::Did you read the reply of Redacted II? He basically counters every argument against it. [[User:Fehér Zsigmond-03|Fehér Zsigmond-03]] ([[User talk:Fehér Zsigmond-03|talk]]) 11:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
::Did you read the reply of Redacted II? He basically counters every argument against it. [[User:Fehér Zsigmond-03|Fehér Zsigmond-03]] ([[User talk:Fehér Zsigmond-03|talk]]) 11:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
:::Honestly I don't feel like they did. Inventing your own criteria around an arbitrary 15m/s and presenting it as some sort of agreed upon threshold isn't countering the argument. We have discussed this over and over and it is clear that no matter how many similar examples or precedents are presented that the goalposts keep changing to try and fit Starship into Partial Failure. No one is going to change their mind here. [[User:CtrlDPredator|CtrlDPredator]] ([[User talk:CtrlDPredator|talk]]) 13:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
:::Honestly I don't feel like they did. Inventing your own criteria around an arbitrary 15m/s and presenting it as some sort of agreed upon threshold isn't countering the argument. We have discussed this over and over and it is clear that no matter how many similar examples or precedents are presented that the goalposts keep changing to try and fit Starship into Partial Failure. No one is going to change their mind here. [[User:CtrlDPredator|CtrlDPredator]] ([[User talk:CtrlDPredator|talk]]) 13:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
::::"Inventing your own criteria"
::::The criteria I listed is what has been applied to every partial failure and failure I have found. If you can find one that violates this definition, please share it (and why it violates the criteria).
::::"arbitrary 15m/s"
::::The 15 m/s value is the difference between 100% success and 100% failure with reaching orbit being a requirement. I calculated the value using the [[vis-viva equation]].
::::"no matter how many similar examples or precedents are presented that the goalposts keep changing to try and fit Starship into Partial Failure"
::::I've also mentioned precedents and similar examples that support partial failure, so the goalposts have not moved.
::::"have discussed this over and over"
::::Agreed. Seven talk pages is ~five-six too many. And a 17 day debate is just ridiculous.
::::"No one is going to change their mind here"
::::So long as each side stubbornly (and everyone here is to blame for this, including you and me) insists on getting everything and refuses to make compromises, then no, I don't think anyone will switch sides.
::::However, I have offered to make compromises. These offers were ignored. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 13:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Revision as of 13:56, 5 December 2023
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SpaceX Starship article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
SpaceX Starship was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[SpaceX ambition of colonizing Mars#Prior launch vehicle proposals|prior designs]] The anchor (#Prior launch vehicle proposals) has been deleted.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors
More up to date images
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
As you all have probably seen, many articles like SpaceX Starbase have out-of-date images. I am looking on gaining access on more recent pictures that we could use to illustrate various recent developments at Boca Chica. Here is what I'm thinking of sending to Maurico from RGV Aerial Photography (I just drafted this in 5 minutes so any grammar-related things would be appreciated :))
Hi Mauricio
I am writing on behalf of the Wikipedia community focusing on the coverage of SpaceX-related developments concerning the SpaceX Starship at its launch site in Boca Chica.
As you have probably seen from images currently used as part of the articles, many lack details and date back to several years ago. We are looking to get access to some pictures (maybe up to a few months old) depicting various things [need some ideas for what to list there]
[Could tell him to disclose it or put it on Wiki Commons itself]
Perhaps a bit optimistic, but worth a try. Ideally we'd need someone to drive down to Boca Chica and take pics for Commons. Unfortunately I'm a student on the other side of the pond.
We're desperate for pictures! I can't drive there either :-). If anyone has any other ideas or has been to Boca Chica before, we'd love to get some up-to-date pictures for commons! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Though as the Starship program progresses (and as long as quails don't nest to close to the pad), NASA involvement is inevitably going to bring at least a few copyright-free pictures one way or another.
Yes! Can't wait for that, especially to get some good HLS pictures!! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can ask NSF, but that probably won't work... Redacted II (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! You could try that! I guess we could also try What About It? and Lab Padre or even Starship Gazer, they have some pretty good pictures too. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing on behalf of the Wikipedia community working on the coverage of the development of everything that is related to SpaceX Starship at its launch site in Boca Chica.
