Talk:SpaceX Starship/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Restoring content pre-merge

@CactiStaccingCrane made this great edit showing all the content that was lost following the merge (a merge that I disagreed with). A lot of this should be brought back. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship&diff=prev&oldid=1156553953 CactiStaccingCrane made the comment in his merge "I will just give up. These people ruined everything by not following consensus. Do what you want with it, I will gonna clean up your mess." He's been a long time contributor, pushing long time editors off of a page because of drive-by merges like the one performed by @Gtoffoletto is a bad thing to do. Ergzay (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The merge was conducted properly, according to Wikipedia policy.

Saying it wasn't is just misleading.

And then various editors (including me) removed content that was not important enough to warrant inclusion. Most of said content was redundant, and was stated elsewhere in the article.

After all, why should the BFR get it's own info-box? Or ITS for that matter? It was meaningless content. And it was removed. Redacted II (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I am in favor of bringing back lost content. CodemWiki (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

If it's redundant or meaningless, it shouldn't be included. Redacted II (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ergzay nothing was "lost during the merge". I merged following consensus in this unanimous discussion. I mostly only added content (the edit is +39,068 chars)‎ with no editing (following WP:MERGETEXT). You can review the merge edit here very easily. 5 paragraphs were removed in the merge as the content was duplicated. If you feel that any of those paragraphs were better than what we have now, you (or anyone else) can easily restore it. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:52, 25 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)

Thanks @Redacted II. Unless anyone else wants to chime in then I'd agree. I'll give it another week or so at most before I delete it. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Definitely too long. Maybe rename to "Proposed mission design" or something similar and shorten it significantly? There seem to be a lot of details that are probably not so certain at this point. I would not divide this in other pages as the mission profile described is what is expected for the full vehicle. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 17:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

But their really isn't a set mission profile (especially when you consider the various versions of the spacecraft), as was pointed in the SpaceX Starship (spacecraft) article.

I don't see a way to salvage this section, other than deleting it and starting over. Redacted II (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

If anyone else wants to chime in and share their thoughts on the deletion of the mission profile section please do. I'm going to give it till Monday, and if nobody provides any reasons to not remove it I'm removing it. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Keep the two animations in that section. Or at least move them to Super Heavy. I'd move them myself, but I don't know how to do that. Redacted II (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good! I'll figure it out over the weekend, probably sunday as I'm working tomorrow. Where do you think they should go if I keep it in this article? Chuckstablers (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking that they should be moved to Super Heavy (mission profile).

If moved somewhere else in this article, maybe "Launch Sites". Redacted II (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Definitely keep this in the article. It is not the mission profile of Super Heavy but of the whole stack. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:38, 22 May 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

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)
(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)
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)
Support - this was an test prototype. The new prototypes are already significantly different from what was flown (for example they feature large aerodynamic chines [1] 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)
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

Oppose recategorization except as to add context to circumstance of failure. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 20:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Oppose I don't support being inconsistent with all the other launches for other vehicles. CtrlDPredator (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
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

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.

RfC on "clarifying failure in infobox"

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 clear consensus to remove the note about the failure in the infobox. Although some sources have described the launch as a "partial failure" or "partial success", that was not sufficient to sway the large majority of those responding. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

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)
Remove At least for now. May be worth coming back to, but doesn't suit the article at this time. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Remove per Special:Diff/1155578924 Leijurv (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Remove for consistency with most other similar articles. Zae8 (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Remove as I think it's pointless with just one launch making it obvious which one failed and because just noting prototype/test flight doesn't give meaningful information in my opinion especially with how fluid the distinction between test and operation tends to be with SpaceX. Once further launches happen, it may be worth pointing out the specific mission and maybe vehicle that failed just like the articles for Falcon 9, Saturn V, or the Shuttle do. 2A02:810A:B80:3688:4ECC:6AFF:FEF8:6777 (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Remove The discussion above makes it clear that a simple sucess/failure assesment is full of problems. So it make sense to discuss it the text and remove a contentious binary clasification. --Salix alba (talk): 19:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea. Remove Failure from the infobox. After all, this is the only article in which a prototype is included in the infobox. Redacted II (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Don't even think about going against consensus again here CtrlDPredator (talk) 08:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I have no intention of undermining the consensus.

However, remember that a consensus can change over time.

And the RFC here was over a note in the Infobox, not in regards to a label of "prototype failure" or anything else. So not including that note is inherently abiding by the consensus. Redacted II (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

So, we just had an RFC on whether to include "failure" in the infobox—Talk:SpaceX_Starship#RfC_on_infobox_failure_status. The consensus was to keep the "failure" description. This RFC is on whether to keep or remove a note attached to that failure description.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. Maybe after a few months such a push can be done for such a change, when tensions are lower.

But until then, there really shouldn't be such a discussion (unless someone who voted oppose in the first RFC starts one) Redacted II (talk) 20:11, 6 June 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.

List of Starship Prototypes

A while ago, in a now archived conversation (it's in archive 5), CactiStaccingCrane mentioned the possibility of creating a List of SpaceX Starship prototypes. After all, there's a list of Falcon 9 boosters, which divides between different versions (v1.0, v1.1, FT BLCK 1-4, and BLCK 5).

If other users are interested in such an idea, I'll create the article. Redacted II (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I think its a good idea to list few(not all ofc). Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Listing all isn't all that bad. After all, the list of Falcon 9 boosters has ALL the Falcon 9 boosters.

