Jump to content

Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orbital launch statistics table[edit]

Should we differentiate between "actual" and prototype vehicles in the Launch statistics table?

Here is what the first table may look like:

3
'23
'24
'25
'26
  •   Prototype Failure
  •   Failure
  •   Prototype Success
  •   Success
  •   Planned Prototype
  •   Planned

Redacted II (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the FAA refuses to give SpaceX permission to fly again and as such there cannot be two scheduled flights for 2023[edit]

[1]https://www.expressnews.com/business/article/faa-no-spacex-starship-launch-soon-18261658.php therefore I think that graph should be removed. Death Editor 2 (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this section is misleading. As of today, the FAA has not approved a second flight yet - but that approval could come any day. It is not required or even expected until shortly before the launch anyway. --mfb (talk) 01:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's going to happen. Death Editor 2 (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Permission to fly wasn't granted until 6 days before IFT-1 (and 3 days before the first attempt). Removing the graph because they don't have approval would make no sense whatsoever. Redacted II (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, when is the third launch going to happen? Death Editor 2 (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as we know, flights 2 and 3 are planned for 2023.
Therefore, there are no grounds to change the graph. Redacted II (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to keep using this argument until it's new year's eve? Death Editor 2 (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With New Year's eve being more than 3 months away and the precedence of flights happening days after receipt of permit, I would say to keep the table as is for now. Lklundin (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By New Years Eve, the chart will have been updated to show 0 planned for 2023 (as no more launches will be planned for the year). But it would be foolish to do that now. Redacted II (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the second launch is not going to happen much less the third. Death Editor 2 (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reliable source that states "The second flight of Starship won't happen"?
Please, don't make claims without anything to back them. Redacted II (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[2]https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/spacex-s-starship-still-needs-wildlife-agency-review-to-resume-launch-1.1973066 I have this, and also when is the mysterious third starship test flight happening? I still hadn't gotten an answer for that. Death Editor 2 (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's just saying the launch license hasn't been granted yet. It doesn't state "Launch isn't happening this year". Redacted II (talk) 12:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Answer my question, when is this mysterious third test flight happening? Death Editor 2 (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NET Q4 2023. Redacted II (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and may I ask for your source for this claim? Death Editor 2 (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The NASA Commercial LEO Development page for SpaceX had the first payload Q1 2024 (the site was taken down later, or at least the bookmark I had made is now broken).
The order of flight is S24->S25->S26->28, therefore, flight 3 is Q4 2023.
But this is just a waste of time. Out of the 4 editors to comment here (including you and me), 3 have sided against you. Redacted II (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are using a site that (in your own words) has been taken down for your source? Lol, imao. Death Editor 2 (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Moving to the left) I don't see how flight 4 planned for Q1 2024 would imply flight 3 to happen in 2023. If the second flight is successful, it's even possible SpaceX does not launch S26 at all and goes directly to S28. A third flight in 2023 looks very unlikely now, but I don't mind either way for the graph. --mfb (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it's not going to happen so why are you pretending that the third flight will happen? Death Editor 2 (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source that states the third flight will be in 2024?
There isn't any indicator that flight 3 won't happen this year, so until otherwise stated, the graph should show 2 flights planned for this year. Redacted II (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
we have been over this, and [3]https://gizmodo.com/environmental-review-delay-spacex-starship-launch-1850853128 this and [4]https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/spacex-s-starship-still-needs-wildlife-agency-review-to-resume-launch-1.1973066 this Death Editor 2 (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and as I said on September 26, 2023 "That's just saying the launch license hasn't been granted yet. It doesn't state "Launch isn't happening this year"".
Oh, and:
Do you have a reliable source that directly states "there will only be two flights in 2023"?
I'd love to see one. Redacted II (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply][reply]
1. the first flight was called the SpaceX Starship Integrated Flight Test.
2. I don't, but I do have a source that says the next test flight might happen in 2024 that you removed for some reason. Death Editor 2 (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, you admitted today that you have no source that states "there will be only two flights in 2023", only sources that state that IFT-2 may not happen this year. Redacted II (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I said that the second flight is an extremely unlikely maybe, the third flight is still not happening. Death Editor 2 (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now your back to Original Research.
I'd also like to warn you about Wikipedia:BLUDGEON (where you repeat the same point during an argument). I can't really blame you for doing it (as I've done it many times before), but it can get you blocked.
Finally,
Please. Stop wasting both of our times. You have no sources, and a consensus disagreeing with you. Continuing to try to push the narrative of "IFT-3 isn't happening this year" is vandalism. Redacted II (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are also breaking Wikipedia:BLUDGEON so let he without sin cast the first stone. Death Editor 2 (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am responding to you, so...
And also, Wikipedia:Advice for hotheads#You cannot argue Wikipedia into capitulation. Arguing the same point "FWS delay, therefore IFT-3 2024" won't get you what you want. Redacted II (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it's foolish to treat IFT-3 in 2023 as a foregone conclusion, when IFT-2 might not happen in 2023. Death Editor 2 (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
for all your talk of supporting 'the status quo' you seem ken to be removing the sourced 'likely 2024' from the IFT-2 section. Death Editor 2 (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which was added in contradiction of the consensus created here. Redacted II (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yeah sure buddy. Death Editor 2 (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the third test flight is unsourced, I have made the decision to remove it, however I will put it back if consensus says I must put it back. Death Editor 2 (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this: I'll add a note to the IFT-2 flight date stating that it may happen in 2024, with you sources attached. Redacted II (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
reasonable. Death Editor 2 (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now stop removing IFT-3.
(I'm working out how to add in the note right now) Redacted II (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember how to add a note, so it'll have to be direct text. Redacted II (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
acceptable. Death Editor 2 (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you know how to add a note, please do so.
If your willing to accept this as a final solution (and no one else disagrees), I'll withdraw my complaint at DRN. Redacted II (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't the deal. Please self-revert Redacted II (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify:
If you don't remove the second planned flight for 2023, the note for the potential 2024 launch date is kept.
Is that acceptable? Redacted II (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please include a table showing history of each individual ship / booster[edit]