As you have probably seen from images currently used as part of the articles, many lack details and date back to several years ago.
We are doing our very best at updating the pages with appropriate images, but getting our hands on licensed-free images that show recent developments for the readers has been quite hard. We are looking to get access to some pictures depicting various things, like the Starfactory, a picture of S25/B9 stack and the new High Bay, or even an aerial shot of the layout of the production site (they do not need to be too recent).
We would of course completely understand if that is something that is not possible for you.
However, if you would like to give us a hand, you can always feel free to upload some pictures on Wikimedia Commons, where the community would be more than glad to add more content on Wikipedia.
If you have any questions, feel absolutely free to reach out!
Thank you in advance, and have a beautiful Star-day,
If you would like to send en email, please do so by changing the appropriate status template on my comment above. Please only start working on those with a blue checkmark. Also feel free to add more people there! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 10:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, still working on it. I'm glad to say that Ms. Hautmann has given me a trove of images from March and April this year via Gmail and Google Drive, however, she's pointed out that I'd need to contact her employer Supercluster to see if they can release them into the Creative Commons. I'll copy Mauricio's email soon, and I'm replying to Jenny right now with a link to this talk page topic. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I just emailed What About It!? as well. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I've written:
Hello, I’m a member of the Wikipedia community. I’ve been authorized (refer to the last link below) to see if your leadership can release images by Jenny Hautmann (specifically, I have chosen images 7633, 7683, 7894, 6326, 6456, 2161, and 2062 for maximum informational value) to the Creative Commons to allow for their potential display on Wikipedia. She has given them to me of her own accord.
I am requesting that their licenses be changed to CC-BY-SA 4.0 (
My colleagues and I totally understand if you don’t want to release them into the CC. We thank you for your time. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! It's good to mention under which license they should be released. I'll use your email as a template if I get any answers back from other people. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I emailed their business main email. Would you like to also try one person specifically? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not really.
Thanks for emailing them, though. Redacted II (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They're a news site of almost all volunteer photographers. I will start emailing them using almost the same email meant for Mauricio. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 09:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got a response from them: they didn't have any applicable photos. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 04:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go, I got a reply from What about It:
Felix Schlang
11:57 AM (0 minutes ago)
to me
Thank you so much for reaching out! I hope everything is going smoothly on your end! We are totally on board with supplying everything you need!
I do want to share a little concern we have - it seems that we’ve had a bit of difficulty establishing a page on Wikipedia, which has been a bit disappointing. It appears our page was not considered notable enough, even though we’ve noticed smaller reporters with local news stations have been able to secure their own pages.
Perhaps we can find a mutually beneficial solution? If it would be possible to help us establish a page on Wikipedia, we’d be more than happy to provide all the images you require! What do you think? Could this work for you?
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and finding a way to make this collaboration fruitful for both parties!
Best regards,
I don't really know about that though. I was planning to work on an article on Wikipedia, but I suppose it would be against the rules to do that like this? Any thoughts, @
I could also tell him that his page couldn't be created because of COI and that I'd be more than glad than to help him publish it. What do you guys think? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFURG and using a historical importance rationale since there's been little action. I won't do it now: I'll wait till Monday Eastern Time to hear back from them on whether they agree with the license or I should act on it. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
I agree, there is no deadline. We can easily give her a week or two. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good news: Got a response from Jenny. Medium news: She and her employers are not quite sure how to go about adding the CC license. I've explained to them their options (add the license info to HTML, or upload to Wikimedia Commons/Flickr/500px and let them handle it). I also sent them the CC organization's mission statement and more info about the licenses. I’ve just told them that they can take as much time as they want and can consult legal or technical counsel if necessary. Everything's smooth sailing from here Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, how is everyone else handling this? In my case, the trove of photos was shared as Google Drive folder URLs, so the upload process might be quite tetchy (there’s still uncertainty over whether it will be me or her actually uploading the images; if me, then should I upload a screenshot of proof of them appending the license?). Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
About the images we are given, I don't know how many images they sent you, but PLEASE only upload a selected few to wikimedia, not more that you'll use on articles (so i.e. I would avoid a gallery, which is also what advises
That is great news! Yes, if you have written permission then you can go ahead and upload a few. As for me, I haven't heard back from WAI. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
CodemWiki Thanks for the advice, but I didn’t need to follow through on them. Turns out she uploaded them herself. Let’s take our picks! There are fourteen in total, which may be too many (I had the final say over the number, so if anything happens re: illegal copying, it’s partly my responsibility and I apologize in advance), but I think it was an appropriate amount to show the diversity of the infrastructure. There are also August 2021 pictures for historical purposes in case anyone wants them. Here’s the link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/JennyHPhoto&ilshowall=1
Personally, I think WAI should have a dedicated article. It's definitely notable. I'm quite shocked that it doesn't already.