Noteworthy prototypes (like Starhopper, SN15, SN20, Ship 24, B4, and B7) could even get dedicated articles.

After all, there's a Wikipedia page for Space Shuttle Pathfinder. Redacted II (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

As SpaceX keeps manufacturing more prototypes, a List of SpaceX Starship prototypes article is pretty much inevitable. It would however remove any reason for the SpaceX Starship (spacecraft) article to exist, since the page would just be left with content duplicated from the Starship article.

Some reorganization is required, such as moving the content of SpaceX Starship (spacecraft) to SpaceX Starship and List of SpaceX Starship prototypes) (and subsequently deleting the SpaceX Starship (spacecraft) article).

The same question could be asked for SpaceX Super Heavy. List of SpaceX Super Heavy prototypes would relieve the need for a separate SpaceX Super Heavy article. Again, deleting that article is not a problem, but some reorganization would be needed. Alternatively, both Starship spacecraft and Super Heavy prototypes lists could be on a single List of SpaceX Starship and Super Heavy prototypes article.

@CaccStaccingCrane Your input is especially relevant as you disagreed with the post-move situation and have been the major contributor to this article for the last few years. If you do not wish to be pinned, let me know.

@Gtoffoletto. I agreed with the initial move because the SpaceX Starship development article was a gobbledygook of Starship-related content, but the current situation is not ideal either. What is your opinion on a possible restructuring? CodemWiki (talk) 11:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It wouldn't remove the need for SpaceX Starship (spacecraft) and SpaceX Super Heavy, as those articles aren't just information duplicated in this page (even if you remove the lists in those articles).

If the Common Booster Core is notable to have it's own article, then so are SpaceX Super Heavy and SpaceX Starship (spacecraft).

Moving content from those pages would make this already large article even larger.

The way I'm imagining the List of SpaceX Starship prototypes article is it having a list for Super Heavy prototypes and a list for Starship prototypes (as well as a dedicated section for the Test Tanks). Redacted II (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure of what problem we are trying to solve here. Also: do we need to keep every single change of every prototype in the articles? I think we should remove a lot of unnecessary detail and only keep notable milestones. That probably makes a "list article" unnecessary. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I saw an idea that I really liked, and I wanted to discuss it here.

There really isn't an issue. Just discussing a potential List of SpaceX Starship prototypes article.

Any changes to the SpaceX Super Heavy and SpaceX Starship (spacecraft) articles should not be discussed here. Redacted II (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

My comment was deleted in the heat of the "success"/"failure" debate

What I had to say may no longer be of any importance, so I'll let the deletion stand. However, I do resent having my input deleted now that I've noticed it. Maybe someone didn't like my tone, but what I had to say was relevant, not abusive, and Wiki is supposed to have a policy against editing or deleting other's posts to talk pages. Merely noting that the comment seemed facetious--in that it analogized calling a failed launch a "partial success" to calling a 23% grade on an algebra test a "partial success" because we could learn from the experience--really isn't suitable grounds for deleting a talk-page post. zadignose (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have the diff of the edit where your comment was removed? It's possible it was an accident. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 00:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide the exact wording of your post? And in which discussion was this in?

There may have been a reason, like WP:Personal Attack (just an example, not accusing you of anything). Redacted II (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

redacted and jadebenn, it's really easy to check someone's contributions. Diff is here. Leijurv (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It was removed because it was irrelevant (and incredibly unconstructive). Redacted II (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

LOL, that just seems like the most random thing ever. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 20:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Comparison to Other Vehicles in lead

The purpose of stating the other vehicles it surpassed is to provide context. Removing that comparison weakens the article. Saying it's "the most powerful" means very little without saying what was previously the most powerful.

In other words, breaking a record is meaningless if the previous record doesn't have a stated value. Redacted II (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Understandable. But we should stay at "Starship is the largest and most powerful rocket ever flown, surpassing the thrust of the NASA Space Launch System and Saturn V, as well as the Soviet N1, which had previously held the record[2]" and not keep on adding fluff.

Do you mind if I write an invisible comment on the page saying "do not change this sentence without discussing it with other users (per talk page)"? CodemWiki (talk) 07:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I think thats fine. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure.

To be honest, the inclusion of the Space Launch System and the Saturn V feels unnecessary, so would this be acceptable?

"Starship is the largest and most powerful rocket ever flown, surpassing the thrust of the N1, which had previously held the record[2]" Redacted II (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thats also fine for me, i just want a comparison. Given that the n1 is pretty similar in some cases, jt makes sense. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, maybe add the Saturn V as it is historically and culturally significant. However, a comparison with the Space launch System is already present on the page under "Design", it is not necessary to mention it in the lead. CodemWiki (talk) 12:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Then, how about:

"Starship is the largest and most powerful rocket ever flown, surpassing the thrust of the Saturn V, as well as the N1, which had previously held the record" Redacted II (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Honestly "Starship is the largest and most powerful rocket ever flown, surpassing the thrust of the NASA Space Launch System and Saturn V, as well as the Soviet N1, which had previously held the record[2]" was fine, I just don't think anything should be added to it beyond that. CodemWiki (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Choose the formulation you think suits the best. CodemWiki (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed that the Saturn V and N1 are also mentioned in design.

A comparison to SLS is entirely unnecessary, except if we state that "Starship has often been compared to the Space Launch System (and the N1)" Redacted II (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)