight test. B is still better than now {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• SUPPORT B: While I really like C (I even proposed a few variants of C), B is more consistent with other articles. It also provides the same context as C (clearly labeling the flight as a prototype, while also obeying the RFC's consensus).

To be honest, if more people (especially those who disagreed with me in the RFC) support C over B, then I'll change to support C as well. Redacted II (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any samples where "prototype" is used? Zae8 (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Think of "prototype" as a version of the vehicle, like Falcon 9 v1.0. Redacted II (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I mean any non-Musk article. Zae8 (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• OPPOSE BOTH for reasons discussed. SUPPORT B only when forced to choose between two bad choices. SUPPORT B However, I think both proposals would contradict standard Wikipedia rules and make a special case for Starship by making the distinction "prototype". See my other discussion contributions where I discussed that in detail, and see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V. See also my previous question. Zae8 (talk) 05:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• SUPPORT C Because it keeps it nice and clear that no operational launches have happened yet, and is easier to read. Cocobb8 (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  However, we should probably keep it until an active flight has occured. Cocobb8 (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• OPPOSE BOTH for reasons in which we have already discussed infinitely many times. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 19:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• OPPOSE BOTH, leave as it is now - This distinction prototype/non-prototype is also going to be increasingly harder to make as the Starship program goes on. It also makes the infobox bulkier. I would suggest to simply leave it as it is now. By the time Starship reaches a large amount of flights, the early developmental failures will be a small number anyway. There is no consensus. CodemWiki (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  However, look at Falcon 9. All the flights are divided between the different versions (v1.0, v1.1, and FT). Something similar should be done here. Redacted II (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Starship is so incremental, there is no distinct version really. In hindsight, your solution to make a single a distinction between prototypes and non-prototype might actually the best compromise then. I agree.

  But between Option C and Option B, I would support B. Preferably however : none. CodemWiki (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Here is my logic. I'm curious, at what step do we diverge? Knowing that should make any debate/discussion a lot easier.

  1: Since the RFC declared this flight a failure, then prototypes belong in the infobox.

  2: Different versions of the same vehicle belong in the infobox.

  3: As prototypes belong in the infobox, then prototypes are a version of the vehicle.

  4: All prototypes are "one" version, as they have major differences from functional vehicles. This has precedent in both launch vehicle prototypes and spacecraft prototypes.

  5: As prototypes are a version of the vehicle, they should be labeled as a different version in the infobox. Redacted II (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Treating SpaceX in a special way is no good choice. Wikipedia is no marketing department for Musk. Zae8 (talk) 05:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  "Marketing department for Musk" is not why we are doing this. SpaceX's development approach is unique in the rocket industry as it is built on the rapid iteration of prototypes. There is no single "Starship" like there is a single "Saturn V" vehicle which is always the same. Each flight will involve a very different prototype/vehicle until a final design version is reached. This has already been dealt with in the Falcon 9 article by highlighting the different versions being flown. We should remain consistent with precedent here and provide the necessary context to allow readers to understand what is happening correctly. Not doing so would break precedent for no reason. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 09:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Well, your paragraph is marketing for Musk, especially your statement "SpaceX [...] is unique".

  In reality, basically every space company is unique. Because more or less every space company does something different and new compared to others. Wasn't the Apollo program "unique" as well? Wasn't the ISS unique as well? Wasn't the Spaces Shuttle unique as well? Wasn't the vertical landing of New Shepard unique as well? And so on. The "only company X is unique!" is typical marketing buzz.

  If every article in Wikipedia is "unique", then you can forget about every categorization and every infobox.

  Most articles about Musk company are to more or less degree fan-articles, often bordering to fan-fiction. Let's try to fix that instead of making it worse. Zae8 (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  As I said: "the development approach is unique". It is radically different from Apollo, Space Shuttle, ISS, etc. and also New Shepard. They have already built tens of prototypes which is "unusual" in the space industry. So we need to inform readers about this key difference by providing context. Even many editors don't seem to understand this. It has nothing to do with marketing. This is why the SpaceX Falcon 9 article specifies the versions flown. We should remain consistent on this article. Why should it be different? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, but also for the Space Shuttle "the development approach [was] unique", it was radically different from Apollo, etc etc. etc. Or just look at Apollo_Guidance_Computer#Software the "development approach [was definitely] unique", they basically invented Software_engineering. And sorry for breaking the news to you, but there will be also future (or existing) ompanies after SpaceX which again will use a unique new development approach. Your view that "there is Musk and there is the rest of the world" is a classical marketing-bubble distortion.

  I understand that you Musk fans are frustrated by the explostion (you definitely would never insist on the "prototype" wording if the flight would have been successful), but this is no reason to break Wikipedia conventions.

  The intention of the info boxes in Wikipedia is to make same metrics easily consumable and easily comparable. The body of the article is the place for describing all the differences. If you want to make special rules for Musk, then create wikelonedia.com. Zae8 (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  First of all @Zae8: immediately stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS and try to WP:AGF. Your accusations to me or anyone else are totally WP:UNCIVIL so stop now or I will have to report you.

  Me and several other editors have proposed the changes above to improve the article and it has nothing to do with Elon Musk. Also it is a very minor issue so please calm down and relax.

  What you state is misinformed. The development approach of Apollo or the Shuttle program are absolutely the same and are radically different from SpaceX's approach. SpaceX's unique rocket development approach (which is inspired by agile software development methods) is well described by reliable sources (e.g. The company has been known to embrace fiery mishaps during the rocket development process. SpaceX maintains that such accidents are the quickest and most efficient way of gathering data, an approach that sets the company apart from its close partner NASA, which prefers slow, methodical testing over dramatic flare-ups.[1][2]

  This radically different approach is WP:Notable and should be taken into account in any article about SpaceX to correctly inform the readers. This is why the Falcon 9 article mentions all the different versions that have flown. There is no reason to break precedent here and we should indicate the different versions of Starship that have flown. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  The Space Shuttle had a relatively standard development program. So did Apollo. Just because they developed various new technologies does not make their development cycle "unique". What is "unique" about Starship's is that they launched a Prototype that wasn't 99.9% identical to other

  As for "(you definitely would never insist on the "prototype" wording if the flight would have been successful)", no, actually, I would. I cannot speak for other editors, but I know what I'd be saying.

  "And sorry for breaking the news to you, but there will be also future (or existing) companies after SpaceX which again will use a unique new development approach. Your view that "there is Musk and there is the rest of the world" is a classical marketing-bubble distortion" Please stop your stream of insults, calling everyone who disagrees with you a "Musk-Fan".

  And also, read some of my previous comments. Again, I cannot speak for other editors, but I state that if (insert organization here) flies a prototype vehicle, that is not almost identical to the final version, that flight would be clarified as prototype. Redacted II (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  It's getting personal, good time to stop this discussion here. I don't have to add something new anyway. I wish you all best. Zae8 (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  I wasn't trying to offend you. I was trying to give you advice, as has been given to me in the past. Redacted II (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, and I didn't feel offended. All is good. Zae8 (talk) 08:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• OPPOSE BOTH leave it as is for now, there is no need to change it for reasons that we have gone over so many times already. CtrlDPredator (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Just curious, but when an "operational" (not a prototype) starship flies, would you still be opposed to either option B or C? Redacted II (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Do I miss something, or wasn't there the option of "keeping it as it is now"? Doesn't this make the whole "final sidebar proposal vote" procedure invalid? I mean, maybe the "keeping it as it is now" has strongest support, but that option was never offered, and so people had no chance to express support for it. Zae8 (talk) 09:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Just vote to oppose to keep it as-is. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 09:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I did this. But this summary "Option B got: 7 supports and 3 oppose" and "Options C also got: 8 supports an 2 opposes" above seems to be misleading, because previously people hadn't the option of "OPPOSE". Zae8 (talk) 10:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course they had the option to oppose. And they did. That's why I reported the oppose votes in the final tally. I selected the options with the largest support. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

No, you just added "Option B got: 7 supports and 3 oppose" and "Options C also got: 8 supports an 2 opposes". But you never added "opposing both" / "status quo" as equal option. Zae8 (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

We don't have a list of votes in that sense from the past discussion. So what you are asking was impossible. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. The three options could simply have been: Keep current version, Option B, or option C. Zae8 (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• OPPOSE BOTH There's already been a huge row about this, with the end result being a decision to keep things as is. Sub31k (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Sub31k (and @Jadebenn below) the RfC on the "failure" has nothing to do with this discussion on the sidebar. All the proposed edits here clearly indicate the flight test as a failure in line with that RfC (which I agree with). The point is to provide context on the fact that different versions of Spaceship will fly and provide that context to the user which might not be aware that what was flown was an exploratory prototype. The Falcon 9 sidebar does the same and clearly indicates the version of rocket flown. Why break precedent here and misinform readers? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think the distinction is currently relevant, but it's something I'd be open to revisiting when more versions of Starship have flown. I doubt the Falcon 9 article made any sort of distinction after its first launch. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 21:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  I am glad that your open to future considering of this option.

  Although, I have a compromise option:

  We don't implement option B or C yet. We leave it as is. No clarifying note, nothing. Just:

  Failures 1

  As soon as a non-prototype vehicle launches, we immediately implement the agreed upon option.

  Would that be agreeable to you? Redacted II (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  I actually agree with you @Redacted II. We might need to create a separate Rfc to discuss this though. This is getting a little ridiculous for only minor layout changes!! Cocobb8 (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Great! Redacted II (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  I don't have a crystal ball. If the topic should be revisited based on future events it would make the most sense to revisit it when said events happen. By that I mean to say that it would be something editors would discuss when said context has changed. We can't make any commitments right now. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 00:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Which is why it's a compromise option. It's not 100% what you want, but it's far from being 100% what I want either.

  If you have any ideas on changing my compromise idea, please state them. Redacted II (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia doesn't work like this. You can't decide something for the future @Redacted II. And I agree with @Jadebenn that we don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL. We just need to report what has happened now. And right now, what has flown is a prototype and not a final vehicle. This should not wait until we have a final vehicle. That final vehicle might never come and Starship will have always only have flown as a prototype. That won't change ever. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the reminder Redacted II (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• OPPOSE BOTH It feels like there is a consistent effort to undermine and water down the RfC. The sidebar discussion was made redundant in the face of an overwhelming majority in favor of maintaining the current status of 'failure.' – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 18:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• OPPOSE BOTH, asking people to choose between two options that both go against the previous discussion is absurd. --mfb (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  @mfb what do you mean? The proposals all clearly indicate the flight was a failure as I've stated in my original post. You don't think the two proposals are clear that the flight was a failure? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what is unclear. The current article version is favored by most, introducing the 10th vote where all options change something isn't going to change that. Despite being presented as "B or C" vote, you have a 2/3 majority for "oppose both" which you didn't even include as option. --mfb (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Voting Oppose is obviously always an option and I specifically asked to: Support or Oppose below: in my initial post (maybe read it first!). I feel like most editors are voting against this just out of frustration. This is a different proposal than what has been voted in the past and had wide support. I don't think that is very clear. Can you explain exactly what issues you see with the proposals rather than reference other past votes (which have been taken into account)? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Not really. The "Final sidebar proposal vote" section was, well, started in a problematic way, by not counting or explicitly offering the status quo. Zae8 (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, this is also my concern. Zae8 (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with you here.

  Not including an "oppose" option, and just assuming that editors would assume it too exist, was wrong, and should be corrected. Redacted II (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  This is not how Wikipedia works. It is WP:NOTAVOTE. People should discuss the merits of each proposal. Not debate on the methods. Discuss the issues with those proposals, everything else is just bureaucracy. What problems do you see with the proposal? Why do you oppose it? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  The issue with these proposals is that editors have decided to maintain the box in a certain way, just a little scroll down the page. The opposition to them is well documented there. The method being employed here obscures that. That's why they are being criticised. Sub31k (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree. I assume Gtoffoletto is operating in good faith but it's very frustrating to feel like a debate that was already settled is being reopened endlessly. I understand there is room for nuance and clarification of the earlier consensus, and that consensuses may be revisited and are not iron laws to be slavishly followed forever. However, considering the recency of the prior discussion plus the overwhelming support for portraying the events in one particular way, many of these discussions feel like attempts to "water-down" the previously-stated views of contributors. Again, not saying that's the intention, just that's how it can feel and why it's so frustrating. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 19:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Does anyone have an objection to the (in my view quite obvious) conclusion that there is no consensus for any change? This would settle this RfC and make any discussion about the modality and fairness of this "Final sidebar proposal vote" obsolete anyway. Or do I miss something? Zae8 (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as I just proposed a compromise option.

Also, discussions generally last 1 week before concluding, so it would be good to wait 6 days (yes I know Success or Failure 20-Apr-2023 started, well, 20 April 2023, but this section of the discussion started yesterday) Redacted II (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I Second that objection. We are still discussing the merits of the proposals (that for the record are based on proposals from many editors). WP:NODEADLINE {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Image Debate

While the old image shows the vehicle in more detail, it is showing an outdated set of prototypes (B4/S20). In order to accurately show what the vehicle looks like, the newest set of prototypes should be used. The new image I've added is of B7/S24, the most recent set of prototypes. Furthermore, it shows the vehicle in flight, which is what almost every single rocket's Wikipedia page has as the main image. Redacted II (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the page should show the newer version. It is also important that the image shows the vehicle in flight. However, it is very difficult to make out the Superheavy booster and Starship in the picture. If there is a better image, perhaps use that? 64.67.42.115 (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I do not think B7/S24 has featured any visual differences from B4/S20 that are enough to warrant the image to be removed IMHO; the in-flight image is too small for readers to have an idea of the configuration of Starship. Best way is to use B4/S20 for the time being while a B7/S24 stack image with proper license is found, I am sure one can be found given so many people have visited Starbase in recent months. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 09:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Lets see, 33 engines, a completed heat shield, and chines. Those are some major changes. And the launch pad shown isn't remotely similar to what it was in the moments before launch. We shouldn't put a misleading image in as a placeholder. Better to use a less detailed image instead. Redacted II (talk) 11:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Redacted II 173.176.40.172 (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

i have a picture of b7/s24 stacked on the pad the day before flight if you're all interested in that [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 18:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe replace the image of b4/s20 being used in the article with that? The main image should be of the vehicle in flight. But I'd love to see this new image! Redacted II (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Funding?

I don’t see where funding for this project is discussed. Is funded by Tesla? Spacex Falcon profits? NASA? 2405:9800:B910:BA1B:88FC:901B:33FA:48AC (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

This article starts by saying: "Starship is a ... under development by SpaceX."--How much money is spent on Starship - that seems to be relevant for this article.--Where does SpaceX get its income? That question might not fit, in an article about Starship. 2001:2020:32F:A3C0:80E:FC2C:BB98:750A (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I added the beginning of a funding section. Needs improvement and may not be not be in the right place on the page but that's a start. CodemWiki (talk) 10:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC on infobox failure status

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to retain the description of the launch as having failed in the infobox.

Seen in the proper context of this talk page: In this RfC, editors roughly coalesced around an understanding that the previous long and branching discussion about how to solve the infobox dispute was based on a wrong premise, i.e. on an unfounded implicit assumption that, this being a prototype, its flight can not be recorded as a success or a failure so as to assign a value to the success/fail/partial parameter; the assumption further was that the flight should be described as a "prototype failure" in one way or another (roughly speaking, many alternatives were given).

It seemed as if some progress was made in that previous discussion, but when the premise was probed by virtue of this RfC it became apparent that a preponderance of editors do not really think that said assumption holds, because they consider the (former) space vehicle to have been a version of Starship, and do not think that characterizing something as a prototype immunizes it from failure. Significant attention was brought to other Wikipedia articles about such launches; editors predominantly believe that describing a rocket launch as having succeeded or failed (or failed partially) should be done consistently across Wikipedia, and that when doing it consistently with respect to this article, the infobox should say 'failure'.