You have my support for creating a WAI article/draft, but I'd like to consult and Admin first, so we don't get in trouble if it does violate some rules. Redacted II (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia works in a disaggregated ways and editors who review article creations are not likely to be the same to contribute on similar articles, and not proceeding that way might be considered a conflict of interest (which could result in penalties for the involved users). Although helping Wikipedia is unfortunately not a valid criteria for article creation, we could however create a draft for What about it!? and see if we can get a better chance at getting it accepted than him, in a legit way.
Sure. I'll tell him that we're starting work on a draft and will keep in touch of any further developments. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I recall a time where I created an article just by moving it; is that something we could do too? I don't think we'd have to go through the whole AfC process, would we? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The AfC process guarantees the page not to be deleted in the future if you're not sure your article is okay for Wikipedia. But yeah, it's true that not all pages have to be drafts first.
Hmmm yeah that makes sense. As long as we get good sources we should be fine. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I heard back from Space Scout, and they're sending photographers not only to Boca Chica for the lunar eclipse next week, but also to Kennedy for the Psyche launch. Expect 10 or so images from each event. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CodemWiki@Redacted IIWell, I tried emailing SpaceX. I mean, wouldn't it be in their best interest to have what they are doing as updated as possible on Wikipedia? Anyways, we'll see what this does :/ Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
Nope, much unfortunately. I emailed their media relations inbox: can you think of any other mail address we could try too? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, ive got no idea, but we did get pictures from wai, right? Perhaps that will be enough. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I followed up with WAI but they never got back to me. Do you want to try it yourself? They seemed on-board with providing pictures if we also helped them publish a page on Wikipedia. [email protected]Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
uhhh… not sure, what else could i tell them? That their wikipedia page is under work? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Idk it's just if they're not responding to me maybe from someone else it'd work? But aguess it's fine Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they are just busy…
but every time a company/large team ignores emails it prolly wont be answered. About me messaging them. Im nowhere near perfect in formal english, and dont know much about how wikipedia works other then editable articles. And it would probably raise some question at my parents if they see who im mailing. Lets just hope they answer. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ngl that was NOT what i expected as a reply. Also, back to wai, they now have orbital photography, something tells me some people would really crave such images. Maybe we could ask them about it, cuz its in partnership with some other company, so not sure if they allow that to be used. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well it seems like they forgot about you or i dont know. Perhaps email the again about an update about their articles Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already followed up once or twice Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move of the early Starship design history to SpaceX Mars ambitions
CactiStaccingCrane is a well-known users on space- and spaceflight- related pages, he tends to pretty boldly reshape articles. Sometimes for the worse, sometimes for the better. My biggest problem with him is that he often deletes a lot of information with sparse justification, so it's hard to see through his reasoning (even if the reasoning is legitimate).