found on different page - delete this topic

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.81.80 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2024[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Discussion shifted to RfC, so keeping this open makes little sense. Redacted II (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Modify the Orbital/Integrated test table to show the misson outcome:

Flight Date and time
(UTC) 		Vehicles Launch site[a] Orbit Duration Launch outcome Mission outcome Booster landing Spacecraft landing
IFT-1 20 April 2023, 13:33:09 Ship 24/Booster 7 Starbase Orbital Pad A Transatmospheric[1] (planned) 3 minutes, 59 seconds (until vehicle loss) Failure (SpaceX declared success) Failure (SpaceX declared success) Precluded Precluded
The first integrated flight test of Starship was the first flight test of the full launch vehicle with both the Super Heavy booster and the Starship upper stage integrated. If all early parts of the test were nominal on the test plan, the booster would ultimately make a powered splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico, and the ship would enter a transatmospheric Earth orbit before reentering and impacting the Pacific Ocean north of Hawaii. Three engines were shut down before the booster lifted off the launch mount, with at least three more engines shutting down during booster powered flight. The vehicle eventually entered an uncontrolled spin before stage separation due to loss of thrust vector control. The flight termination system detonated with the intent to destroy the vehicle immediately, but the vehicle remained intact until T+3:59, more than 40 seconds after activation of the flight termination system.[2] SpaceX declared this flight a success, as their primary goal was to only clear the pad.[3] The launch resulted in extensive damage to the orbital launch mount and the infrastructures around it, including the propellant tank farm.
IFT-2 18 November 2023, 13:02:50[4][5] Ship 25/Booster 9[6][7] Starbase Orbital Pad A Transatmospheric (planned) 8 minutes, 5 seconds (until vehicle loss) Failure (SpaceX declared success) Failure (SpaceX declared success) Failure Precluded
The second integrated flight test of Starship had a test flight profile similar to the first flight, with the addition of a new hot-staging technique and the introduction of a water deluge system as part of the ground support equipment at the launch pad. During the first stage ascent, all 33 engines fired to full duration. Starship and Super Heavy successfully accomplished a hot-staging separation. After initiating a flip maneuver and initiating boostback burn, several booster engines began shutting down. One failed energetically, which caused the destruction of the booster.[8] The root cause was filter blockage leading to inadequate inlet pressure in the engine oxidizer turbopumps.[8] The filter and filter operation were upgraded for the next flight.[8][9]