Editors were split on whether applying policy in light of discussed sources would dictate one outcome or another, in a way which would displace the above considerations as not quite as relevant. There is rough agreement that if the sources align in the future, the decision about what to have in the infobox may need to be revised.—Alalch E. 01:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Should the SpaceX Starship launch be recategorized from "failure" in the article infobox? – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 20:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Support recategorization

1. Support - many many sources have shown us that this test flight was described as a "partial success" and we can't ignore those sources just because other wikipedia articles have or because today we have an inadequate infobox. This is a prototype which is far different, with different parameters, than a finished product. Whether we want to call it mixed or partial, is no matter, but to simply label it as "failure" is a disservice to our readers; and our readers and the information we give them should be priority number one. It could be listed as nothing in the infobox as that would be more accurate than simply failure. Why these "supports" are numbered I'm not sure since it is never a tally but rather strength of argument. The bottom line is per sourcing, you will tend to find more partial successes than failures. The closer will have to weigh that against using the term failure to our readers, which may be incorrectly used in many articles from those who are saying "we always do it this way." Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
2. (summoned by bot)
   Support, per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, two core Wikipedia policies that some editors may want to re-read. The RS citations compiled here alone already make it abundantly clear that it is against these policies to call the test flight an unqualified failure in Wikipedia voice, even if that is the strongly held personal opinion that some Wikipedians have formed based on their own research. And some claims above about allegedly established Wikipedia conventions contrast with the fact that the template documentation Template:Infobox rocket/doc records no such thing about this field, and in any case such a local convention wouldn't override core policies. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

   To clarify just in case, since there is discussion below about to interpret the wording of the RfC question: This is a !vote against classifying it an unqualified "failure" in the infobox, but not an endorsement of any other option in particular (e.g. an unqualified "success" would be similarly problematic in terms of NPOV and NOR). That said, I think North8000's proposal below "to not describe it as either in the info box" makes sense. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

3. Partial Support I'm unsure if it should even be in the infobox at this point because this was the flight of a prototype vehicle. This is not the same vehicle that will be the in-production vehicle. It doesn't support landing. It doesn't support in-flight re-fueling. It doesn't even have a functional cargo bay. So whether it's a failure or not is moot until we determine if it should even be in the infobox on this page. But yes, describing it as an unqualified failure of the eventual in-production cargo carrying reusable launch vehicle is blatantly incorrect. Ergzay (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
4. Support - this was an test prototype. The new prototypes are already significantly different from what was flown (for example they feature large aerodynamic chines [3] as well as many other significant changes). So it should not count as a failure of the final operational vehicle (which has not even been designed yet). This is just one of the 12 prototype flight tests so far {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
5. Exceedingly narrow support re-cat to partial failure. As I understand it, the flight had objectives that it did not accomplish, which I think, itself, warrants the failure label. At the same time, it also appears that the rocket accomplished at least a few of the goals SpaceX and Musk announced. And if a company is allowed to define the objectives that determine whether or not a spacecraft is a failure, then surely they're also allowed to define the objectives that determine it a success.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose recategorization

1. Oppose recategorization except as to add context to circumstance of failure. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 20:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Launch failed. That it wasn’t expected to succeed, or that it was a good learning experience are irrelevant to the description of the launch. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose. The rocket lauched then exploded shortly after. I don't see any other way to decribe that than failure. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 22:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose. The vehicle was a version of Starship, its planned trajectory would have reached orbital velocity, it did not do that and did not even get close to it. It doesn't matter how low expectations were set by the company or others, and if we count "it produced valuable test data" then no rocket launch ever can be classified as failure which is obviously absurd. More details can be discussed in the article. --mfb (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
5. Oppose. The flight test objectives extends all the way to Starship post-atmospheric reentry and Superheavy booster landing burn; everything from Starship separation and beyond went untested this time. It is a flight that I would drink a beer if I am involved, but it's extremely hard-pressed to call this launch anything but a "failure" if we apply a uniform categorization to every transport of human-made objects to orbit and beyond. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Playing down exspectation, leaning a lot and appeasing investors by positive interpretation is good. But this doesn't change the fact that a orbital test flight not reaching orbit is not a successful flight. Zae8 (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
7. Oppose I've been clear in my intent to follow Wikipedia precedent and neutrality above, I don;' think I need to restate my points here. But this was an orbital launch attempts that failed well before reaching orbit. Those are always categorized as failure's and I see no reason or argument to change from precedent on that issue now. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
8. Partial opposition under current conditions. As sources are entirely mixed about the outcome of the test flight, I believe that the current arrangement ought to be preserved, as it reflects convention, as well as the existing state of the article. However, in order to accurately represent sources, I believe that the frame of reference for flight outcome should be shifted to one in which the source material aligns and agrees. Sub31k (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
9. Oppose. I think the comparison the comparison to Relativity's Terran 1 test flight that an editor made in the earlier discussion fits very well here, the company considered passing max q a success and communicated this before the launch, yet it is categorised as a failure on here since it did not reach orbit as planned. The rocket may be a prototype, but reaching orbit was part of the flight plan filed with the FAA, so I think it's fair to stick to precedent. Hovertexting "Considered a success by SpaceX" would be possible, but that can also be discussed further in the article, just like the Terran 1 article notes Relativity's stance. 2A02:810A:B80:3688:4ECC:6AFF:FEF8:6777 (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
10. Oppose I won't support an option that isn't inline with how we've categorized other similar launches on all other pages.Bvbv13 (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
11. Strong Oppose The Starship's launch had a mission profile that it failed on absolutely every front, and literally every possible thing that could go wrong during this flight went wrong. The fact that people have the audacity to spin this into some kind of """"""""success"""""""" is completely incomprehensible no matter how you look at it. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 20:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
12. Oppose I don't support being inconsistent with all the other launches for other vehicles. CtrlDPredator (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Keep it consistent with other articles. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of recategorization

The discussion a few sections above was becoming increasingly unwieldy and conflating two different issues (whether we should recategorize versus how we should recategorize), so I've created this RfC to provide some clarity. 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) 20:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I just want to say this: the topic of the above discussion was always "how we should recategorize", and not "should we recategorize". And it's not unwieldy. Sure, it's a large discussion, but the only active sections are in the end.

I just don't see how this new topic is meaningful. Redacted II (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above was more than "how we should recategorize". Several people throughout the discussion have opposed any reclassification, starting just a few replies down from the start. Chuckstablers (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

In cases of a dispute, a consensus must form. And opposition of reclassification does not have anything close to a consensus supporting it.

Therefore, a compromise is is the ONLY option, according to the policies of Wikipedia. Redacted II (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Unsure if you are replying to the right comment. My comment simply pointed out that your statement "the topic of the above discussion was always "how we should recategorize", and not "should we recategorize"." is incorrect, as several people did not want to recategorize it. And many still don't. Chuckstablers (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Many still don't. But some do.

And the topic was started as "HOW" it should be reconfigured, not if. Redacted II (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Bvbv13 you list inconsistency as your sole reason to oppose a recategorization, but their are two points you are ignoring:

1: Sources are primary. If it's between consistency within Wikipedia and consistency with the sources, the sources win out. And the majority of sources are not calling that launch a failure.

2: There isn't a lot of precedent (if any) for a prototype launch like this one. It has completely different TVC, aft structure, and ship engine count as the final version. It's like listing the Grasshopper explosion as a failure of falcon 9 block1 (or 1.1, it has similarities to both) Redacted II (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Faulty RFC Wording The wording rules out the best choice which is to not describe it as either in the info box. North8000 (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Would you like a third option for "alternate wording?" We can discuss the particulars if that option gains consensus. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 21:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please. That would be excellent. Sub31k (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Sub31k: I'm not quite sure how to do that without making the votes a confusing mess, but I like your compromise proposal of "failed in flight" below. Any suggestions of how we could tackle this with a minimum of disruption to the RfC process so far? – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 16:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Support wording of the RfC is unclear. Best choice is to avoid this altogether. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 09:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jadebenn:Would you be opposed to a compromise option that doesn't label it as a failure/partial failure/success? Redacted II (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I moved your comment into the discussion section. As for your question, it depends on the proposal. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 21:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

In particular, my C4 option. It has three labels for prototypes:

Atmospheric: A flight that does not pass 100 km. This can be intended, or a flight that was supposed to reach higher altitudes and didn't.

Suborbital: A flight that passes 100 km but does not reach orbit. This can be intended, or a flight that as supposed to reach orbit and didn't.

Orbital: A flight that reaches orbit. In the case that a vehicle reaches orbit, and doesn't complete all of the indented orbits, a "partial orbital" category may be made.

I hope this answered your question. Redacted II (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying "no," but I think there needs to be justification for why we're using an entirely different launch outcome classification scheme on this one article and I'm not seeing it currently. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 21:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Two reasons:

One: It was a prototype launch vehicle. It was not even close to a "final" starship vehicle, and is distinctly different from even the next set of prototypes. It would be unfair to judge it in the same manner as a Falcon 9, especially since the primary (NOT THE ONLY) goal was to clear the tower. Furthermore, there isn't really historical president on Wikipedia for handling prototype launches. So consistency is definitely, at least from my POV, secondary.

Two: Consensus has to be reached once a dispute has begun. And it is clear that a consensus will never form for a partial failure/success/failure decision. Therefore, a compromise is the only possibility. Redacted II (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Not that it takes priority, but in the case of historical precedent, there is SM-65A Atlas. SM-65A had large amounts of functionality missing compared to service SM-65Ds, including the absence of the sustainer engine, extremely low fidelity propulsion, etc. Actually, the flight of the SM-65A 4A has some pretty close resemblences to aspect of the 20 April Starship flight, most notably in that despite suffering several system failures, the rocket survived in the airstream for a certain length of time, causin the first-party organisation to declare a partial success. Regrettably, that article is very poorly sourced (the only reference is a blog).

The classification of Atlas-A 4A, apart from holding less relevance than secondary sources, also is not very enlightening. On SM-65A Atlas, it is listed as a partial success, but on SM-65 Atlas and List of Atlas launches (1957-1959) it is placed as failure.

So, for multiple reasons, precedent doesn't help one bit... Sub31k (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Think of it this way: we are setting the precedent for prototype launches right now. Future prototype launches (of any vehicle, be it New Glenn or another Starship prototype) will follow the precedent established by this page. Redacted II (talk) 10:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I guess you could just simplify more and only say there was one prototype launch and nothing else. No atmospheric, no suborbital, no orbital, no success, and no failure. That takes out the fact that sources are varied on this prototype from failure to moderate success. We'd be saying something like there were seven prototype launches before operational launches began, and then we would be more specific (as we should be) on operational launches. We wouldn't leave anything good or bad for future edit wars. Obviously in prose we would need to show that there are varying opinions on it's success or failure, but the infobox is supposed to highlight what we have in prose. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

This might be one way to resolve things. The fundamental problem, I think, is that the sources are so varied in their outlook.

Many support failure - science.org, spacenews, are two off the top of my head.

Many also support the idea of partial success, or "successful failure", which is written in quotation marks in many articles.

At the same itme, a lot of the most largest major outlets just don't say anything about success or failure at all.

Aviation Week makes no claim to either success or failure. https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/space/spacex-marks-successful-failure-starshipsuper-heavy-debut-flight

Nor does Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/elon-musks-spacex-launches-debut-flight-starship-rocket-system-2023-04-20/

The AP is does not mention success or failure. https://apnews.com/article/spacex-starship-launch-elon-musk-d9989401e2e07cdfc9753f352e44f6e2

WSJ does not pronounce a judgment of success or failure. https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/spacex-starship-elon-musk-second-launch-attempt-bf932aaf

The Guardian, too. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/apr/20/elon-musks-spacex-launches-test-flight-for-rocket-that-could-bring-people-to-mars

NPR is similar. https://www.npr.org/2023/04/20/1170983959/spacex-starship-launch-elon-musk

Given that the press is seemingly scattered in its takeaways, and that some of the most relevant publishers avoid touching on the issue, it's confusing. Sub31k (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I've been thinking about things, and I'm wondering whether or not it would be preferable to use the wording "Failed during flight", or some variation of it, like "Failure during flight". Sources, as posted throughout this discussion, are extremely mixed on how to categorise the nature of the launch - as "successful failure", as "partial success", "partial failure", outright failure, and many are silent on the issue. However, they decidedly agree that the vehicle suffered an in-flight failure. This could be accompanied by a note linked that clarifies that the achievement of some objectives caused some assessments of partial success, etc. This allows the article to be consistent with sources, providing context, and the term, which is not exactly synonymous with "Failure", accurately describes what happened to the vehicle. Sub31k (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

That is an excellent idea. You should make your own sidebar in the "New Sidebar Proposal" section, so other's can express support/opposition to your idea. Redacted II (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I've done so and placed it under the header Proposal D. Sub31k (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I am open to this, but I can't really just stop the RfC at this point. Any ideas? – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 16:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mfb: Primary goal was achieved (clearing the tower). Most secondary goals were not (everything after separation). But the primary goal was completed. So labeling it at a plain "failure" is misleading. Redacted II (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Redacted II: Please stop leaving replies in the support/oppose sections. I've moved your comment to the appropriate place in the discussion section. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 16:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad Redacted II (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

No worries. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 19:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Simply because they told the press that the "goal is to get off the launchpad" prior to launch, doesn't mean that getting off the launch pad constitutes a mission success. That is the first thing that a rocket needs to do. If this was actually the primary goal, then why bother having an upper stage? Why not just test the super heavy on it's own?

The planned mission timeline (according to spacex themselves) calls for a mission duration of 1 and a half hours. It's difficult to argue that it was anything but a failure when the overwhelming majority of the events in the timeline that they laid out never happened because the vehicle exploded after a couple minutes. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

SpaceX set the goals. The primary goal was to clear the tower. Everything else was secondary.

They cleared the tower. The primary goal was completed. Only the secondary goals (stage separation, booster "landing", ship splashdown, ect, ect) remained incomplete.

No-one here is arguing for a label of "success". At least, no-one that's I've noticed yet.

And, as others have stated before: WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A SOURCE. We report what various sources state. And those sources are mixed in the label. Some say failure, some say success, some say partial failure. So, it is our job to ensure that all three views are included. A label of failure only shows one of these views. Redacted II (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Just to make sure I understand clearly what your argument is. It is that, because SpaceX said before the launch their "primary mission objective" was to clear the tower, and that everything else is a "secondary objective", clearing the tower constitutes a partial success as it achieved it's primary objective? And that because the sources can't agree on whether it's a success or failure, we should call it a partial failure? 24.87.104.15 (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Not exactly. While I believe that since the primary objective was achieved, partial failure is the correct label, it's still biased towards one of those views.

Therefore, a compromise option is far more desirable (several have been proposed in the "Success or Failure 20-Apr-2023" section). Redacted II (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

In your view, why would the statements of the company made prior to launch be the determining factor in what the "primary objective" was? Why wouldn't it be the flight plan that they filed/published. See https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=273481 for example. This states, and I'm pretty much 100% sure that SpaceX themselves would've filed this,

"SpaceX intends to collect as much data as possible during flight to quantify entry dynamics and better understand what the vehicle experiences in a flight regime that is extremely difficult to accurately predict or replicate computationally. This data will anchor any changes in vehicle design or CONOPs after the first flight and build better models for us to use in our internal simulations".

They obviously failed to achieve those goals. Even Musk himself said that as long as the rocket gets "far enough away from the launchpad before something goes wrong, then I think I would consider that to be a success. Just don't blow up the launchpad." They blew up the launchpad. Chuckstablers (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The company had goals prior to launch, but the primary goal appears to be clearing the launch pad. This is true but it's not the real reason it should be listed as something other than "failure." Sources, probably more than not, are calling it a partial failure or a partial success. At least one called it a moderate success. Since we go by sourcing how can we present this to our readers as a failure? It's not what we want but what sources are telling us. We can say some call it this and some call it that, but for wikipedia to classify it as a failure is incorrect and not what we are here to do as an encyclopedia. There are a myriad of proposal ways to tweak things so it's more accurate here, whether is small additions to the infobox or splitting it into prototypes and operational launches. And the malfunction did not blow up the launchpad. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

A bit of advice: Don't quote a source calling the launch a "success" in trying to get it labeled as a "failure".