Here are the changes that have been made for now. I completely agree with his decision to move early Starship dev history to the SpaceX Mars page, the information has greater relevance there and was making this article significantly longer than what
Do not put the payload capacity above the infobox. I can’t find any other launch vehicle/spacecraft system article with this kind of statistics above the infobox. Not the Soace Shuttle or the Saturn V. Nothing. All these stats go in article sections or the infobox. Doing so shows an attitude that is biased towards Starship, by emphasising the payload capacity. Why did you do that? Also, a super heavy lift launch vehicle is not just a 150 ton payload to LEO vehcile. That’s wrong. Why did you undo my edits regarding that? CoastRedwood (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the early designs should be summarised on the main article. Again, have a peek at the Saturn V and Soace Shuttle articles. There is a little information about early designs, but it doesn’t go into such detail about the material and thrust like in the previous revision. It simply gives important details of the designs. CoastRedwood (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We used to have an article just for Starship development but I believe consensus was reached to merge it to this article: why create it again? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the article is huge. 139,254 bytes is simply too big. Redacted II (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Starship development" is still too vague in my opinion, and too broad. There isn't even any equivalent article for the Shuttle. Where does it stop, to the stages, the launchpad? It's bound to become a clusterfuck of everything and it's much more standard to just have a page for every piece of the program. "
SpaceX ambition of colonizing Mars#Prior launch vehicle proposals
I added a dedicated topic for this discussion Redacted II (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed an incorrect synthesis
I removed the following:
In 2023 NASA awarded a contract to Blue Origin to develop a second lunar lander amidst concerns by NASA over delays in the Starship HLS development timeline.[1][2]
Sounds good, should we write it in smth like preparation for second orbital flight? Also i had an idea about the future design changes that were dleted, if that person who wrote it sees this, write it in fute design chnages or smth. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 09:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But I will await further comment, I've no idea how to start on the design change paragraphs. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 10:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, my idea would be future upgrades/ design changes in history Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and add that section, I'll take care of the copy editing when you're done Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, you van choose different ways the letter would look, and from all the options, none is as big as every other subsection title, such as design phase➡️ early designs, and these are bigger, and the letters themselves fatter, and it just wont be the same size Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is to say, bracket it with four pairs of equals signs, we'll still read it as a new subsection anyway Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ill do it as is, perhaps you or someone else can make it big, and i also realised the safety correction the faa gave spacex, six of those will be implemented on the future, do you know what they are? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 10:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have now done the first sentence that will introduce the reader to our examples (what youll write in). Also the title still needs to made big Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 10:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are: change certain booster valve timing, improve oxygen valve design, improve oxygen valve seal design, improve design of hot manifold, redesign network architecture, and improve igniter seal design
Nevermind, someone edited the preparation for 17th launch date, and deleted it, should i rewrite it? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I shan't. I'm not in the mood. I will wait for more feedback from other editors. Seeing as your edit was reversed due to neutral POV violations, I would suggest seeking consensus from more people. Honestly, I would say that the design changes need to be divided and incorporated into each subject (design changes to the Raptor should go in the Raptor section, the hot staging ring should be discussed in the Super Heavy section and so on) Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 13:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That could also work, sadly there isnt much activity right now. I just wonder how it violated neutral pov. But hey, more feedback is always good Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New update: it has been changed to November 18 after a grid fin actuator failure. Please update accordingly Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True, totally forgot to say, sadly the livestream starts at 5am for me. Is it okay to say musk said via a post on x, or should i figure out the citation? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If im correct its a raptor1, wich is the oldest and most complex of them. We should get a picture about raptor 2 or 3 if possible. But thats just my idea Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 11:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, but perhaps we should use multiple images showing the time progression Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thats also possible, but that would drag put the article, wich we really dont want right now Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 08:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Id rather wait for more feedback regarding this Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also im pretty new, dont know these codes and stuff, id rather just bring it to light and let others do it. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Starship Design Process Article
Due to the size of this article, I mentioned the possibility of creating a separate article, called "Starship Design Process", based on a
CodemWiki
,
"
SpaceX ambition of colonizing Mars#Prior launch vehicle proposals to this new article. Who's with on that idea?" Redacted II (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Sounds good, iam currently working on future design changes in the history section, perhaps we could move that to that too.? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 06:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go with Success (but I'm willing to switch to Partial Failure), as it almost made orbital velocity. A failed booster landing doesn't count as a failure (otherwise, you'd have a lot more Falcon 9 failures listed), and the same applies to the ship. Redacted II (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The booster failing to be recovered doesn't effect launch, but if the Starship itself was lost during the launch then it can't be a successful launch.