The upper stage ascended normally for six minutes.[10] A leak in the aft section developed while a planned liquid oxygen venting was underway, triggering a combustion event that interrupted communication between the craft’s flight computers, causing full engine shutdown.[8] The Autonomous Flight Safety System detected this mission rule violation and activated the flight termination system (FTS) as the ship reached an altitude of ~148 km and velocity of ~24,000 km/h.[8]

IFT-3 14 March 2024, 13:25:00[11] Ship 28/Booster 10[11] Starbase Orbital Pad A[12] Suborbital
 49 minutes, 35 seconds (until vehicle loss) Success
[disputed – discuss] 		Partial Failure (SpaceX declared success) Failure Failure
The third integrated flight test of Starship involved an internal propellant transfer demonstration, a deorbit burn, and a test of the Starlink dispenser.[13] A hard splashdown of the ship was planned to occur in the Indian Ocean, approximately 1 hour 4 minutes after launch.[14][15]

The booster successfully propelled the spacecraft to staging and relit its engines for the boostback burn, however, during the burn preceding a soft splashdown, only three engines ignited, and successive engine failures resulted in the destruction of the booster 462 meters above the ocean.[16]

The apogee and perigee of the spacecraft was 234 km (145 mi) and −50 km (−31 mi), respectively, on a suborbital trajectory[11] (though one that did reach orbital speed[17]). A scheduled restart of a raptor engine for a prograde burn did not occur, which would have resulted in a 50 km (31 mi) perigee and transatmospheric Earth orbit.[11] Minutes into atmospheric re-entry, Ship 28's telemetry cut off, leading SpaceX to conclude it had disintegrated prior to its planned splashdown.

After the launch had concluded, SpaceX confirmed that the booster failed to reignite properly and was destroyed at 462 m above sea level over the Gulf of Mexico.[15] The FAA declared that a mishap had occurred involving both the upper stage and booster, triggering the start of a SpaceX-led investigation overseen by the FAA.[18]