And the company set the goals of the flight. It passed some. It failed others. Therefore, partial failure. Labeling the flight as a "failure" would be misleading Redacted II (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I only gave two sources as far as I'm aware (I only linked to one). The first was an FCC filing that outlines mission objectives/trajectory and was filed before the launch. The second was a quote from Musk. If you're referring to the quote from Musk, I was arguing that the fact that there was serious damage to the launchpad would support a label of failure within the context of his statement.

I understand your argument, I just disagree with it's logic. I don't understand why the company's goals they stated right before the launch should be given more weight in determining outcome classification than the goals/mission timeline they filed with the FCC and FAA. I also don't think that the primary sources support, by a healthy majority, the categorization of partial classification. See the comment from Sub31k at 03:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC). I also think it's inconsistent with precedent in the wiki spaceflight community, as other users have commented in the discussion above. With regards to a compromise solution; I'd be in favor of revisiting it at a later date when there is agreement among the reliable sources on what to classify it as, as currently there are differing takes (see Sub31k's comment). Chuckstablers (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The damage to the launch mount wasn't as serious as (I think) you believe. Everything that will be replaced was already planned to be replaced.

As for "I don't understand why the company's goals they stated right before the launch should be given more weight in determining outcome classification than the goals/mission timeline they filed with the FCC and FAA.", neither argument trumps the other. One of them would classify the flight as 100% a success. The other would classify the flight as 100% a failure. At least to me, the balance point is partial failure. Redacted II (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• In answer to post#4 in Oppose recategorization and use of the term "We" by @Galactic Penguin SST: Remember it's not a question of "we." We don't make the source at wikipedia, we incorporate all the sources, and most sources do not agree with failure. I think a closer is going to look at strength of argument and sourcing and not just a tally of votes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) moved your comment to the discussion section, pinged parent user. Sub31k (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jerome Frank Disciple In other cases, where a flight does not complete its objectives, it has been labelled as Failure, when reported as such in the press. (Reminder that AP and others report Starship IFT as failure: https://apnews.com/article/spacex-starship-launch-elon-musk-d9989401e2e07cdfc9753f352e44f6e2/gallery/8a31a6177e854e738f7f1e7f5ae4d28a). For instance, Terran 1 was claimed as a success by the company and by some media: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2023/03/maiden-terran-1/ But because of vehicle failure is reported and categorised as failure. https://spacenews.com/relativity-shelves-terran-1-after-one-launch-redesigns-terran-r/ That was a prototype vehicle. The same thing applies for the List of Astra rocket launches. Sub31k (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

So, that's fair and a good point, but wait ... if we're going with what reliable sources say ... then there's clearly a split, no?. So doesn't that render this an NPOV issue? I mean to be clear, I'm not following the technical aspect of this at all ... but just in doing work on the environmental-impact section at the test flight page, I found a MIT astronautics prof, Olivier de Weck, who, while criticizing several decisions, said the launch was more of a success than a failure. --Jerome Frank Disciple 19:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

That's right. There's indeed a split in the reporting - with different definitions of success, failure, and different levels of analysis, which obscure things further. Many sources with phrases such as "successful failure" put them in quotes, but not all, so that adds trouble. Despite that a mission like this would ordinarily be reported and this categorised as failure, in this case, there is division, so trouble abounds.

However, in my opinion, allowing the company (and its CEO) to define the success/failure might be touching a on WP:PRIMARY.

At the same time, the quotes of SMEs such as Mr. de Weck or Ms. Forzcyk (somewhere in this talk page) are usually being quoted as their opinions, as well.

So, it's a real hornet's nest. There are pretty big drawbacks to just about every option.Sub31k (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

You're right! I misunderstood the debate—I thought people were criticizing the reporting that termed the launch a success because those reports were relying on SpaceX's self-stated goals, hence my comment.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I see, right. It seems that what you've described is going on too. (Personally, I disagree with that framing of reporting - but it exists, and oughtn't simply be disregarded ...but that's besides the point.) The reporting is certainly there, and ignoring it would be un-good.

Mainly, I don't fully agree with ...a company is allowed to define the objectives that determine whether or not a spacecraft is a failure, then surely they're also allowed to define the objectives that determine it a success, since secondary is preferred; in that regard, the mix of stances is diverse. Sub31k (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

However, one could argue that, since the secondary's are (roughly) equally distributed between failure/partial failure/success, then we have to use primary sources. Redacted II (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Nowhere is there a provision for that. Sub31k (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

A bit of clarification: I am NOT advocating for using primary sources. I am solely listing a potential argument. Redacted II (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, that was sloppily phrased on my part--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Is it fair for me to perform the RfC closure? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  I believe that though you haven't been involved in the RfC itself, you have a significant stake in the article, so it'd probably better to get an external party. Sub31k (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Change made to failure status

As far as I’m aware there is no consensus on the change made that changed it to prototype. This seems inconsistent with other pages we have where we don’t indicate it was a prototype. There is no rush, consensus hasn’t been reached, so we shouldn’t be editing the info box. There’s still an RFC. 2605:8D80:441:3D3F:69F4:42A5:5DB1:9DCF (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The ship being a prototype is completely irrelevant, as the mission profile it had was something it completely failed to execute at all AND almost everything that could possibly go wrong during this flight went wrong. This is objectively a failure on absolutely every respect, no questions asked whatsoever. Arguing semantics and moving the goalposts to attempt to say otherwise is a pissing contest at this point. Absolutely unbelievable. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 10:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Truer words cannot be said. It has thrown this article to the shitshow above. Absolutely disgusting. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I added the prototype label SOLELY for clarification purposes. (Also, I wasn't the first person to edit the infobox that time)

As for it being "inarguably a failure", please, check the goals of the flight. Redacted II (talk) 10:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, it had a mission profile that it failed to execute on all fronts. Stop trying to create a double standard and artificially skew everything in Starship's favour. End of discussion. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 02:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Alright everybody, in the section "RfC on infobox failure status" over 70% of people agree that it should be classified as failure. That meets consensus, especially because it's been over a week. Lets get that implemented in reasonable time. Glad we can start wrapping this up. I understand this isn't the outcome a few of you wanted, but at this point, consensus has clearly and measurably formed, and enough time has passed. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

However, over 70% of the sources would disagree on it being described as a failure. So this would be a case of consensus "opinion" trumping actual sourcing. It happens at wikipedia, and we move on when it does, but certainly it is a POV/OR consensus that can't be backed up by most sourcing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The people behind those "sources" have no understanding of how rocketry works and refuse to fact-check anything. Their "disagreement" is simply a coping strategy. The Pressure-Fed Astronaut did a wonderful job of debunking a lot of the bullsh*t arguments trying to defend the ship. If this doesn't wake people up I don't know what will. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 02:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Where do you get that stuff, because it's not true. Those 100s of sources were not debunked at all. They are reliable sources that we can use here, or choose not to use. They just are not sources you like, and some closers will take note of that. Again, going against sourcing is nothing new at wikipedia if consensus decides the other way. I wouldn't call it common to do so, but it happens from time to time. No matter what, we have to respect the job a closer does, shake hands when it's over, and move on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, PFA was not trying to debunk any specific source, only the arguments being used to attempt to portray this as some kind of success, so stop trying to twist what I said. Plus, this also means that any source that tries to use the aforementioned flawed arguments as justification is automatically debunked.

Second, this is not a matter of what sources I like or what I don't like. Unlike you, I'm not letting my emotions get in the way of a proper evaluation. This launch was objectively a failure, plain and simple. Accept it and move on.

Jesus Christ, the literally astronomical incompetence of some people! DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 04:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The launch registers as a failure, in my opinion. But it's true that dismissing contradictory sources as debunked is a POV issue. And if we make the judgments, that's OR.

Let's try and get back into a more civil environment, also. Sub31k (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

"Let's try and get back into a more civil environment, also."

I wish it was this easy, but it's far too late; the genie is already out of the bottle. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 15:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Facts. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

However, over 70% of the sources would disagree on it being described as a failure is a [Citation needed] for me. Of outlets that do quote things like "successful failure", many do it in quotes, too. In any case it's probably not wise to start counting sources. Sub31k (talk) 05:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

One issue in your statement: abandonment of discussion does not mean abandonment of position (you said pretty much the same thing a week or so ago). Last I checked, 4 individuals who support "partial failure" haven't voted yet. Redacted II (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

In relation to the infobox discussion "RfC on infobox failure status", not everything on this talk page. Just for the infobox. Those individuals should contribute their position in "RfC on infobox failure status" if they'd like to add to consensus for the infobox. If they don't after ample time, then they don't contribute to the "RfC on infobox failure status" consensus. Nothing requires them to voice an opinion in "RfC on infobox failure status" if they don't want to contribute to that discussion (or consensus). In terms of that specific discussion, the consensus is clear. And in the next week or week and a half (3 weeks total), assuming similar margins, it's a clear consensus aligning with Wikipedia policy, and should be implemented without delay. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

If those 4 individuals don't voice an opinion in "RfC on infobox failure status" after ample time, then that's their loss. Given another week and a half from now (3 total), if the distribution is still clear, then it's set. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how any of that overrides the "abandonment of discussion does not mean abandonment of position" statement that we have both made.

Furthermore, the RFC was "supposed" to simply continue the previous discussion, as is implied by the statement of "previously participated in the discussion", by user Jadebenn (who started the RFC).

If you have any other reasons, please do share them. Redacted II (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I created the RFC because I felt the main topic of discussion was not being addressed in the previous section. Like I said at the time, there were two issues at play, and I wanted to address whether there should be a change prior to deciding how there should be a change.

If the RFC had gone the other way, I would be open to looking at the previous discussions of which sidebar option to use. However, there doesn't seem to be a consensus for a change at all, so I think that's moot. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 03:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that User:Redacted II is just bludgeoning at this point. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

If Redacted II doesn't make a mess on this debate, then everything would be simpler. But no, he choose to fuck up this article in the process with terrible prose and questionable content split and make everyone worse having to clean their mess. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Enough stalling and splitting. Delaying indefinitely won't get you anywhere. Clear consensus has been reached. Enough pretending it hasn't won't do anything. It's over >70% of people in favor. It's clear cut, there's been plenty of time. It's over, there's no reason to continue delaying unless it's to push a very unfavorable opinion (29%) that will never get anywhere. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you'll need to request a closure. But I'm not too familiar with the policy in that regard. I'm pretty sure I can't do it: It's my RFC. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 03:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we're leaving the bounds of civility. Also, Wikipedia isn't a democracy.

Let's continue on a path that leads us to resolution, with a suitable outcome. Sub31k (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. And that means compromise. Which could be as simple as a label of "prototype failure". Or something else entirely. Redacted II (talk) 11:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

That isn't the consensus that has been reached here, there isn't support for that. CtrlDPredator (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not what's being reached, consensus wise. There's more then enought consensus for the failure outcome. There isn't for anything else. Should have tried to compromise earlier, but it's too late, since the vast majority don't support it chaning it from failure now. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

We were trying to find a compromise before the RFC. Look at options a, b, c1-c5, and the various d options. Redacted II (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind civility, please. I can understand your frustration, but language like that isn't helpful. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 03:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Please provide evidence for "choose to f__k up this article in the process with terrible prose and questionable content split and make everyone worse having to clean their mess". Redacted II (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

By not listening to the consensus. You and Gtoffoletto have chosen to ignore the consensus and only consider your opinion important. You have also gatekeeped other people from editing the article and disagree with your changes. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think arguing for a compromise option is disregarding your opinions. As for "You have also gatekeeped other people from editing the article and disagree with your changes", which one of us has done the edit warring here in the last few hours? Redacted II (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and you've violated WP:CIVILITY not only once, but twice. Please, stop it. Redacted II (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I asked for an formal closure by a third party so we can move on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

It's now at >72% in favor of failure. Not a vote, but it's clear consensus has been achieved. Let's get that third party in here and wrap this up. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

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.

Infobox (and "next hurdle" for booster-with-spacecraft)

Perhaps the infobox can say something like,

Operational launches: 0
Prototype launches (booster-with-spaceship): 1 (?)
Altitude record for the prototype spacecraft: 39 kilometers
Next "major hurdle": Stage separation at flight time c. 2 minutes and 50 seconds [4]

If any of the following stuff also can be added, then fine.
"Subsequent hurdles":

• Periapsis altitude 50 km (planned)
• Apoapsis altitude 250 km (planned)
  

Transatmospheric Earth orbit (intended) blah-blah.

Regarding the infobox saying "partial failure" or "partial success" - that is probably overkill (and POV), until the space industry (or media) has set a standard. 2001:2020:337:9762:A86A:78B0:B20D:35AD (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

"Starship (spacecraft)" - disambig or redirect?

Should Starship (spacecraft) be a Disambiguation page, or a Redirect.--One has a feeling that "Starship (spacecraft)" is an idea that goes back to "pre World War II" - including cases of alarm, and cases of mass hysteria. 2001:2020:32F:ECE9:7D47:F52:C4CA:66F3 (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion to provide on this, but there also exists Starship. Sub31k (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I've pointed that redirect to: SpaceX Starship (spacecraft) for now. If you search for "Starship (spacecraft)" I think you are most probably searching for the SpaceX vehicle rather than a generic "starship" {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. Starship seems to be clear enough that appending (spaceraft) to the end of it would probably denote looking for the specific article in question. Sub31k (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Reorganise pages relating to Starship program

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was support for merging SpaceX Starship and SpaceX Starship development {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

---

For Apollo we use the following page structure:

• Apollo Program
• Apollo (spacecraft)
• Saturn (rocket family)
• (and various subpages such as List of Apollo missions)

For Starship we have a slightly different structure:

• SpaceX Starship (=the full vehicle or "program")
• SpaceX Starship (spacecraft)
• SpaceX Super Heavy (=the booster rocket)
• with a major subpage which is SpaceX Starship development
• (and various subpages such as List of SpaceX Starship flight tests)

Should we merge some of the pages to obtain the following structure:

• SpaceX Starship (merged with SpaceX Starship development and renamed to SpaceX Starship Program)
• SpaceX Starship (spacecraft)
• SpaceX Super Heavy
• (and various subpages such as List of SpaceX Starship flight tests)

Thoughts?

Support - see reasoning above. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I feel that there is something related that is urgent:

Change title (of "SpaceX Starship" article) to,

• SpaceX Starship program, or
  
• SpaceX Starship (two stages) or something like that. 46.15.87.69 (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)/ 2001:2020:32F:ECE9:DDDC:CA43:1CDD:DA72 (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree and inserted into the proposal. 13:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Support - Merging SpaceX Starship development and Spacex Starship seems like a nice solution to me, otherwise I sometimes feel like I'm copy-pasting the same paragraphs on both pages... it's repetitive. CodemWiki (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

For example, I find some info about the launch tower from a source. Should it go in Starship development, SpaceX Starbase, SpaceX Starship? There's too many pages. CodemWiki (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree. They need to be clearly delimited in scope. The proposal above should fix that. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll add however, like other have said, that the page should keep the name SpaceX Starship per WP:COMMONNAME CodemWiki (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Support - Merging the articles would make a lot more sense. I suppose the outcome article would be slightly longer, but it'd be easier to promote it to a good article :). Also, both articles have the same maim picture, so merging them would avoid confusion and makes it way easier to edit. Cocobb8 (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit: They do no have the same image, sorry I was thinking about the page on the first test flight. Cocobb8 (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support, and I am looking forward to the name possibly being "SpaceX Starship Program".--Regarding same pictures in similar articles: the image(s) can be the same. However if one can avoid that the first picture, is not the same (in both articles) - then that would be a win. 2001:2020:32F:ECE9:5879:240A:DCAB:1A59 (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)/ 2001:2020:32F:ECE9:5879:240A:DCAB:1A59 (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. In particular, SpaceX Starship development is fraught with issues, while also being split from the project/vehicle itself is exceptional. A merge, ideally, should also address the numerous problems of the aforementioned article, especially relating to its high dependence on primary sources, video, extensive jargon use, and possibly excessive level of detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sub31k (talk • contribs) 19:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support merge, do not support addition of "program" to page title. Starship development is not organized into a program and there's no literature supporting that name change. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 08:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  Not true. Of course it is organised as a program and SpaceX says it in their materials: The Starship program is realizing this goal with the crew configuration of Starship. Drawing on experience from the development of Dragon for the Commercial Crew Program...[5] and various sources do the same (just try a google search: [6]) {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  "Program" in the name of SpaceX Starship obscures the fact that the entire launch vehicle is, as a unit, named Starship. There also exists an SLS Program (managed by CESD at NASA); there exist Delta Cryogenic Second Stage and Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters#Space Launch System (SLS) (though no separate article for the core stage). The article for the complete set of things, however, is simply Space Launch System. Basically, using "SpaceX Starship Program" would leave the fact that the Starship launch vehicle would not have a page - we would not rename the SLS page to Space Launch System Program. Sub31k (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with you, changing the article name to SpaceX Starship Program would probably not make the point that the main article purpose is about the full stack of the vehicle. Cocobb8 (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  I agree, merge SpaceX Starship and SpaceX Starship development, keep the name SpaceX Starship. SpaceX Starship Program would confuse a lot of people. CodemWiki (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  So please list the best choices, for what to call the article about the
  SpaceX Starship (full stack) ", or "SpaceX Starship (two stages)". Thanks! 2001:2020:32F:ECE9:9D1E:3595:1943:D40E (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  The current "SpaceX Starship" is perfectly fine as is.