CtrlDPredator (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
It almost made it to orbit. Given the goals of the flight (successful staging), I'd call it a success. But, you are right. It should be a Partial Failure. Redacted II (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Never said that it was a Partial Failure. Please don't speak on my behalf.
We already came to a consensus before about how we treat these launches like any other vehicle launch and not using company milestones as a measure of if the launch was successful.
CtrlDPredator (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry.
But even for another rocket (so long as it wasn't carrying a payload), I think it would (and should) be labeled partial failure.
Don't change the infobox (again) until you have a consensus (EDIT: It wasn't you the second time. Sorry) Redacted II (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. The launch carried no payload, so if no payload exists, no payload can be lost. It was purely to test the vehicle. The expectancies and goals for SpaceX were pretty low for both launches. Countless amounts of data have been collected from both. A true failure would be (for IFT1) to not get off the pad or (for IFT2) to RUD prior to hot-staging. The mission did not reach all its goals, but it reached some of the most important which were set as the main goalposts for this launch, and that goes for IFT1 as well. Partial Failure should be the classification for both. CaptHorizon (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, IFT-1 is irrelevant to this discussion. It can get it's own discussion after this has been resolved Redacted II (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CtrlDPredator (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
In my personal opinion I believe that we should take the word of mainstream news publications over the 'muskosphere' for the lack of a better term. Death Editor 2 (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying NasaSpaceflight, possibly the most reliable source of information regarding spaceflight, is part of a "muskosphere"?
Now that's just ridicolous. Redacted II (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they are the most reliable source regarding spaceflight. Death Editor 2 (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did say possibly. But who is more reliable? Redacted II (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The major media groups all have presences for this event. It's not some smaller topic where coverage is restricted to "spaceflight" (er, more space launch, a lot of the time) outlets.
Two more reports to add to the pile with failure in the headline: [1][2] Of course do keep in mind that not everyone is saying that... others like WaPo and CNBC are reporting neither success nor failure. Sub31k (talk) 14:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC) Sub31k (talk) 14:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that, I think it's reasonable to declare it a partial failure. Redacted II (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wonder what the differentiation is to be made between neither failure nor success and both failure and success. Sub31k (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a fairly even mix. Redacted II (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shifting right for readability.
@Sub31k, I don't think there is a difference between "Both failure and success" and "Neither failure nor success", because either way, it points to partial failure. Redacted II (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is able to be a failed launch (which is what we are dealing with in the infobox) and a successful outcome for SpaceX in that it was able to reach more milestones. You need to be really careful in conflating the two.
CtrlDPredator (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I think I am doing okay in not mixing the two, but I'll keep that in mind.
But the source I linked called it both a success and a failure. My ability to differentiate between launch failure and mission failure is irrelevant to that. Redacted II (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not a great idea to leave it as "success" until media come out with reports on the event. Sub31k (talk) 13:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's Wikipedia policy. Until consensus has been reached, status quo must be maintained. Redacted II (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, putting up any status right now without reference to reporting might raise an eyebrow given the row last time. Sub31k (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Elon Musk’s next-generation craft reaches space but presumed to have failed minutes later, after explosion during first test in April"
Another for failed.
CtrlDPredator (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
We'll probably have a roughly 50/50 split in sources, same as IFT-1 did. Redacted II (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Reuters' Joey Roulette is actually having a discussion about it, publically, with the Washington Post's Chris Davenport on Twitter. Sub31k (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting... we'll have to see the outcome of this discussion, and most likely go with it, whether they call it a partial failure, success, or failure. Redacted II (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete the fields. They create more problems than they solve. Success or failure is a matter of opinion and the fields are inviting editors to pick the "correct" option. Foonix0 (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a spaceX mission, the company defines the mission parameters. The main article mentions that SpaceX often sets a low bar for success on test missions. If one of the mission goals is to gather flight data it will always be a partial success if it clears the pad. BronzeSpider (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is this a success? It's a partial failure. We already went over this once before; it's a failure if it fails to achieve the overwhelming majority of it's objectives, and it's a partial failure if it achieves a decent amount of them. It achieved a decent amount of them.