  1. ^ All launches are from the same Boca Chica site. SpaceX started calling this Starbase from March 2021 after discussions called a "casual inquiry". See Boca Chica (Texas) § Starbase
  1. ^ Starship Flight Test, archived from the original on 20 April 2023, retrieved 2023-04-20
  2. ^ O'Callaghan, Jonathan (2023-10-01). "Termination shock". Aerospace America. Archived from the original on 22 October 2023. Retrieved 2023-11-19.
  3. ^ Kelly, Emre (2023-04-20). "SpaceX Starship launches from Texas, then explodes over Gulf of Mexico". USA Today. Archived from the original on 18 November 2023. Retrieved 18 November 2023.
  4. ^ @SpaceX (November 11, 2023). "Watch Starship's Second Flight Test" (Tweet). Archived from the original on 17 November 2023. Retrieved 2023-11-16 – via Twitter.
  5. ^ "Starship's second flight test". SpaceX. Archived from the original on 21 November 2023. Retrieved 2023-11-11.
  6. ^ @SpaceX (May 27, 2023). "Another step closer to Mars — the first flight test of a fully integrated Starship and Super Heavy rocket" (Tweet). Archived from the original on 3 June 2023. Retrieved 2023-05-27 – via Twitter.
  7. ^ "Starship - First Integrated Flight Test - Recap". YouTube. Archived from the original on 28 May 2023. Retrieved 2023-05-28.
  8. ^ a b c d e "SpaceX Updates". SpaceX. February 26, 2024. Archived from the original on 7 March 2011. Retrieved 2024-02-28.
  9. ^ SpaceX. "Starship's second flight test". Archived from the original on 21 November 2023. Retrieved 30 November 2023.
  10. ^ Weber, Ryan (2023-11-17). "After upgrades, Starship achieves numerous successes during second test flight". NASASpaceFlight.com. Archived from the original on 11 December 2023. Retrieved 2024-03-18.
  11. ^ a b c d McDowell, Jonathan (March 14, 2024). "Jonathan's Space Report No. 831". Jonathan's Space Report. Archived from the original on 29 March 2019. Retrieved March 14, 2024.
  12. ^ "Starship-Super Heavy (Prototype) | Starship Flight 3". Next Spaceflight. Retrieved 2024-03-07.
  13. ^ Sheetz, Michael (2023-12-05). "SpaceX plans key NASA demonstration for next Starship launch". CNBC. Archived from the original on 5 December 2023. Retrieved 2023-12-05.
  14. ^ "SpaceX". SpaceX. Archived from the original on 6 March 2024. Retrieved 2024-03-06.
  15. ^ a b "Starship's Third Flight Test". SpaceX. Archived from the original on 6 March 2024. Retrieved 2024-03-14.
  16. ^ "STARSHIP'S THIRD FLIGHT TEST". SpaceX.com. Mar 14, 2024. Retrieved Apr 4, 2024.
  17. ^ Strickland, Ashley (2024-03-16). "Starship's monumental third flight ends unexpectedly". CNN. Archived from the original on 16 March 2024. Retrieved 2024-03-16.
  18. ^ "FAA Statements on Aviation Accidents and Incidents". Federal Aviation Administration. 14 March 2024. Archived from the original on 14 March 2024. Retrieved 15 March 2024.
177.121.123.63 (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Listing Mission Success is unneeded, as the events of the mission are described in the text. Also, would we define mission success with the FAA filings (Failure/Failure/Partial Failure), or SpaceX's stated goals (Success/Success/Success)? Redacted II (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Failure/Failure/Partial Failure is definitely more accurate than Success/Success/Success. Goes without saying, we should take what SpaceX and Elon say with a grain of salt. 179.54.222.182 (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second example is judging stated goals, and is a potential option (and btw, I'd probably go with failure, partial failure, success for mission outcomes of IFT-1, 2, and 3).
But either way, there is no reason to add the mission results to the table: no other vehicle has mission outcome in the launch table, except maybe the shuttle. Redacted II (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Half of the arguments about IFT-3's outcome are about "launch success v.s. mission success". This would at least ameliorate those arguments.
Still, i believe we should go with Failure, Failure, Partial Failure. If IFT-3 didn't go to plan, and there is a mishap being investigated, then chances are it wasn't a full success, regardless of launch outcome.
So, can we do it? Can we accept the edit request? This doesn't really seem to be a contentious topic, and there is specificity (the modified table) in the request. For any edit request, this should be enough.
Cheers, 179.54.222.182 (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Can we accept the edit request?"
No, as I do not think mission results should be added. It creates more problems than it solves. Redacted II (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Shadow311 (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Can we get a WP:3O in here? That should be enough. Or do we need to open an RfC? 179.54.222.182 (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for your information: People don't read, they scan. They will see the green box and think the whole mission succeeded, not bothering to read the rest of it.
Listing both launch and mission outcomes should clear up the confusion. We may need to open an RfC, though, if we have to.
I'm reopening the request. 179.251.80.181 (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The request has already been answered, and rejected. Redacted II (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected Edit Request on 21 May 2024[edit]

Further adjusted using Redacted II's advice.