  For instance, we have Space Shuttle, which covers the complete vehicle and its program. Sub31k (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  SpaceX Starship (booster rocket and spacecraft)? 2001:2020:32F:ECE9:9D1E:3595:1943:D40E (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think that SpaceX Starship should be kept. This would be the main article about the Starship program, so we probably want the article title no more than three words long. Cocobb8 (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  That is way too long and confusing of a title, keep it WP:COMMONNAME CodemWiki (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support merging everything, including the spacecraft and booster article. It's better to have 1 quality article than many shitty articles. For comparison, Falcon Heavy is not split off to Falcon Heavy (side boosters), Falcon Heavy (core stage), Falcon Heavy (second stage) and Falcon Heavy (fairings). CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  That's not the same. You have SpaceX Falcon 9 and SpaceX Dragon. Separate articles like other vehicles that include a spaceship and boosters. So merging everything would be "too much" {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  I totally agree with you @Gtoffoletto. It'd better to have the SpaceX Starship main article, like we have one for the space shuttle, and then keep the separate SpaceX Starship (Spacecraft) article like we do for the space shuttle orbiter. We should keep the article for Super Heavy too, like we do for the Saturn V first stage. Cocobb8 (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  Space Shuttle orbiter and SpaceX Dragon, all variants, either a) comprise payloads, not stages or b) carry humans.

  The Starship is much closer to a rocket stage than either of these spacecrafts. Though the Shuttle OVs are critical parts of the launcher, their role and function is also pretty heavily biased towards the spacecraft element. The current Starships are planned as rocket stages, aren't they?

  On the other hand, things like Starship HLS definitely deserve to be separated. Sub31k (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed for Starship HLS. I believe SpaceX defines the Starship as both a spacecraft and a second-stage though. Cocobb8 (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  Hm - can anyone think of stages NOT used on multiple different launchers that have their separate articles? Every time I think of something - Delta Cryogenic Second Stage, Centaur (rocket), Delta-K, Blok DM-03, Briz (rocket stage), etc. it's something that's been integrated to multiple different launchers. Sub31k (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  All of the Saturn V stages have their separate articles I believe. Cocobb8 (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, right. Now that I think of it, there are lots of things like that, probably. Sub31k (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  We know a fair bit about each of the Saturn V stages because they are public information. We know very little about the Starship spacecraft from SpaceX directly though: most are just educated speculation from those at Boca Chica. I'd reckon that the SpaceX Starship (spacecraft) article is just parroting what this article has said. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, I understand your argument. Maybe we should consider recreating those articles once we get more technical information if we decide to delete them for now? @Gtoffoletto, do you want to add the merging of Starship (spacecraft) and Super Heavy in your proposition, just so we can discuss it further? Cocobb8 (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  I would not be in favour of that though. Those are individual vehicles with a lot of information available and a lot of history already. On this merge we currently have unanimous consensus so I'll close the discussion soon and proceed with the merge I think. We'll see what next steps lay ahead in future votes. One step at the time. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Sounds good. We'll let you proceed with the merging and we'll figure out everything after. Thanks! Cocobb8 (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Starship is not “just a stage”. A single booster will carry multiple starships to orbit. Each starship is independent from the booster and then goes on to do its mission. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Merge: "SpaceX Starship" - no rename. (Sorry for change of heart.)--"SpaceX Starship development" article: Your welcome is worn out.--Everything else seems okay for now. 2001:2020:32F:ECE9:88E:8F54:A428:25D2 (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

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.

 Done: Merged content from SpaceX Starship development to SpaceX Starship#History, SpaceX Starship (spacecraft)#Development, and SpaceX Super Heavy#Development to preserve as much content as possibile. Some cleanup will be required. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I've unmerged the content because it has caused the article to become unreadable. IMO it is better to not port the text from the SpaceX Starship development in verbatim, but only the high-quality sources. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane I've performed the merge in accordance to Wikipedia:Merging. For copyright reasons the text needs to be initially copied verbatim. You can now edit it as you please if you think it is "unreadable" (what problems do you see exactly?). But please do not revert the merge. There is unanimous support for it (including you) and we cannot go back at this point without making a big mess. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

It's fair that you need to copy the text during the merge. But any text must require significant rework afterwards, because the reason that the article is merged in the first place is due to its poor quality. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

This is not the reason for the merge. The reason for the merge is detailed in the consensus above which you supported yourself. There was no point in having separate pages abut the same thing. If you want to improve the quality go right ahead but do not revert the merge. You just reverted a second time stating that No, the onus is on YOU that you do the merges properly in terms of content, as said in WP:MERGETEXT. Getting a consensus for a merge is not an excuse for a bad merge. Please discuss at the talk page. but MERGETEXT does not state what you are saying. Actually it says the opposite: Ideally, do any necessary copyediting and rearranging in a separate, second edit rather than when you first paste the moved text (to simplify attribution).. This is actually a copyright requirement. Any editing and rearranging follows the merge and you can go right ahead and do that as you please. But do not revert this once again please or editing of the article will become problematic as well as coordination with several other pages as we are now in the WP:POSTMOVE phase. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane I had to revert back and some of your subsequent edits had to go with it. This is the problem with making such a huge revert without discussion here first. The move was days ago and several editors have already edited the page since. You need to seek WP:CONSENSUS before making such a big move or you will disrupt editing of this page. What problems do you see exactly? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

To copy paste my response from User talk:CactiStaccingCrane:

You have consensus, but you haven't done the job properly. The reason people want to merge SpaceX Starship development in is because the article's content is horrible, and I was among them that agree that this is the case. Therefore, your merge must reflect that consensus: by making sure that the content that you are adding back to the article is high quality. Hopefully you have understood my reasoning. I urge you to revert your revert and perform the merge slowly. There is no rush to make stuff worse.

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

What issues do you see with the current content? Point them out so other editors can fix them. I Agee with you there is WP:NODEADLINE so we can take all the time in the world to fix the issues you see with the article. The merge only affected some sections of this article so we can fix them. The merge was done in accordance with WP:MERGING and undoing it days later and after other editors have worked on the article since would be WP:DISRUPTIVE for this and several other pages. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The reason we proceeded with the merge, as described in @Gtoffoletto's proposal, is because we wanted to change the page structure. It IS NOT the merger's responsibility to improve the article's content quality if it wasn't the goal of the merge. Again, we only merged to change page structure, and not to improve quality, even though other editors mentioned it. Furthermore, unanimous consensus has been reached for merging of the articles, so we cannot go back and undo it. Cocobb8 (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Reverted edit by Bingelli Bongelli

Hi @Gtoffoletto, I've reverted the infobox to the state at which the article was locked for discussion and resolution. This edit had changed the outcome to partial, while it had been placed as Failure with the dubious tag at the time of locking. This IP edit was reverting the former, albeit removing the dubious tag, which I have also restored. Sub31k (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Use infobox "Space program"

We currently use the infobox "Rocket" on this page while we should use the "Space program" infobox like on the Apollo program article. The spacecrafts involved in this program already have their own articles (e.g. SpaceX Starship (spacecraft) Starship HLS and SpaceX Super Heavy) which should be linked from the program infobox.

Any objections? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 09:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

This infobox seems more complete, likely a good idea. (note from May 8,2023 : I would like fields of both infoboxes to be kept, somehow.. not sure if that's possible) CodemWiki (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

SUPPORT: That would be far more accurate than using the "rocket" infobox to represent this vehicle, at least during it's development. Redacted II (talk) 11:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Done. Please review and fill in any missing parameters {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

No, this is not a space program. This is a rocket, and the infobox should be about the rocket itself. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane as others have noted above the union of a booster (SpaceX Super Heavy) and a Spacecraft (SpaceX Starship (spacecraft)) is also referred to as Starship. However the booster can also carry other vehicles such as Starship HLS and in the future tanker variants of Starship or other payloads. A Starship can also individually fly on it's own (once in space or on another planet). So it is is incorrect to talk about a single "rocket" as it wouldn't even be clear exactly what you are referring to. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

But it is still a rocket, much like how many Falcon 9 rocket variants has been built. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

All of the falcon 9 variants have their own Wikipedia page. Given the rate of change in starship vehicles, it would be downright foolish to do the same.

Even when the design of Starship is fixed, there will be so many variants of the upper stage that making one, generic, description of the vehicle will be misleading. Redacted II (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this. By this standard things like Space Shuttle and Saturn V would have Infobox space program and not Infobox rocket - and that's absurd. Starship is advertised as a launch system by the company itself and by all the writing on it. Sub31k (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The full article structures for those two examples are as follow:

• Space Shuttle program = Space Shuttle —> composed of Space Shuttle orbiter + Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster and a disposable Space Shuttle external tank

This is not a good comparison though as the SS could only carry the orbiter and not other vehicles and the orbiter could not operate independently.

• Apollo program = Apollo (spacecraft) + Saturn V

This is a much more comparable example to Spaceship as the Saturn V was used as booster for different payloads (e.g. Skylab) that could operate independently.

Both structures (with or without an article for the integrated vehicle) work. But both vehicles have a "program" page detailing the history and funding of the project which is necessary I think.

In this case I don't see the point of having a separate article for the full stacked Spaceship+booster. We need individual pages for those vehicles as they are independent and a program page for the history of the whole thing. This article structure has also been discussed here: Talk:SpaceX Starship#Reorganise pages relating to Starship program with unanimous support.

• SpaceX Starship (the "program page") = SpaceX Starship (spacecraft) + SpaceX Super Heavy booster (and various subpages such as List of SpaceX Starship flight tests)

Given this structure the "program" infobox just fits better. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The Apollo program also includes much more than just the flight hardware (CSM, LM, SV). I think this is where the problem lies. A program consists of more than just its vehicles. You in fact illustrated this pretty well by linking both Space Shuttle program and Space Shuttle. One covers the hardware, and the other covers the 30-year human spaceflight endeavour. These things are far from synonymous. Sub31k (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

We can detail the various goal of the Starship Program in this article. Redacted II (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sub31k the Spaceship "program" has already had a long history and will continue to evolve substantially over time. So we should track that progress somewhere. This article should be separate from the single vehicle articles that will have their own "history" as they are independent vehicles that can have their own path even if not integrated together. They are not just components like the Apollo Service Module which is not an independent vehicle, or like the shuttle orbiter that cannot fly on its own. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to pick apart the comparisons to Apollo or Shuttle - but even the objectives you've stated are already achieved by the present arrangement. Shifting over to "program" and Infobox space program while the entire endeavour is still LV dev is a little crystal-ballish, don't you think? Calling the stages independent vehicles is also a little rich. Sub31k (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

One: They are independent vehicles. SN8, SN9, SN10, SN11, and SN15 all flew without a Super Heavy Booster.

Two: During catch procedures, Super Heavy will operate without a Starship. And, after orbital insertion, the Starship spacecraft will operate without a booster.

It's kinda hard to argue that the stages aren't "independent vehicles"

Three: The program is in development. Okay. Before Artemis I launched, Artemis had a dedicated Wikipedia Article. Redacted II (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

P.s. I maybe rushed this a bit too fast because I assumed nobody would be contrary to it (The templates are very similar) and I had initial support. Of course if other editors have very big problems with it just go ahead and revert my edit and we can discuss it better. In any case the reasoning behind my edit is above. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Settle with both infoboxes until the program matures perhaps? Only one of the infoboxes needs the image. CodemWiki (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that would work. Redacted II (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Starship is not a space program. Starship is a rocket and a spacecraft. Ergzay (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, this isnt a programm, this is building a rocket, there is no programm referred to by anyone. Fehér Zsigmond (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Dubious tag in infobox

Hi @DASL51984, I'd just like to let you know that when I restored the Infobox rocket template I included the Dubious tag from prior revisions, because that had been the state at which the outcome box had been "frozen" with the locking of the article. I don't know whether or not it's still appropriate to have it now. Either way, it'd been there out of procedure, not because I disagree with the assessment personally. Sub31k (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to accuse you of anything as this isn't your fault, but the "dubious" tag never belonged there to begin with. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 18:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

IMO, the Dubious tag should remain, as the outcome of the launch is debated by various sources. Keeping it there at least somewhat acknowledges that the label is controversial. Redacted II (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Readers see it and may join in the conversation we are having here. A closer should come along soon to move us along. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

For the 1000^th time, there should be absolutely no question as to whether this launch was a success or failure. It was a failure, plain and simple. Arguing otherwise is beating a dead horse.

There is also no question as to whether it "should remain" or not. It should not. It never was appropriate to mark it as "dubious", it isn't appropriate now, and it never will be. That's it. End of story.

It boggles my mind as to how people will obsess over something that is extremely obvious and turn it into an absolute intergalactic war when the answer is right in front of their eyes the whole time. The ship has been resting on the ocean floor for quite some time now; why do you still insist that it's unsinkable?? DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 21:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. With a clear consensus, there's no more debate to have. For intents and purposed, this has all but concluded. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Your ignoring that several sources are against the label of Failure.

While I understand saying the discussion is settled, saying that one side is obviously wrong is, well, obviously wrong. It goes against almost every single policy I have read. Redacted II (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

And ignore the numerous sources, including launch catalogues that have it as failure? ok. You can pick and choose based on your opinion. But it's settled debate at this stage. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

While we ignore more sources that say partial failure, partial success, and moderate success? C'mon. Consensus on listing it as failure or partial failure will likely be handled by the closer depending on strength of argument or number of hands up. Either side is certainly not wrong at all, however one side may get more agreement at wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not saying that the sources that say failure should be ignored. No side should be ignored. Even a simple note (like the one I added to the failure label) would do the job. Redacted II (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

And because of that simple note (which does need some sources by the way) I didn't object to the dubious/discussion tag being removed. It seemed reasonable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll provide some sources. Redacted II (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

There was a lot of discussion in Success or Failure 20-Apr-2023 that centred around whether or not to have such text, which was never resolved. Sub31k (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed there was. But it was a common theme in the compromise options, so I thought it would be a rather non-controversial way to express the unrepresented views. Redacted II (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The consensus on the launch status wasn't on a compromise option. CtrlDPredator (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

It's true that no source should be ignored, but the majority of arguments that claim that the launch wasn't a failure involve moving goalposts and creating double standards to artificially skew things in favour of Starship. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 22:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

That's your opinion and opinion is not something we use at Wikipedia. We give the info with sources and let readers make their own "opinions" on the subject. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

This is not my opinion; it is a well-established fact at this point based on the same criteria that other launches were judged on. Your attempt to frame it as "my opinion" is you trying to push an agenda just like User:Redacted II has been doing. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 22:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

It is not a fact at all and not established by sources. It is your opinion that we can only call it a failure. And your soapboxing indicates why you are so intransigent on the subject. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I wish I didn't have to spoon-feed all of this to anyone, but lo and behold, here we are.

For a launch to be successful, it needs to meet certain minimum criteria, such as getting off the launchpad and not damaging the launchpad. AND it needs to satisfactorily perform all of the things in its mission profile.