That being said the RS's are describing this as a failure right now, so there's that. Chuckstablers (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A CNN article called it a partial failure and the NasaSpaceflight stream called it a success. So, the reliable sources are "undecided" (similar to IFT-1). Redacted II (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, thanks! I think partial failure is fine here honestly. Do you have any others that call it a success? So far here's what I have
To summarize: you can argue for failure based on the RS's, given that they're not close to uniform in that assessment I think partial failure is the appropriate option. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't call #4 reliable (not objecting to CBS, but the title of the article), as Starship did enter space.
And a NSF article (I'm not sure if they count as major media, but they are a very reliable source) states:
Other than that, I think this is an excellent collection of the different views of major media sources Redacted II (talk) 12:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's 7 describing explicit failure and 5 more describing a premature end. Sub31k (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That shows there isn't a decisive majority to either side, as premature end doesn't equal failure. Redacted II (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i dunno, it'd be more clearly like that if it the writing was of the flavor "successful but ended prematurely" rather than "ends in explosion"; words have differing implications. there is not really much energy in this writing for something resembling "partial failure", at least from my reading of these articles Sub31k (talk) 05:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand the rules correctly (and I could very, very easily be wrong), then "Successful but ended prematurely" would be a success, not a partial failure. "Ended prematurely" is partial failure, and failed doesn't need further explanation.
I haven't spent much time reading those articles, so if you say they support the label of failure, then your probably right. Redacted II (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a look at it, out of the list provided by Chuckstablers, I'm clocking 8 of them as a "failure" interpretation, 3 as "partial failure", and 2 as "partial success". Interpretations may vary, though! Sub31k (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Partial failure and Partial success are the same category. The NSF article I linked counts it as a success/partial success.
I'll go through all of the articles to see if I agree later today Redacted II (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest Partial Failure because it passed through stage separation and SECO but SpaceX had to terminate the flight because they lost signal of the second stage. So it almost made it to orbit but not completely. Also, speaking of this, we need some strictly definite criteria of a success, a partial success/failure, and a failure. 87.200.147.139 (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. Don’t list both the first and second launches as failures, nor success. Partial failures will do. CaptHorizon (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing IFT-1 should get it's own discussion AFTER this has been resolved Redacted II (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
something that is almost a success is still a failure. It's not a partial failure it's just a failure. Death Editor 2 (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Failure is an actual category. Redacted II (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was a consensus around this reach earlier this year on the failure.
Other Partial Failures for other launch vehicles usually have them completing the launch to orbit but either under-performing or having the wrong orbital characteristics, without the loss of the vehicle or it's payload.
This launch was kinda the reverse, it was looking fine but then it blew up.
CtrlDPredator (talk) 13:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
You don't have a consensus. Please revert your last edit.
Wikipedia policy states: until a consensus is reached, status quo is maintained.
So, until you have a consensus, you cannot change the status quo Redacted II (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo.
The consensus was previously established and a notice was put up not to change the status, but you did so multiple times.
What is a rule is the 3RR rule, which you have already breached.
CtrlDPredator (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I must have miscounted.
But Wikipedia does have a bias towards the status quo during a discussion. This is separate from IFT-1, so the consensus formed for that launch doesn't apply to this one. Redacted II (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's concerning that we're deciding on categorization based on unwritten guidelines of Wikipedia itself. This is exactly why Wikipedia's reputation of being a factual source is in free fall.
The ONLY criteria for "success" and "failure" should be the launch company's own stated criteria. It's ludicrous, in my opinion, that we get to supersede the provider's own objectives. Hypothetically, a launch could achieve every single stated mission goal and still be marked a failure on this wiki, providing "reach orbit" wasn't one of the stated goals. 93.162.16.32 (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See
WP:PRIMARY, which emphasise that independent and secondary sources are the preferred standard. Primary non-independent sources, like SpaceX's statements, are ideally supported by clarification of who said it and why. The discussion here is not about building our own interpretation, it's about writing about what's already been written by credible, reliable sources (which may still be open to debate). Sub31k (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
In my opinion, I believe there needs to be separate categories, "partial success" and "partial failure". Partial success is when for example, Starship fails to place a payload into the correct orbit but it is closer to a success than a failure. Partial failure is when the launch is closer to a failure than a success, such as a loss of the vehicle above the Karman line. Note that this is merely the outcome of the launch in question and does not count any milestones achieved.