In the lead section of this article, or one of the sections below, add the following infobox:

Starship integrated flight tests
Also known as: Starship orbital flight tests
Ship 24 and Booster 7, launching as part of IFT-1 (aka OFT-1)
Program overview
CountryUnited States
OrganizationSpaceX
PurposeVarious:
  • Orbital/Suborbital flight beyond Karman Line;
  • Test of Starship components at orbital altitude;
  • Reentry testing;
  • Starship/Superheavy recovery testing;
  • Test of Super Heavy booster components;
  • Among others.
StatusOngoing
Program history
Duration2023-present
First flight
  • IFT-1 (S24/B7)
  • April 20, 2023 (2023-04-20)
Successes0
Failures2
Partial failures1
Launch site(s)SpaceX Starbase
Vehicle information
Uncrewed vehicle(s)SpaceX Starship
Launch vehicle(s)Starship launch stack (SpaceX Starship + SpaceX Super Heavy)


Changes:

-Removed suborbital infobox (not notable enough)

-Added bulleted list to make the purpose section easier to read

-Corrected uncrewed/launch vehicle

This should be enough to address most of Redacted II's objections.

187.46.129.213 (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Objection remains.
The Launch vehicle stack issue is still unresolved: you don't need to list both stages as part of it.
Additionally, there is still the risk of misleading viewers with the "partial failure" for IFT-3. Listing mission outcome is unneeded as well: look at the RfC on this page above.
Finally, I recommend in the future modifying the initial edit request, instead of creating a new topic (it's an easy mistake to make: I know I've made similar mistakes before (with this page too!)). Redacted II (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Edit Request on 21 May 2024[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Edit Requestor moved request to new topic. Request has been denied multiple times alreadyRedacted II (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead section of this article, or one of the sctions below, add the following infoboxes:

Starship suborbital flight tests
Starhopper prototype vehicle, used in suborbital testing, seen here under construction
Program overview
CountryUnited States
OrganizationSpaceX
PurposeIntra-atmospheric testing of Starship and its components
StatusCompleted
Program history
Duration2019-2021
First flight
  • Starhopper (tethered flight)
  • April 3, 2019 (2019-04-03)
  • Flight 1
  • July 25, 2019 (2019-07-25)
Last flight
  • Flight 9
  • May 5, 2021 (2021-05-05)
Successes6 (not counting tethered flights)
Failures0
Partial failures3
Launch site(s)SpaceX Starbase
Uncrewed vehicle(s)SpaceX Starhopper, SpaceX Starship (test articles)


Starship integrated flight tests
Also known as: Starship orbital flight tests
Ship 24 and Booster 7, launching as part of IFT-1 (aka OFT-1)
Program overview
CountryUnited States
OrganizationSpaceX
PurposeOrbital/Suborbital flight beyond Karman Line, test of Starship components at orbital altitude, reentry testing, Starship/Superheavy recovery testing, test of Super Heavy booster components, among others
StatusOngoing
Program history
Duration2023-present
First flight
  • IFT-1 (S24/B7)
  • April 20, 2023 (2023-04-20)
Successes0
Failures2
Partial failures1
Launch site(s)SpaceX Starbase
Vehicle information
Uncrewed vehicle(s)SpaceX Starship
Launch vehicle(s)SpaceX Super Heavy
187.46.129.213 (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, oppose, for similar reasons as to your previous edit request, which I will restate and rephrase here:
General Objections:
1: The article doesn't need an infobox, much less two.
2: The labelling of success v.s failure will lead both informed and uninformed readers to draw incorrect assumptions.
3: The wording of the "Purpose" section is needlessly long.
Suborbital infobox Objections:
1: A Suborbital infobox is unneeded, as those flights aren't important enough to have one.
IFT infobox objections:
1: Launch vehicle is incorrect: The launch vehicle is SpaceX Starship, with the Uncrewed vehicle being SpaceX Starship (Spacecraft) Redacted II (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IFT-5 launch date[edit]

The current IFT-5 date is late June (it will probably be delayed, but that is what sources indicate).

August, while somewhat more likely, is unsourced. Redacted II (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SpaceX_Starship_flight_tests/Archive_2&oldid=1230463051"