Getting off the pad is a fundamental requirement, so the success of that does not count.

---

1. Starship was supposed to fly nearly one orbit around the Earth, which it did not do (Fail)

2. Re-enter Earth's atmosphere, which it did not do (Fail)

3. Perform a targeted splashdown in the Pacific Ocean near Hawaii, which it did not do (Fail)

4. SuperHeavy was supposed to separate from Starship, which did not happen when it was supposed to happen (Fail)

5. Perform a controlled landing in the Gulf of Mexico, which did not happen (Fail)

---

The entire launch facility was severely damaged. (Fail)

And, when SpaceX ended up losing control of the vehicle, they triggered the FTS (Flight Termination System) to try to end the flight. The FTS deployed, but it certainly did not end the flight as it was supposed to, as this video shows. (Fail)

As you can see, Starship and SuperHeavy failed at everything that they were supposed to do.

I really hope this is clear enough. Facts are facts, and the criteria I'm using are exactly the same criteria that are used to judge the status of other rocket launches. It's incredibly hypocritical and dishonest of you to call me "intransigent". DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 23:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree with you and this debate has become slightly ridiculous. I'm unsure however about using Common Sense Skeptic on Wikipedia. You're not the first and you probably won't be the last, but while CSS highlights useful points sometimes, he has a questionable motivations and opinions that do not pair well with the creation of an encyclopedia. Sometimes it's just misinformation. I used to watch him around two years ago. CodemWiki (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

""""""""Slightly"""""""" ridiculous? DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 15:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Euphemism for courtesy, as always. :) CodemWiki (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Nevertheless, thanks for the laugh ;-D DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 16:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not terribly good at sensing irony because of the language barrier, but if you disagree with my comment you can explain if you feel like it. CodemWiki (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

You're good, mate. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 17:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The information we give needs to be consistent, else we mislead readers of this article. I know you have previously stated that you don't care about other articles, but that raises concerns about why you think we should be treating this article differently. I feel like we have gone over this so many times here. CtrlDPredator (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I admit that consistency is important, but if the article does not follow the plethora of sources then we cease being an encyclopedia based on printed facts. Sources are all over the place on this topic and we can't just pick one because it makes our other articles look neat and tidy. I have no idea if our other articles are based on sources or not, I haven't dug into them, but this one I noticed big time. We have to let our readers know in some way that there is controversy on what the test flight accomplished. Even if it's just a footnote telling readers about the different printed arguments. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The other launches are littered with sources, we have already covered that and provided examples during discussions above. The accomplishments of Starships first launch are less than other failed launches of other launch vehicles, which again have been covered in discussions above.

While it may have been an accomplishment for SpaceX to test Starship for the first time, it is still a launch failure. I have noticed that you haven't been able to make that distinction during other discussions here, separating the success of a launch vehicle against the overall the mission, particularly with Apollo 13. You are not doing anyone any service by conflating those. CtrlDPredator (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the "plethora" you mention, from what I've seen tend to note that the vehicle/spacecraft suffered a failure in flight that left it unable to carry out the mission, while putting a quoted statement "successful failure" or something like that and attributing it as a quote. It's not the same as directly citing it as a partial failure. Sub31k (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think any of the multitude of sources have used those exact terms of "that the vehicle/spacecraft suffered a failure in flight that left it unable to carry out the mission." I guess this is what makes politics and other topics so interesting to discuss... that several people can look at the same sources and facts and come up with diametrically opposed conclusions. It's a head scratcher to be sure. And I am not going to express opinion in separating the vehicle/mission when sources do it so well. Apollo 13 included which was a successful failure itself. Per sources this article has issues. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't get what the point of bringing up Apollo 13 is. The impression I have is cut-and-dry: that the mission was a failure and was widely acknowledged and classified as such, because the goals of the mission could not be completed (and the crew placed at risk), even though nobody died. The Saturn V had a successful launch for Apollo 13, because it completed all of its objectives and had nothing to do with the failure of its payload. Failure of spacecraft and mission, success of launcher. There isn't a payload separate from the launcher in this case.

Regarding those exact terms - I'm clearly not quoting verbatim. But linking "failed to separate" and "was destroyed" is something which happens in a huge number of articles. Sub31k (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

That you still don't understand the difference between the Apollo 13's successful Saturn V launch and Apollo 13's mission failure is a serious issue. You are confusing what a success/failure of a launch vehicle actually is with something else and I suspect that is why you are finding yourself at odds with so many others here, and also why your view on the launch status here on this article isn't one shared with other launch vehicles on wikipedia. CtrlDPredator (talk) 04:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

But this is a prototype... totally different expectations than an operational launch. That's what you seem to be overlooking and what sourcing seems to understand. There were several options that included a separation of prototype tests and operational missions but they were thrown out. And Apollo 13 mission was not considered a failure. There are some issues here on rocket vs mission. If you narrow it to only the rocket, unless it goes without a hitch (no engines at less than optimum, all gauges perfect) it will always be listed as failure. You have hardly any successful prototypes and have to do OR to write the article. Sources don't tend to do that. As I said, I have no problem moving forward no matter the decision of the closer. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Not overlooking that it was a prototype and it doesn't change that it was a launch failure and having rock-bottom expectations doesn't change that it was a launch failure. I still don't think you actually understand what everyone else is discussing here, you continually confuse launch success/failure with payload or mission outcomes and achievements. Multiple people have tried to explain this to you. CtrlDPredator (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Then I guess I just don't see it as this article tends to crossover both those domains. Where does one draw the line between a launch failure and a launch success without injecting your own opinion rather than sourcing? Do we use some artificial wikipedia doctrine to decide? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

"Where does one draw the line between a launch failure and a launch success without injecting your own opinion rather than sourcing?"

It's been explained numerous times. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 23:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

And Apollo 13 mission was not considered a failure. Huh? It was extremely explicitly cast as a failure. The only reason the "successful" modifier is added because nobody died, which was a very real possibility.

In any case, If you narrow it to only the rocket then the launch of Apollo 13 was a success. You seem to be misinterpreting people. Sub31k (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Clarifying Failure In Infobox

As a consensus has formed, the label of Failure should not be removed (until a new consensus forms).

However, clarifying that the failure was a prototype vehicle, and not an operational launch, would give more information to readers. Redacted II (talk) 11:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

There is no point in attempting to "clarify" it. I'm not aware of any other article that distinguishes between failures of prototypes and failures of operational vehicles.

As the previous intergalactic nuclear war showed, we want consistency across all articles about rockets and rocketry. The failure really does not need any "clarification". If you still think otherwise, please discuss it here before adding it back in. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 12:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for (politely) mentioning your concerns. Allow me to address them:

1: Wikipedia doesn't have a large amount of info on prototype. As such, consistency, in this case, is less important.

2: Clarification is desired. The vehicle that launched last month will be extremely different to the final product (if there even is such a thing). It's like calling grasshopper a falcon 9.

3: I added the note back in because it was the most recent stable version. As such, until this discussion concludes, it should remain. Redacted II (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

1. Whether it is a prototype or not is irrelevant. Wikipedia's paltry information on prototypes means that it doesn't really make sense to distinguish them. And no, vehicles' status as prototype or operational does not make consistency any less important.

2. No other ærospace company in the entire history of spaceflight has been as reckless as SpaceX when this vehicle was launched.

3. You and user:Fyunck(click) have driven everyone's patience, mine especially, far below negative infinity (and this is being exceptionally generous). Any attempt at "clarification" is just beating a dead horse. Everyone who reads up on Starship or its maiden flight will know that it's a prototype.

DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 17:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Let's keep things civil, okay?

With that aside, there is precedent for separating different versions of the same launch vehicle. Look at the falcon 9 page. It's section for Failure(s) is:

1

(v1.1: CRS-7 in-flight)

Something similar should be done here, looking like:

1

(Prototype: OFT in-flight) Redacted II (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, other rocketry articles don't list prototypes separately. And neither should this article. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 20:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that failure is now the law of the land here. No problem with that. I also agree that a simple note showing that many sources don't agree with that is appropriate, especially since it's a prototype. We are an encyclopedia that simply gives the info that's out there and we let readers make up their own minds about the situation. As to how someone feels or their lack of patience after coming off a block...that doesn't matter to me. But please stop using my handle in a derogatory manner and all is well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Well said. Redacted II (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Just started an RfC on this subject since I don't want another edit war. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 21:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

RfC on "clarifying failure in infobox"

Should the note that is currently appended to the "failures" entry in the infobox be kept, or should it be removed? DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 20:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you mind if I rename "Keep" to "Include Clarification", as that would be closer to the original discussion? Redacted II (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, "currently" appears to refer to this article revision. Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Keep

• Keep: In various articles (like Falcon 9, for example), failures, successes, and partial failures are divided between the different versions of the vehicle. In order to be consistent with those articles, some form of clarification is required. Redacted II (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  But as I mentioned previously, NONE of those articles list failures of prototypes separately. Why do you keep ignoring this key point? DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 04:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  @DASL51984 The failure of F9R Dev2 is not included in the failure list of Falcon 9. So you're blatantly incorrect here. Ergzay (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  Or Grasshopper, or sn4, or 8-11, or dev1, or sn1, or mrk1. The list goes on. Redacted II (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  "The failure of F9R Dev2 is not included in the failure list of Falcon 9"

  Actually, I wasn't exactly incorrect. It's not listed at all, let alone separately. Those vehicles are already operational, so there's no longer any need to list failures of their prototypes. Starship is not operational.

  This comment of yours just seems like an attack just for the sake of making an attack. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 08:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• Mixed - while a note is warranted to help our readers understand why it's lumped under failure, I feel it would actually be better served as a note that says something like "Many scientists have also called this test flight a 'partial success' or 'partial failure'" and give proper sourcing. That would be better than just saying "test flight." Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  The previous RfC should have cemented everything in. As I've explained to you before, using the same criteria that are used to judge other launches to judge this launch, this launch is simply a failure on all fronts.

  Anyone trying to argue semantics by attempting to call it a "partial success" or "partial failure" is beating a dead horse, no matter if they are willing to admit it or not. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 05:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  And anyone who works on an encyclopedia that wants to ignore reliable sources should think twice about chastising others. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  Any source that, for example, bases their "position" off of what Elon Musk or SpaceX say, are not reliable in this instance. For the trillionth time, this is NOT a subjective matter. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 00:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  The note is to clarify the type of vehicle used in the test.

  While showing the various other views is desirable, it must do so in a way that obeys the consensus. That would be part of a different discussion.

  As for declaring sources unreliable, what about NASA (in particular, an NPR quotation of Bill Nelson and Chris Hadfield)? They are calling it a success as well. Redacted II (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  Nelson and Hadfield either do not know what they are talking about, or are being misrepresented. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 08:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• Keep: agree with User:Redacted II. We need to clarify what version was flying as the vehicle is constantly evolving. I think we were making progress with the previous discussion above: Talk:SpaceX Starship#New Sidebar Proposal. We have a lot of support there. Why don't we close that process so that we can be more precise on the sidebar. An EARLY PROTOTYPE failed. Not the final operational vehicle. This needs to be clear or the page is imprecise. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Keep: The main article SpaceX Starship orbital test flight#Technical_assessments has two full paragraphs of reliably sourced citations from subject matter experts stating (in various ways) that the flight was "successful." Labeling it simply as "failure" here is creating a WP:CFORK. Explaining to the reader why editors' accounting differs here from SME statements is a separate issue from the accounting its self. This note isn't the only way to fix this problem, but some note is better than none until a better clarification is proposed. Suggestion: Just rephrase the issue discussed in the RFC as stated in the lead: "Including iterative and destructive test flights of vehicles that did not complete the proposed flight plan." Foonix0 (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  Just because they are an expert does not mean that everything they say is right. In this case, those "experts" are very clearly not using the same criteria that are used to judge other rocket launches. Granted, if someone is an expert, then they are more likely to be correct and are more likely to give an educated opinion or position on a particular subject, but these sorts of things still happen.

  Remember Pons and Fleischman with their claims about cold fusion? Well, they were talking crap, since if they had actually managed to get the nuclear reactions they claimed to have achieved, they would have all received fatal doses of radiation almost immediately. Basically, the fact that they were alive by the end of their experiments was BY ITSELF enough to discredit them. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 16:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

These offtopic rants about cold fusion confirm that some editors here blatantly ignore WP:NPOV. "This article must go by my strongly held personal opinion even if it is contradicted by the assessments of experts as reflected in RS, because I am very smart and experts can be wrong sometimes." Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

A flight's status as a failure or success is determined solely by whether or not it accomplished what it was supposed to do in its mission profile. This is NOT a matter of subjectivity, so please don't shove words into my mouth or twist what I said.

---

Here is the mission profile of Starship and SuperHeavy for this flight, which I already listed above:

1. Starship was supposed to fly nearly one orbit around the Earth, which it did not do (Fail)

2. Re-enter Earth's atmosphere, which it did not do (Fail)

3. Perform a targeted splashdown in the Pacific Ocean near Hawaii, which it did not do (Fail)

4. SuperHeavy was supposed to separate from Starship, which did not happen when it was supposed to happen (Fail)

5. Perform a controlled landing in the Gulf of Mexico, which did not happen (Fail)

The entire launch facility was severely damaged. (Fail)

And, when SpaceX ended up losing control of the vehicle, they triggered the FTS (Flight Termination System) to try to end the flight. The FTS deployed, but it certainly did not end the flight as it was supposed to.

---

Seems pretty clear-cut to me. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 18:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Your original research conclusion ("pretty clear-cut") contradicts the assessment of multiple reliable sources (apart from those compiled here, also e.g. an expert featured by NPR here). Which part of WP:NPOV is unclear to you? Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the links that user:Fyunck(click) referenced and at yours, I'm beginning to wonder if you guys even bothered to look through the sources before citing them.

1. South China Morning Post: "SpaceX was already indicating the chances of success were low. They launched it anyway. Why? Because they could learn expensive lessons about how to do it better and more successfully next time," Parker said. "It flew!"

“For me, the launch was much more a glass half-full scenario rather than glass half -empty. A moderated success.”

I wonder what criteria this Mr. Parker guy is using, because it certainly doesn't seem consistent with the criteria used to judge other rocket launches on Wikipedia. "Because they could learn expensive lessons about how to do it better and more successfully next time" is, quite frankly, a VERY pathetic excuse.

2 and 3. Singularity Hub and NewScienist.com: "SpaceX is going to determine what went wrong, they are going to improve on the process and they are going to try again – I think we should expect to see multiple tests this year,” says Forczyk. "They have many customers that are waiting on this rocket – they have NASA, they have private customers, they have other government interest, so there’s a lot waiting on this rocket becoming operational."

"Despite the explosion, the test was not a complete failure. It demonstrated that Starship can get off the ground, which was not a given. I don’t see any reason why today’s failure would be a major setback," says Forczyk.

Again, getting off the ground is a fundamental requirement of all rockets. Forczyk is moving the goalposts.

4. IFLScience: Also suspect, as they do not explain why they think the flight can be considered a "partial success" despite all factual evidence pointing to the contrary.

5. Astronomy.com: "Despite not achieving all the goals of the test flight, SpaceX is still considering the flight a success."

Musk and SpaceX themselves are not a reliable source, and the only "evidence" this article quotes is directly from Musk and SpaceX themselves.

6. Gulf News: "But Starship first flight is considered a partial success. The world has never seen a ship that size last that long while experiencing multiple engine malfunctions from liftoff". In other words, moving the goalposts again as getting off the launchpad is factually a fundamental requirement.

7. The Telegraph: "Mr Musk previously suggested the mission risked ending in a fireball, but said the launch would go down as a success if the Starship rocket managed to get off the launch pad."

Again, that's from SpaceX themselves, and is therefore inherently biased.

8. TheSpaceReview.com: "For most launches, determining success or failure is fairly straightforward. If the rocket places its payload (or payloads) into its desired orbit (or orbits), then the launch is a success."

Correct.

"If the rocket fails to reach orbit, it’s a failure."

Correct.