I believe labeling IFT2 as a complete failure is not accurate. IFT-2 would, in my view should be a partial failure, since this is exactly what happened. I believe this would address some concerns that IFT-2 was the opposite of a typical partial success/failure. 87.200.147.139 (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Separating "Partial Success" and "Partial Failure" sounds like a really good idea. I recommend discussing that at the Project Spaceflight talk page. Redacted II (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. I think this needs wider discussion. 87.200.147.139 (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly be more likely to accept labelling this as a partial failure, however by the standards often cited in the IFT-1 discussion, no (near) orbit, no partial failure, I think we should stick to a failure again. The body will contain enough further explanations for the degrees of success and failure like it does for IFT-1. 2A02:810A:B80:EB4:4ECC:6AFF:FEF8:6777 (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would call it partial failure, but by standards, it is failure, and i dont wanna repeat the same thing as last launch Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or at least people say it is by standards a failure Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although B9 blew up after hot staging, S25 almost made it to orbit but not completely. I think this needs wider discussion. 87.200.147.139 (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we could make actual fully capable starships and the prototypes separate, as to better reflect what exactly happened Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 08:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that was already discussed a while ago, but correct me if I am wrong. 87.200.147.139 (talk) 09:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but people seem more supportive this time. So i thougth id bring it up again Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 09:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a war. Someone just reverted partial failure to failure again. I belive he is the person with the numbers as name. Dont edit it until it has been talked about. And the reasoning is “failure is failure” Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 11:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This now appears to have started a long edit war (no 3RR violations but clear edit warring) between multiple people. Might need to get some attention to this page. 87.200.147.139 (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, his reasoning is bad too. Shouldnt we lock down the page like last time? Just asking Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 12:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest page protection while I get this sorted on the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page. 87.200.147.139 (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Page semi-protected. Sub31k (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case am fine with it standing as partial failure in the meantime. Will self revert if it hasn't already been done. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just have to say; if we go with anything but failure here we are treating Starship with the kid gloves and are not being consistent with our core policies. Here's how we've treated it in the past:
Launch 2: "Successful first-stage burn and transition to second stage, maximal altitude 289 km. Harmonic oscillation at T+5 minutes. Premature engine shutdown at T+7 min 30 s. Failed to reach orbit." Outcome: Failure
Launch 3: "Residual stage-1 thrust led to collision between stage 1 and stage 2." Outcome: Failure
Launch 4: "Centaur engine failure followed by RSO destruct." Outcome: Failure
Launch 5: "An improperly torqued set screw caused the Atlas sustainer engine to drop to 75% thrust starting at T+25 seconds. By booster staging at T+120 seconds, sustainer thrust was down to 60%. The payload was placed in an unusable orbit. This was the last failed launch involving an Atlas vehicle." Outcome: Failure, guys this one even got into orbit! We still called it a failure!
Launch 61: "Defective valve in Stage 1 caused a hydraulic fluid leak and loss of engine gimbaling at T+220 seconds, making it impossible for the second stage to reach orbit. RSO T+480 seconds." Outcome: Failure
You would have to admit that anything but failure, based off of how we treat launches in the past, would be inconsistent and require applying special standards that I'm still not clear about. The standards we've used in the past are very clear; if it fails to achieve any one of it's major objectives then it failed. If it doesn't reach orbit; it failed. Almost isn't good enough.
Now; we get the reliable sources. Please see our conversations below on this; I don't want to take up more space by posting a list of 20 links. Needless to say; I think we have 8 or 9 pretty high quality reliable sources explicitly calling it a failure. I think we have one editorial calling it a success.