"The only shades of gray emerge in those occasional cases where the rocket places a payload into something other than a desired orbit. There, the degree of partial success depends on how the payload can be salvaged and the effects on it on its mission, a debate that involves the launch provider, customers, insurers, and their lawyers, among others."

Correct.

"When it comes to test launches, though, those shades of gray become a kaleidoscope..."

No, they don't.

"...Even with ground tests and extensive modeling, the only way to fully test a launch vehicle is to launch it, ..."

Correct.

"...accepting that there is a chance that something will keep the rocket from reaching orbit."

Correct.

"That would make the launch a failure, in the sense it could not complete its mission and place any payload into orbit."

Exactly, this launch IS a failure since it could not complete the objectives in its mission profile.

"Yet the data collected might be entirely satisfactory for engineers to revise the vehicle’s design and ensure future vehicles do make it to orbit: a success in the long run."

That is an excuse if one is trying to artifically skew things in SpaceX's favour.

9. Verifythis.com: Again, pulling most of the "criteria" from Musk and SpaceX themselves.

10. USToday.news: "Though Starship never made it to space, industry experts largely considered the launch a partial success, as the rocket cleared the launch tower and flew higher than any Starship prototype before it."

It is completely unclear what they mean by "industry experts". Those "experts" could very likely be from SpaceX themselves, and they refuse to disclose who exactly are making these claims.

11. CBC: "Last week, SpaceX demonstrated that its massive 120-metre-tall Starship can actually clear the launchpad — something the company and many rocket aficionados were gauging as a mark of success"

Again, moving the goalposts from other rocket launches.

12. Los Angeles Times: Again, with the highly questionable criteria: "The vast scale of Starship is hard to express in words, but with massive scale comes increased complexity, presenting a whole host of novel problems to solve by SpaceX’s engineers. Something as wildly ambitious as Starship has not just never been done before …. The fact that they got as far as they did on the very first flight test is remarkable."

DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 20:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's a lengthy explanation why you consider all these RS to be wrong and put your personal opinion above them. In other words, you are insisting on violating core Wikipedia policies. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

For every source you cite calling it a partial success there exists one that simply calls it a failure. Moreover, reliable sources are on a spectrum. Some are more reliable than others. That was true around the time of the launch, and is even more true today. Moreover; this was debated in the last RFC. Which closed. In favor of not changing the info box. Which was then changed by adding a note essentially calling it a test flight. An option debated, discussed, and settled in the previous RFC. I don't understand the justification for the change. Chuckstablers (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

How many times do I or countless others need to repeat this to you? THIS IS NOT MY OPINION. THIS IS NOT A SUBJECTIVE MATTER.

You attempting to frame this as an opinion of mine is disingenuous on absolutely every level. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 03:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned elsewhere, obviously it was a failure. Just look at what happened. Musk spinnning it as partial success and some articles repeating this wording uncritically doesn't change that fact. I mean, there are RSs echoing Musk's claim that his brain chip will allows us to fight evil AIs, but does this make it true and should Wikipedia report it as fact, right? Zae8 (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• Include, preferably in the version suggested by Fyunck(click). The version without contradicts various reliable sources and is thus incompatible with WP:NPOV. Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  Be careful about how you interpret these sources. Yes, Musk is calling it a partial success, and various articles are repeating it uncritically. This does not make it true however. Obviously it was a failure, and "getting valuable data" is not changing this. Zae8 (talk) 09:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• Keep calling it an unclarified failure goes against previous consensus as this was a test vehicle. A note is needed or it should be split into failures of operational and test vehicles. Ergzay (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Remove

• Remove - Previously, there was a huge (and rather pointless) debate about whether or not the Starship's flight status should be recategorised from "failure". That has finally been settled.

However, one (or two) users insist on adding a note indicating that the failure is of a prototype and not an operational vehicle, claiming that it would "give more information to readers". As of 21:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC), the note just says "Test flight" and references this article. See the previous thread for more information.

Additionally, other article on rockets only distinguish failures between operational vehicles in their count, so it makes no sense to me why the article on Starship should be treated differently than other articles. Not only does this smell of a(n) WP:NPOV violation to me, but this would also not be consistent with other rocketry articles, as no other article on rockets that I am aware of makes any distinction between successes or failures of prototypes from success or failures of operational vehicles.

I honestly do not get why user:Redacted II refuses to stop arguing about this failure status when it should have already been dead set. That last move of mine, getting rid of the note before Redacted II reverted me again, should have been final. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 20:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you have concluded that consensus was reached when an RfC was never run. I was never notified, for example. The failure was of a test prototype vehicle, not Starship itself which is a reusable rocket that has not yet flown. Ergzay (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm a little baffled by this comment. The RFC was officially run. You don't have to have been personally notified—there was an RFC tag, the page got posted to WP:RFC/A, and there was a close. The closing summary, which accurately calls the discussion an "RFC", says, "There is consensus to retain the description of the launch as having failed in the infobox." Jerome Frank Disciple 23:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

UPDATE: As of the time this comment was posted and since I made the comment immediately above this one, there have been three more attempts to reinstate the note. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 11:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• Remove - We just reached a consensus on this , we shouldn't be having this discussion again so soon. We don't treat these launches any differently to other launch vehicles and we are consistent across other articles. Why are we revisiting this again and trying to walk it back? CtrlDPredator (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  I am struggling to articulate my feelings on the matter while remaining WP:CIVIL. This is almost parodic. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 03:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  Whenever I remove the note and keep the number of failures as just "1" without anything after it, User:Redacted II keeps reverting it. I didn't want another edit war to break out. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 04:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  I just removed it. There is NO consensus for this, and we already essentially made it clear on the last RFC that there would be no clear consensus, with a majority not agreeing with the idea that it needed to be changed at all. Funny thing is this happened early on in the talk page. It's getting a little frustrating. Chuckstablers (talk) 07:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  THANK YOU! DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 07:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  The idea was to add a clarification, in order to be consistent with other articles.

  Also, when something is challenged, it remains until a consensus overrides it. The previous discussion was regarding changing it from failure. This is just adding a clarifying note to the label of failure. Redacted II (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, and by attempting to "be consistent", you actually made it INconsistent. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 12:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  No. You once again made unilateral changes to the infobox without consensus. Then you reverted all attempts to revert other editors changing it back until you couldn’t because of 3RR. It’s disruptive and you need to stop. 2605:8D80:445:4C13:FDF5:3127:A349:9ABD (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  This is absurd. I’ll revert it to dubious in the next day or two. There was no consensus for this change, and it’s getting frustrating to say the least. 2605:8D80:445:4C13:FDF5:3127:A349:9ABD (talk) 05:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  We have already established that it is NOT "dubious". DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 05:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  You confusing the two seperate discussion:

  First discussion: Change from failure. Result: do not change.

  Second discussion: Add a means to clarify the failure. Result: none yet. Redacted II (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  No I am not, we already went through all of this before, we don't treat this differently to other launch vehicles. This is just an attempt to walk back the previous consensus. I don't support this at all. CtrlDPredator (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  Your still confusing the two discussions.

  This is solely a means to clarify the failure. It is in no way inconsistent with other pages (Falcon 9, as an example) Redacted II (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, it is. You want to add a note, indicating that it was a prototype of some sort. It doesn't matter how you look at it; there is no precedent for that on any spaceflight pages. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  The note was a temporary solution. My goal is to have a clarification, similar to what is present on those pages.

  I want to make something very clear. I am not arguing for the inclusion of the note. I'm arguing for the inclusion of a specification of what version of the vehicle failed in the infobox. Redacted II (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Redacted II You’ve done this twice now. It was explained to you in April that you need consensus for these changes yet you keep making them. I’m going to ask you to stop making changes without consensus. This discussion is literally the same thing as we just had. It’s semantics. 2605:8D80:445:4C13:FDF5:3127:A349:9ABD (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  Will be pinging the 13 editors who opposed changes to the infobox in the last RFC. 2605:8D80:445:4C13:FDF5:3127:A349:9ABD (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  I've just notified all of the other users who voted "oppose" in the last RfC but aren't present here right now, via their talk pages. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 19:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  The consensus was to keep the label of failure. This is just adding a note to the label of failure, clarifying that is was a prototype. Redacted II (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Remove - We literally just had an RFC on whether to change it from failure less than 24 hours ago. The answer was quite clear: NO. There is no ambiguity in the results of the prior RfC. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 03:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  To keep or change a note does not require an RfC. It's not a question well-suited for the format of an RfC. It's especially grating because we just finished an RfC about the overall launch status. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 03:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. I had created a topic to discuss a manner of clarification. I was not expecting this to occur. Redacted II (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  The previous RFC was to change it from failure. I don't see how any clarification to the label of failure removes said label. It just adds context. Redacted II (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  I've just notified all users who voted "Oppose" in the last RfC who aren't yet present here. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 19:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  A blatant violation of WP:CANVASS; kind of unsurprising considering this user's equally blatant disregard of WP:NPOV. Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm only using the facts about the launch that we know to determine the outcome, and I've listed it clearly. It is quite ironic that you are accusing me of going against WP:NPOV because, again, this is not a subjective matter. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 19:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure why you're claiming there was no ambiguity. It hasn't been decided yet. The only conclusion thus far was that it should not be called a success. Ergzay (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  Well, the consensus was that the label would be "failure". But otherwise, your 100% correct Redacted II (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  Consensus is required for changes. You don't have consensus. We just had a clear RFC indicating otherwise. You can't just unilaterally make these changes. IF consensus forms regarding the addition of the note, THEN it can be added. Until then the previous consensus should be respected. You guys are going to get the page locked again. This is getting silly. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  Not every single edit requires a consensus. Especially since adding the note doesn't violate the consensus.

  So far I have seen 0 reasons as to why the note violates the consensus. Clarification is not recategorization, which was the concern of the previous RFC. Redacted II (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  This one does. You were warned clearly back in April to not alter the status quo without consensus. You accepted it then when your edits were reverted. You must've known that this would've been highly contentious given the PAGES of debate over the infobox, but you decided to make the change anyway without seeking consensus. This is a concerning pattern. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  I added the note, then, when it was being opposed, I opened a topic to discuss it.

  When failure was first added to the infobox, a consensus didn't exist for that change. But it was still done. This is no different.

  It in no way violates any previous RFC that I know of. It just adds a clarifying note, in the hopes of being consistent with other articles Redacted II (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  And it's been explained to you countless times how the note is NOT consistent with other articles.

  The ship has been resting on the ocean floor for well over 100 years now; stop trying to insist that it was unskinkable. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 20:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  The note doesn't state that Starship didn't fail, nor does it state that it can't fail. It states that a prototype version of Starship failed. It would be misleading to say otherwise.

  And the note is a temporary measure, until a better method of clarification can be agreed upon. Redacted II (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  Except that the article already mentions that it's a prototype. THAT is why this note is redundant. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 21:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  Hey, genuinely, I think both of you are going in circles at this point, and it's time for both of you to sit back and wait and see how this RFC plays out. Redacted II, I already mentioned WP:BLUDGEON to you, and I think you're clearly in that territory now. You've said why you think the note should be there and why you think it's not a challenge to the last RFC. DASL, you've said why you think the note shouldn't be there and why you think it does undermine the prior RFC. Neither of you are going to persuade every editor, and this endless and fairly repetitive discussion is just making it (1) less likely other editors will comment, and (2) harder for a closer to eventually go through and close. I did a rough count—didn't double check or anything so my math might be slightly off—and I think you two have, combined, contributed roughly 50% of the total signed comments in this section, and, Redacted, by my estimate, you alone are responsible for roughly 34% of the signed comments. Let other editors weigh in, and don't feel like you have to respond to them unless you really think you're saying something new.--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• Exceedingly narrow remove. I'm of two minds here. In the above RFC, I supported recategorization, suggesting that, based on the reliable sources, "partial failure" might be the best option. But something about this RFC feels a bit too much like a direct challenge to the RFC we just had, and, frankly, it doesn't help that some editors are, I think spuriously, casting doubt on the legitimacy of that last RFC. We had a discussion over whether to reclassify the flight as something less than a total failure given the reliable sources and the prototype status of the ship. The consensus was not to do that. Now, we're discussing whether to add a footnote to "failure" so that the reader doesn't think the flight was a total failure?
  That said, for the reasons I said above, I'm open to changing my mind here. I've seen a few editors discuss whether there's precedent for this kind of note—personally, I don't see it. Two users mentioned the Falcon 9 prototypes (Grasshopper, F9R Dev 1 & 2), but those prototypes aren't given a template, there's no description of them as a success or a failure, and there's no clarifying footnote. For now, largely for procedural reasons, I'm in the remove camp.--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  Clarification is not an attack on the previous RFC. At least, it shouldn't be.

  The intent of the note (I should know, I added it) was to state that the vehicle was a prototype, and not operational. It would be misleading to mention that. But the note was also not supposed to be permanent. It was supposed to be a placeholder for a better mode of clarification, such as something similar to what is on the Falcon 9 page.

  In the failures section for Falcon 9, it lists the version of vehicle (v1.1), the mission (CRS-7), and when it occurred (in-flight).

  For starship, I can see this setup:

  (Prototype: IFT, Stage Separation) Redacted II (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  But the *article* already says that. You’re saying the categorization is inherently misleading without the note, but the above rfc just confirmed a consensus for the categorization.—Jerome Frank Disciple 00:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  Putting it in the infobox would be more consistent with other articles, such as List of SpaceX Starship flight tests. While there isn't an infobox there, the flights tests of the various prototype are classified as success or failure. So there IS precedent for labeling prototype flights in success/failure categories. Redacted II (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  There is precedent for labelling flights failure or successes, correct. There is no precedent for adding a note saying "test flight" after an RFC by a fairly wide margin rejected that kind of edit to the infobox. Chuckstablers (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  The previous RFC was in regards to recategorization. This is solely clarification.

  And the original note labeled it as a prototype, not as a test flight. It was then changed by another user. Redacted II (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Redacted II careful about WP:BLUDGEON. I'm not saying you're in that territory now, but you have responded to almost every editor !voting remove. For me, "a note in the infobox would be more consistent with other articles that don't have infoboxes" just doesn't follow, but I understand if you think otherwise!--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, not trying to WP:BLUDGEON.

  As for "a note in the infobox would be more consistent with other articles that don't have infoboxes", a clarification doesn't have to be a note. In fact, I would rather not have it be a note. The note was solely a temporary measure, until a superior means of clarification could be provided.

  Here is what I'm thinking of currently:

  Failures 1 (Prototype, IFT, in flight)

  That is based on the description in the Falcon 9 infobox of CRS-7. Would you be willing to support that? Redacted II (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  This is exactly the kind of option rejected in the previous RfC. You are gaming the system. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 15:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  It's slightly different that the compromise options being discussed earlier.

  Also, the RFC, as far as I'm aware, is preventing recategorization. This isn't recategorization, it's clarification. It has precedent on other articles as well (Atlas V and Falcon 9, for example). Redacted II (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  At this point it's becoming WP:Tendentious editing. In my view, it is a clear attempt to get past an RFC which concluded with a consensus against the exact type of change @Redacted II is arguing for. It needs to stop, especially when we almost had an edit war break out due to constant reverts to the removal of the note. It's happened twice now. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  I haven't reverted the removal of the note in a few days.

  And don't accuse me of trying to "bypass" the consensus. I have no intention of doing so. While I may disagree with the outcome, I have accepted it. Redacted II (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Remove - The thing is I don't see this note as anything useful to the readers - if the future operational (say enough to deploy Starlink satellites to Low Earth Orbit) Starship differs greatly from the one that flies right now, we can group these launches by variants (Prototype, Regular, Crewed, Tanker, HLS...). There's nothing that requires this note so far. And I mean for other launch vehicles we had test flights listed with failures and no-one adds such a note as well - see Rocket Lab's Electron where no-one marks the "It's A Test" failure as "Prototype". Why should Starship gets an exception? Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  In the case of electron (please correct me if I'm wrong), the vehicle that flew was not radically different from the vehicle that is flying now.

  As for starship, there are immense differences between s24/b7 and even the next set of prototypes. Such as the gimbaling system for the engines (HTVC vs ETVC). So, it should be categorized separately.

  When a starship prototype has a success, a similar label should be attached as well. Redacted II (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  "The next set of prototypes"

  Those have not flown in an orbital test flight. They are irrelevant to the infobox, which only includes the outcomes of orbital test flights. Why should speculated future vehicles inform our decisions regarding present formating? Chuckstablers (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• Remove The last RFC closed and was pretty clear that no changes should be made to the failure status. Attempting to add a note which no other spaceflight page that I could find has is semantics at this point. The last RFC clearly showed no consensus to change the infobox from anything other than failure. This seems to be an attempt to change a status quo (with a closed RFC) without consensus. This is concerning.

In addition, the note simply said "test flight". That contributes nothing of substance other than putting the phrase "test flight" in the info box without putting the phrase "test flight" in the info box. An option that was argued for, and decided against in the last RFC. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

It's worth keeping in mind this RfC was started roughly 24 hours after the previous one as well. While it was (extremely unwisely) started by DASL51984, who seems to oppose the change (why did you make it an RfC then!?), Redacted II has taken the platform to argue for a variation of the "prototype failure" solution that was summarily rejected in the RfC immediately before. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 15:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The reason given was that @Redacted II had reverted the change back so many times that it would start an edit war and violate 3RR. Then I removed it, but that was after the RFC had been started. Chuckstablers (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Redacted II Just wanted to make this note here for you. I want to clarify my position. I would be in favor of revisiting this in the future, when new versions of the starship fly in an orbital test flight.

If, in the future, there are significantly different versions of starship flown, I'd be in favor of revisiting how it's reported in the infobox and bringing it more in line with the Falcon 9 or Titan IV. I apologize for my tone, hasn't helped things. Chuckstablers (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for apologizing. We have both been unreasonably aggressive towards each other.

Now, I would prefer to make the clarification now, instead of later, so that when Starship v1.0 (or whatever it will be called) launches, we don't argue on the classification of the various prototype launches. It will have already been established.

But I do understand why you don't want to make the clarification now. Redacted II (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Remove (or keep out, based on the current article version). The first flight of every rocket is a test flight. Why would that need a comment? When we get different versions of Starship we can group their launches by type, as we already do for other rockets. --mfb (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  The original note labeled the failure as a prototype, before being changed by another user. Would you be opposed to that? Redacted II (talk) 10:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• Remove The flight was obviously a failure, no need to spin it by a note. Yes, Musk called it a "partial success", and various articles repeated that uncritically, but Wikipedia should not be a marketing department of Musk. Zae8 (talk) 07:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  This isn't the same failure or partial success debate. This is a debate over how/should that failure be clarified. Redacted II (talk) 10:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I know, but my point is that the intention of that note is basically trying to spin and reopen this failure-or-success debate.Zae8 (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  That is not the intention of the note. As I've said before, the intention of the note is to clarify what failed (a prototype, and not an operational/finalized vehicle) Redacted II (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  I assume a positive intention, but see my "Well, do you also want to add" comment below. Zae8 (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  Suggestions in this talk page that the "success" or "partial success" are some kind of marketing spin from Musk are wrong. Plenty of well sourced citations from neutral experts support it.

  "You say people are putting on a brave face? You have it completely wrong, Todd. This was an enormously successful test flight." Chris Hadfield Source

  There are a number of other such citations over at SpaceX_Starship_orbital_test_flight#Technical_assessments. Foonix0 (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  Well, I didn't see any source yet which wasn't basically just echoing Musk's spins. But anyway, as Redacted II correctly pointed out, this is not a debate about success or failure, but about adding the note or not. Zae8 (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC).

  And by the way, if a rocket planned to reach orbit damages the launch pad, doesn't even reach space, cannot be steered and explodes instead, and even the self destruction mechanism fails was an "enormously successful test flight", how to you call flights like Artemis 1? A "super mega plus plus enormously successful test flight"? The Russian N1 rocket was also "enormously successful"? Please, please, please, don't transform Wikipedia in a George Orwell 1984 like dystopia. That's exactly my point that the intention of the note is obviously to spin what happened, effectively misleading the reader.Zae8 (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  Then your wrong. It's to clarify what failed (a prototype). Redacted II (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  Well, do you also want to add a note to "clariy" that "Artemis 1" was a prototype? Do you also want to add a note that Apollo 1, Apollo 4 and all Apollo tests were prototypes? If not, why a special role for Starship? Just because a Starship test flight failed, there is no need to spin it with "clarifing" notes of that kind. Zae8 (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  In all but one of those cases, the vehicle that flew was practically identical to later vehicles. The sole exception is Apollo 1, as it used a block 1 capsule instead of a block 2.

  Meanwhile, with starship, this prototype is vastly different from the next set of prototypes (b9 and either s25, s28, or s29), as (with the exception of s25), the gimbaling mechanism and payload dispensers are different.

  So, while it would be ridiculous to regard Artemis I as a prototype, it is confirmed (by I don't even know how many sources) that those vehicles were prototypes. Redacted II (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  No, also the Saturn V changed significantly in its different versions (number of ullage rockets, thrust of the J-2 engines, adding a lunar module adapter, adding a Skylab payload shroud). But dissecting how in detail different rockets changed over time would not lead to anything. Because obviously all these rockets were prototypes.

  But all this doesn't change the overall picture that there have been many rockets, there will be many rockets, many launches will fail, many launches will be successful, and there is no reason to single out Starship by adding a "but" spin note to a failed launch. Zae8 (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  The note was meant as a placeholder for a better means of clarification, such as using something similar to Falcon 9's page.

  That would likely look similar to this:

  Failures 1 (Prototype: IFT, Stage Separation) Redacted II (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  It seems you insist on keep the downplaying "prototype" wording by all means. We already discussed that, so no new comment from me about this.

  All in all, I understand that many space enthusiasts are thrilled by Starship and SpaceX. Yes, space flight is cool, I get that Space X is cool. But for Wikipedia I think it is appropiate to don't treat SpaceX in a special way. Wikipedia should be as neutral as possible to all rocket and space companies out there.

  Once your Starship is successfully transporting people to orbit, Moon, Mars and beyond, making humans a multiplanetary species, brain chips will eliminate all devilish AIs, there will be enough Starship success stories on Wikipedia. No need to twist the description of the Starship "orbital test flight". Zae8 (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  How is the clarification of "prototype" weakening the label of "failure"?

  Not labeling the type of vehicle that failed would be inconsistent with several other articles (such as Atlas V).

  It doesn't mean treating SpaceX in a "special way". It means stating the facts as accurately as possible. Redacted II (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  I see no prototype label at the Atlas V.

  Well, yes, you can "state facts as accuratenly as possible" (reminds me of the "as truthful and accurate as possible" Twitter account labels for NPR "which I think is perhaps not too objectionable") by adding zillions of additional words and explanations to every info box.

  But why only SpaceX vehicles? Zae8 (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  Your right on some regards. Prototypes aren't clarified in other articles. They aren't included in the successes and failures in those vehicles infoboxes.

  By that logic, this flight should be removed from the infobox. However, that is against the previous consensus.

  So, in this case, "prototype" will be a vehicle version. On Atlas V, it divides the successes and partial failures by different types of vehicle (551, 541, ect, ect).

  If a future version (non-prototype version flies and I'll refer to it as V1.0), and fails, then failures will look like this:

  Failures 2

  (Prototype: 1 V1.0: 1)

  As for "why only SpaceX vehicles", should Blue Origin (or any other Space Agency/company) ever fly New Glenn, and the first prototype (so long as it is a prototype, and not the finalized version) launch fails, then that launch too should be clarified as a prototype failure. Redacted II (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  No, as explained in my previous comments. Zae8 (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  Your comment simply asserts that no other prototypes on other pages were included in the infobox failure/success list. Zae8 just said that they were in their comment. Could you refute that or address it please? Your entire argument in this comments hinges upon it. 2605:8D80:445:4C13:FDF5:3127:A349:9ABD (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  Wow, those are some rather high stakes there, 2605:8D80:445:4C13:FDF5:3127:A349:9ABD.

  So far, SpaceX is the only organization to have flown a prototype that is radically different from final vehicles.

  Zae8 mentioned the changes in the Saturn v vehicle over time. But those changes were relatively minor (mainly just J-2 engine throttling and Ullage thruster quantity). None of those vehicles (with the possible exception of Apollo 4 and maybe Skylab, but that would be a stretch, IMO) can really count as prototypes.

  If you want me to go into further detail, I certainly can for each individual example. I'm not doing it in one post, because I hate having to read large posts, and I don't want to subject anyone else to that.

  With that being said, there is precedent for clarifying the type of vehicle that succeeded/partially succeeded/failed. As an example, on the Falcon 9 page, under failures, we have:

  1

  (v1.1: CRS-7 in-flight)

  It is assigning the failure to the v1.1 version of Falcon 9, and not Falcon 9 as a whole. Especially when multiple versions of Starship have flown, it will be important to separate these as well.

  In this case, the version of Starship that failed was of the S24/B7 generation of prototypes. In order to not have too many different types, labeling it as prototype is as accurate as possible, while also minimizing words. Redacted II (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  You didn't really address my previous arguments, but whatever.

  Let me just point out that "S24/B7" would be both more accurate and shorter than "prototype". You are contradicting your own argument.

  It is quite obvious that you are insisting on the word "prototype", contradicting Wikipedia standards, to downplay the failure of the test, which you seem to perceive as negative shadow on Starship. But just look at Elon, he points always out how happy he is with the current results. So what about letting this "prototype" insistence go, and looking into the future to the next exciting successes of Starship instead? Zae8 (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  The reason I think a label of S24/B7 isn't the right move is complexity. If we differentiate every single prototype generation, then the failure list could be complicated, to say the least. Combining them all under "prototype" states the status of the vehicle better, and would be shorter after a few launches.

  As for, "It is quite obvious that you are insisting on the word "prototype", contradicting Wikipedia standards, to downplay the failure of the test, which you seem to perceive as negative shadow on Starship", this is just wrong. The sole purpose of clarifying what type of vehicle failed is to, well, state what failed (in this case, a prototype). Redacted II (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  Here's a suggestion:

  You state ONE concern of yours, and I'll address it. Once that concern has been addressed, or you decide to move on from that concern as no progress has been made, we just move on to the next one.

  This should allow for a far more coherent debate. Redacted II (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  I tried to explain my concerns multiple times now. Sorry, but I don't think that this discussion is productive. All best. Zae8 (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  "Wow, those are some rather high stakes there". Please follow WP:CIVIL and read the Talk page guidelines. In particular respones should stay in the top 3 levels of the pyramid under unacceptable behavior. You should consider striking that comment. With that being said I'll address your arguments.

  "So far, SpaceX is the only organization to have flown a prototype that is radically different from final vehicles."

  This argument is irrelevant given that we don't know what the final version of starship will be. How do you know the final version of starship will be "radically different" from the version flown in the orbital test flight? Moreover you haven't provided any evidence supporting the claim that the Falcon 9 went through "radical" changes to it's design whereas the Saturn V did not. You are again just stating that this is the case.

  "With that being said, there is precedent for clarifying the type of vehicle that succeeded/partially succeeded/failed. As an example, on the Falcon 9 page, under failures, we have:"

  That absolutely does not support what you are trying to do. Let's compare the differencs.

  1.) The distinction between the versions was made AFTER these versions were developed and flown. You are attempting to make this distinction before we even know IF there will BE a DISTINCTION.

  2.) The fact that they format the infobox on the Falcon 9 page in this way is in no way precedent for the type of note that you are trying to leave. Because they didn't leave a note like that. They simply broke it down by major versions of the Falcon 9. Nowhere does the word prototype appear.

  "It is assigning the failure to the v1.1 version of Falcon 9, and not Falcon 9 as a whole".

  This is also false (it is "assigning failure to the v1.1 version of the Falcon 9 and not the Falcon 9 as a whole"). In the infobox it lists, under total launches, the total number of launches of all versions and the total number of failures of all versions. Therefore the failure of V1.1 is counted as a failure under the total failures for the Falcon 9. Notice as well that it doesn't distinguish between every block anymore, only between major versions. It does not distinguish between the different blocks of the Falcon 9 FT models.

  And again; how is any of this relevant to what you were trying to do? You made it VERY clear that this was "only about the note" and NOT a rehashing of the argument that we already concluded in the last RFC. Chuckstablers (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  The "Wow, those are some rather high stakes there", was a joke. I can remove it.

  And to address your concerns (warning, LONG post):

  "This argument is irrelevant given that we don't know what the final version of starship will be. How do you know the final version of starship will be "radically different" from the version flown in the orbital test flight? Moreover you haven't provided any evidence supporting the claim that the Falcon 9 went through "radical" changes to it's design whereas the Saturn V did not. You are again just stating that this is the case."

  The next prototype set is already quite different from s24/b7. The engine type will be different between s24/b7 and the final version (raptor 2s vs raptor (unknown, at least 3), starship will have 3 more engines, and a 10 meter stretch to the upper stage. And I really didn't want to describe the entire set of changes to falcon 9, but I'll do so:

  60% stretch in both first and second stage.

  Nearly 100% more thrust than original version.

  Vertical landing capacity.

  Human rating.

  Here's the changes to the saturn v:

  Different quantities of Ullage thrusters.

  Mild changes to J-2 thrust.

  Addition of payload adapter

  If we include skylab,

  removal of third stage

  I think we both know which has changed more.

  "1.) The distinction between the versions was made AFTER these versions were developed and flown. You are attempting to make this distinction before we even know IF there will BE a DISTINCTION"

  We already know there will be differences.

  "2.) The fact that they format the infobox on the Falcon 9 page in this way is in no way precedent for the type of note that you are trying to leave. Because they didn't leave a note like that. They simply broke it down by major versions of the Falcon 9. Nowhere does the word prototype appear."

  The note was a temporary solution. If you look at the previous topic, then you'd see that I was aiming for something like:

  Failures 1

  (Prototype: IFT, Stage Separation)

  "This is also false (it is "assigning failure to the v1.1 version of the Falcon 9 and not the Falcon 9 as a whole"). In the infobox it lists, under total launches, the total number of launches of all versions and the total number of failures of all versions. Therefore the failure of V1.1 is counted as a failure under the total failures for the Falcon 9. Notice as well that it doesn't distinguish between every block anymore, only between major versions. It does not distinguish between the different blocks of the Falcon 9 FT models."

  That was bad wording on my part. I meant that it clarified what failed, and not just stating:

  Failures 1

  However, it does distinguish between the various blocks in the "Last Flight" section.

  "And again; how is any of this relevant to what you were trying to do? You made it VERY clear that this was "only about the note" and NOT a rehashing of the argument that we already concluded in the last RFC."

  Again, the note was a temporary solution. If you look at the previous topic, then you'd see that I was aiming for something like:

  Failures 1

  (Prototype: IFT, Stage Separation)

  Again, sorry for the long post, but it was necessary. Redacted II (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  "We already know they will be different"

  Of course they will be. My point was that we don't know HOW different they will be. This is relevant given your earlier statement: "But those changes were relatively minor (mainly just J-2 engine throttling and Ullage thruster quantity). None of those vehicles (with the possible exception of Apollo 4 and maybe Skylab, but that would be a stretch, IMO) can really count as prototypes."

  The argument you made there is that Starship and SpaceX are special in some way because of their "radical differences" in subsequent designs for the vehicle, responding to an earlier comment asking why SpaceX gets special treatment with regards to the "clarifications" about prototype status when no other page does.

  So my point was that you can't make that argument. Because there's been one orbital test flight and one version of the vehicle flown. I know that you said "We already know there will be differences", which I'd accept. But I sure wouldn't accept that you could know that there would be MASSIVE differences that would somehow justify this clarification. Because the future is inherently uncertain.

  So you can't possibly argue that there WILL BE "radical differences" in the future that would somehow justify treating this page different than all the others when currently there's only one version of a the vehicle that made an orbital test flight. Chuckstablers (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  I just want to say this: I am NOT, I repeat, NOT, saying that SpaceX and Starship are "special", or that they should receive a form of "special treatment".

  However, we do know, to an extent, some of the changes. And I think changes in the type of engines constitutes a "radical difference".

  And yes, the future is uncertain. But since we know what is currently planned (raptor 3, 6 rvacs, 10 meter stretch), we should assume, at least for now, that is what the operational starship will be like

  Here's my logic for the reasoning behind clarification of prototype status:

  Consider the prototypes (s24+ and b7+, so long as they launch) to be the first version of Starship. When the prototype phase is done and starship begins operational flights, that is the second version. Any generational upgrades past that will be different versions. Redacted II (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  You have argued just that. Only a few comments above. You were arguing for why this note is justified given, as User:Zae8 pointed out ,

  "But why only SpaceX vehicles?". You then gave your justification for WHY ONLY SpaceX vehicles get this special "clarification" treatment when no other page about a rocket gets said treatment.

  You tried to justify it by saying that "SpaceX is the only organization to have flown a prototype that is radically different from final vehicles". That was a direct justification for why ONLY SpaceX gets this treatment. So I don't see how you can claim that you're NOT arguing that they deserve special treatment.

  "Consider the prototypes (s24+ and b7+, so long as they launch) to be the first version of Starship. When the prototype phase is done and starship begins operational flights, that is the second version. Any generational upgrades past that will be different versions. Redacted II (talk) 21:56, 13"

  That's your opinion on how "versions" should be classified. Even if this was the consensus view, which it isn't, it assumes facts which can't be known yet (as again, we've only seen one version which actually flew as an integrated stack/launcher), so it can't be an argument for what you're trying to do. Again; there have been no further test launches. Until another version of the vehicle is flown, this entire distinction is moot. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter "why only SpaceX". That would be OR. The sources say it's a prototype. The sources say it was a test. The sources say it was a failure of a prototype, or alternatively a success. There is no need to drag "opinion" into this. Wikipedia is going against sources by continuing on this path of insisting it's an unqualified failure of the Starship production vehicle. This is cut and dry and I don't know why we keep arguing about this. Ergzay (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  With regards to the first part of your comment; we don't include everything a reliable source says in the infobox. I'm sure reliable sources can be found which call a LOT of rockets prototype versions. We don't call those prototypes in the infobox; so the "why only spacex" is definitely relevant. Chuckstablers (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  So, according to you, several launches are being improperly categorized. So long as the prototype status can be proven, those launches should be clarified as well. Redacted II (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't say that or imply that. The argument pointed out that, if we follow your logic, we would have to do that. Which would be obviously silly. Hence another reason why we should do neither. Chuckstablers (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  I wouldn't call that "obviously silly". If launches are being categorized as operational launches, when they aren't, then shouldn't that be changed? Redacted II (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  With regards to the second part of your comment, that about us going against wikipedia's policies, etc. That was debated in the last RFC. Consensus was reached on that point, and that argument was rejected. Chuckstablers (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  A consensus was reached, declaring it a failure. So, please stop trying to overthrow it. It only makes current debates harder. Redacted II (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  This debate will continue and it WILL be eventually relegated to a "Starship Prototypes" section of the article. We can leave it as for now but this debate will keep coming up and we're going to keep having RFCs on it until we eventually reach the such a state of the page. Unlike literally every other prototype launch, those vehicles were of production designs. Starship is not, not until they attempt their first orbit of an actual payload (even a dummy payload). Ergzay (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  (shifting over)

  "You tried to justify it by saying that "SpaceX is the only organization to have flown a prototype that is radically different from final vehicles". That was a direct justification for why ONLY SpaceX gets this treatment. So I don't see how you can claim that you're NOT arguing that they deserve special treatment."

  Should (insert space agency here) launch a prototype vehicle, that launch, no matter the outcome, should be clarified as well.

  "That's your opinion on how "versions" should be classified. Even if this was the consensus view, which it isn't, it assumes facts which can't be known yet (as again, we've only seen one version which actually flew as an integrated stack/launcher), so it can't be an argument for what you're trying to do. Again; there have been no further test launches. Until another version of the vehicle is flown, this entire distinction is moot."

  I listed the changes to the vehicle that are known to be planned. All of them can be proven (I can provide sources, if necessary). I think that would constitute the label of a "new version". Do you not agree that new gimballing system, new engine design, new engine layout, and a stretch of the upper stage means that a new version has arrived? Redacted II (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  "I listed the changes to the vehicle that are known to be planned. All of them can be proven (I can provide sources, if necessary). I think that would constitute the label of a "new version". Do you not agree that new gimballing system, new engine design, new engine layout, and a stretch of the upper stage means that a new version has arrived?"

  Oh sure, they'd be new iterations of the rocket. Depends on the changes and whether or not they actually occur. But until then you can't use what "could be developed" to classify what HAS been developed. We have ONE vehicle so far, and I've repeated it multiple times now. Chuckstablers (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  "Oh sure, they'd be new iterations of the rocket. Depends on the changes"

  The changes are known to be planned. We've seen hardware for the next version (a raptor 3 was confirmed to have static fired two days ago). So at least one of those changes is already confirmed. Again, if you want sources, just ask.

  "But until then you can't use what "could be developed" to classify what HAS been developed"

  Again, raptor 3 static fired recently. It has been developed, at least partially.

  "We have ONE vehicle so far, and I've repeated it multiple times now"

  That is an excellent point, and I'm sorry I haven't addressed it directly yet. But we know about the next version, as well as various changes to it. Redacted II (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  I hereby declare the discussion on my turf of my RfC comment as finished. This discussion doesn't lead to anything new. Especially, it didn't convince me to change my opinion for the reasons laid out. Please move on. Thank you. Zae8 (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  That's very fair. I won't comment in this section again, unless you say otherwise. Redacted II (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Rewriting a section of the ITS design

"The ITS did not aim to have a dedicated single-function second stage for achieving orbit. Instead, the second stage function of reaching orbit was to be a secondary role for a spacecraft capable of long-duration spaceflight. Two variants were proposed, each intended to be reusable."

It's "instead the second stage function of reaching orbit was to be a secondary role for a spacecraft capable of long-duration flight" that I can't figure out. I was tempted to reword it to something like this.

"The design for the Interplanetary Transport System (ITS) did not include a dedicated second stage solely designed for reaching orbit. Rather, the second stage function was to be fulfilled by a spacecraft that was primarily designed for long-duration spaceflight". Something like that.

Anyone have any thoughts? Help? It's just such an awkwardly phrased blurb. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I genuinely don't know how to reword it. I'm tempted to just not have a whole area for the second stage section and just merge them together with the main section. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

"The main function planned for the second stage was long-duration spaceflight, as reaching orbit was to be secondary. The two proposed variants aimed to be reusable."

I changed it, much better. CodemWiki (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

The entire area needs rework and to be similarly condensed anyway (condensed rather than deleted, mostly). CodemWiki (talk) 06:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@CodemWiki What does "as reaching orbit was to be secondary" supposed to me? All rockets going to space have to reach orbit. It is the minimum requirement. Ergzay (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe "the second stage was planned to be used for long-duration spaceflight, instead of solely being used for reaching orbit. The two proposed variants aimed to be reusable."? CodemWiki (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@CodemWiki That seems reasonable. I'm in the process of doing a bunch of edits and restorations of some of the stuff that was removed. It appears that a lot of comparisons to Falcon 9 and Saturn V were removed which were important contextualizations of Starship. Ergzay (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Were they though? We're comparing a rocket design that doesn't exist to an existing rocket. Comparisons only make sense when comparing real stuff to real stuff. I feel like the entire history would make more sense if it was a table comparing the rocket at its different stages, with the rows being the different stuff being compared (number of raptor engine, thrust, tons to LEO, etc) and columns being MCT, ITS, BFR, Starship CodemWiki (talk) 10:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@CodemWiki When a design is proposed that breaks records for any previous design, its important to contextualize the design versus existing rockets at the time of the proposal. For example, see Nova_(rocket). Also the original ITS/BFR carbon fiber design was significantly larger than the current Starship, almost twice the thrust of it. Ergzay (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

One of the other problems is that the tense of the history section has been messed up a bit resulting in some confusion. Several of the vehicle elements described in the history section carried on to the current vehicle, but with the tense now changed it now sounds like these aspects are now no longer part of the vehicle design. For example this section.

"* The Interplanetary Spaceship, a large passenger-carrying spacecraft design proposed in September 2016. The ship would have operated as a second-stage and interplanetary transport vehicle for cargo and passengers. It aimed to transport up to 450 tonnes (990,000 lb) per trip to Mars following refueling in Earth orbit. Its three sea-level Raptor engines were designed to be used for maneuvering, descent, landing, and initial ascent from the Mars surface."

The use of "would have" there is confusing as the statement still holds true for Starship. All these tense changes need to be reverted or more thought put into how things are phrased. Or aspects of the history section moved into the design section. Or phrased as "this was the first time that X was mentioned" or something. Ergzay (talk) 10:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

That's a fair point, in any case it needs significant reworking. I don't think reverting the tense changes would be ideal, at least not all of them. It makes it clear that these are not current designs. Chuckstablers (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Now that I think about it some more, I think the tense was fine. Keeping it as is makes it simply misleading; I think part of the problem with the wording in the whole history section is that it gives way too much detail and consideration to concepts that never progressed beyond the drawing board. I'd support reducing it dramatically until we get to the ACTUAL development of hardware, at which point all the technical detail is warranted. But currently I just see a lot of undue weight given in the article to these concepts which were abandoned until a final design was chosen to start actual development on beyond the concept stage. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Starship 2.0

Elon just announced a next next gen. Starship, with 18meters in diameter, and twice as much cargo to orbit, do you think, that we should write it in? It will launch years after starship becomes operational. Fehér Zsigmond (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

can you provide a source? I'm a bit.. skeptical. Redacted II (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I saw a video, wich used elons twitter messages(?) as proof. The youtubers name is alpha Tech, if you are interested. Fehér Zsigmond (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Alpha Tech is an unreliable source, as they have a tendency to make things up (such as 18 meter starship) for views.

There has been no announcement of an 18 meter starship. Redacted II (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Iam sorry, are you sure tho? They said he talked about it on twitter. Dont write it in until then. Fehér Zsigmond (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I just watched it again. They used twitter for source. Maybe you can check it. Fehér Zsigmond (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Trust me, Alpha tech is unreliable. They create clickbait titles in order to get views from anyone who doesn't know better.

Unless you can find a reliable source, I don't see any purpose in continuing this. Redacted II (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, plenty of websites talk about it, for ex.: nextbigfuture.com

They too list twitter as a source. I belive, this is a green light. But again, you do the final call. Fehér Zsigmond (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

All of that discussion is speculation.

Until development of an 18 meter starship begins, I see no reason to include it. Redacted II (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Alright. Fehér Zsigmond (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Did you check twitter though? The website literally shows the tweet Fehér Zsigmond (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide a link? Redacted II (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/08/spacex-super-heavy-starship-2-0-will-be-8-times-bigger-than-super-heavy-starship.html

there you go Fehér Zsigmond (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

That's discussing a concept, and it's dated to 2019. Plans have changed considerably since then. Redacted II (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, we could make a new category for possible upgrades, and list it there, but alright. Btw, will someone write about raptor 3? Fehér Zsigmond (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Any discussion of raptor 3 belongs in the Raptor Engine Article Redacted II (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I have found countless other youtubers who talked about this, and other websites. Youtuber(new one): elon musk zone, future unity Fehér Zsigmond (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Neither of those Youtube accounts are reliable sources. Redacted II (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Alright, ill stop pushing it. Fehér Zsigmond (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@Fehér Zsigmond Elon didn't announce anything. There's tons of fake youtube videos going around claiming all manner of nonsense, or digging up ancient statements from years ago. It's clickbait. Ergzay (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Alright, only if i could check twitter…

I have an Idea though. How about we make a future upgrades section, where we could write possible/ guaranted upgrades? Fehér Zsigmond (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source for them, then maybe we can look at it. But you need to be careful about your sources. But I'd caution against thinking anything is a "guaranteed" thing in the real world. There is no such thing.

That being said; if you have a source for changes you're looking to make, please provide it and we can take a look. Chuckstablers (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, each and every unrilaible source I brought up used twitter messages as source, so we should look there. I also asked another channel to make a video about this Topic. Maybe he will use twitter too. Insadly cant check it, since I dont have twitter. Fehér Zsigmond (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

But to be clear; I'd be opposed to adding this section. The article has enough content about future/speculative capabilities that have not been demonstrated. When Starship demonstrates these (very exciting) capabilities, then we can look at them. Chuckstablers (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, maybe next year, when starship is supposed to get into business, we could add it, what do you think? Fehér Zsigmond (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

If something is well documented in credible and reliable reporting, it may be added. Things like this - which is not - then don't. Sub31k (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

History section title

Ergzay, I saw you reverted my section heading changes. However, after that we had the problem again that the headings wrongly suggest to the reader that all these early design proposals were real spaceships. As reason for your change you noted that the sections were redundant. Therefore I changed the overall section name. Is this ok for you? Zae8 (talk) 12:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

What about moving the whole history section in a separate article? The content is more or less irrelevant for today's Starship. I think it would make the article better readable. Any other opinions? Zae8 (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd be okay with that. Redacted II (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Keeping the development and forking the history isn't that bad of an idea. Two steps forward one step back. I'd reckon go for it, that wall of text is an eyesore. CodemWiki (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@Zae8 The entire history section WAS in a previous article, by consensus it was merged into this article. Available in the history at: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship_development&oldid=1153462153 I personally wasn't a fan of this merge.

As to my revert of the section heading changes, it's because "Announcement of" doesn't really describe the sections well. The sections describe the individual development phases and segment the time periods when the vehicle was called by various other names and the events that happened when it had such previous name. They cover time periods of several years where several design portions were announced whereas "announcement" implies a single event. Ergzay (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes but the previous page also had the development including the development history of Starship spacecraft and Superheavy, which wasn't very practical and are better placed now on their respective pages.

Can anyone start a discussion to fork Starship History onto another page? CodemWiki (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

There was consensus to merge the development article into here, and this being at 42kb of readable prose, WP:SPINOUT does not indicate a need for splitting. There is a (dire) need to improve the quality of the content that was merged in.—Alalch E. 14:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, but what's the point of doing anything if it gets reverted by Ergzay (statistically, though sometimes I do appreciate his edits). CodemWiki (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd also agree. A lot of my changes were essentially reverted. Discouraging to try to edit a page if reversion is going be the likely outcome. Chuckstablers (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@Chuckstablers @CodemWiki I've also had many of my edits reverted in the past so my feeling is the same. Let's discuss the edits a bit more as I found the information being removed should be kept but I can kind of see why the place the information was located at was maybe not the best for it. Can you try an edit where the information you delete is moved to say the design section? Also look at my long comment in the "Rewriting a section of the ITS design" above where I talk about past tense issue. Also I didn't revert all the edits, just a couple of them. The other ones I found more or less fine. Ergzay (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Mission profile

I really don't see the purpose of this section. Most of the information presented in it can be found elsewhere in the article. I also don't see any other rocket on wikipedia with a mission profile section. Even if it should be kept, which I don't think it should be (the article has enough lower quality content that needs reworking), the tense should be changed. It makes it sound like these are actual demonstrated capabilities. Chuckstablers (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

For example; I find this particularly hard to know what to do with:

"Once in orbit, the spacecraft can be refueled by one or more tanker variant Starships, increasing the spacecraft's capacity."

The ability to transfer cryogenic propellants between spacecraft in zero g is not a mature technology. This implies otherwise. I'm not sure what NASA considers the technology readiness level to be at this point (probably around a 6-7 based on some older studies I read) but it definitely isn't mature. Chuckstablers (talk) 00:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

After reading through other pages, I can't find one with a mission profile section. That's probably for a reason; because it has atypical design features that are not standard in the industry. But these should go under the design section, where it's clear that they're part of the design. Chuckstablers (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The mission profile section should be divided between the SpaceX Super Heavy and Starship (spacecraft) pages.

However, SpaceX Super Heavy already has a Mission profile section, and the consensus on the Starship (spacecraft) page is to not have a Mission profile section. And any consensus here doesn't override a consensus there.

So, unless an alternative can be found, the best course of action is deletion. Especially for events after orbital insertion. Redacted II (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)