I don't see the justification consistent with our core policies on Wikipedia for treating Starship differently than every other rocket, though I'm open minded and would like to hear them. Falcon 1.0 was a test flight; it got higher than this one and faster. We have an Atlas launch that got it's payload into orbit and is STILL a failure! I just don't see how we can classify this as anything but given that.
Like I said; I'm open minded and would be interested in hearing peoples thoughts given the precedent. I just don't see a rationale that holds up to scrutiny, apart from "it achieved some of it's objectives". Some, but not most. It achieved 3 of it's objectives post launch, partially achieved one, failed nine. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I am in very firm agreement with that. We shouldn't be treating Starship any differently to any other launch. There is strong precedent here, as well as sources and the previous decision on the first launch.
CtrlDPredator (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
It wanted to put smth to orbit, but it failed. Failure. Staship ift2. Goal: stage separation, done, far surpassed. If we were musk fanboys we would say it was succesfull, but we dont. The flights you mentioned lost their payload, didnt reach their goal. Makes sense to me🤷♂️ Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 06:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's not accurate. It had more goals than stage sep as per the FAA.
Nobody said you're Musk fanboys, but if you're arguing for anything but failure you're treating Starship differently and that's not acceptable (in my view). Chuckstablers (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"How is this a success? It's a partial failure. We already went over this once before; it's a failure if it fails to achieve the overwhelming majority of it's objectives, and it's a partial failure if it achieves a decent amount of them. It achieved a decent amount of them.
That being said the RS's are describing this as a failure right now, so there's that. Chuckstablers (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)"[reply]
You admitted that it's a partial failure.
Now, it did have more goals than stage sep, but only one of those goals are required for success by established precedent (SECO).
So, it achieved all but one of the required goals for success. That's partial failure. Redacted II (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The flight success rate should be changed to better reflect the RUD of both stages during IFT-2. I believe as the flight made it pass the Karman line before RUD, it should be declared partially successful instead of fully successful. Spaceman2288 (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to call it successful. Litmus test: in retrospect would SpaceX have preferred to have scrubbed and launched next week instead of what actually happened. Clearly not, ergo successful mission. Seehart (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Successful as a test, but not successful as an orbital launch. Our tables generally cover the latter. --mfb (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through other launch lists, they suggest that it doesn’t matter if it made it to the Karman Line, completing the actual mission is what counts. The Falcon 1 second flight (which made it higher than Starsships) is listed as failure. CoastRedwood (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't true Feher. Including liftoff as an objective, it achieved 4 of it's stated objectives in it's FAA mission plan, partially achieved one, and failed to achieve 9. That's not 80%.
Please see Falcon 1, Atlas 1, and Delta. I mean come on; there's an Atlas I launch where the rocket entered orbit, with a payload, and we still marked it as a failure! Not a partial failure, just a failure. Why? Because the payload was so far outside of it's planned orbit it was useless.
That's how strict the precedent is for failure vs success vs partial failure. These have traditionally been well defined things on Wiki Spaceflight, and only with Starship has this caused any controversy, for reasons that are pretty apparent to me but I won't get into for all of our sakes (though I admit I find myself somewhat frustrated on occasion here). Chuckstablers (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The goal was to reach suborbit, splashdown hawaii. The burn was somehwat complete, splashdown didnt happen. Even if its not 80, most certainly was complete. If you say staging was the only goal its 100% Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The atlas 1 example you gave i think perfectly describes whats the difference between the two. If it were close to the intended orbit, it would be partial failure, because it did not its failure. Makes sense. Staship completed most objectives (non required doesnt matter), but still failed, makeing it partial failure. I dont know why you say we treat it as special. I could def say its a full on succes, wich WOULD be treating it as special. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 2nd Falcon 1 launch is very similar to the second Starship launch. Both had separation but failed during their 2nd stage. For the Falcon 1, SpaceX didn't have high expectations for that launch, and publicly declared afterwards that it completed 95% of their objectives, but here it is still a launch failure.
The second Starship launch is no different to that 2nd Falcon 1 launch, but if we class the outcome of the launch differently, even by saying it was a partial failure, then we are treating it as special and are applying different standards to Starship than all other launch vehicles.
CtrlDPredator (talk) 08:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The thing is, if 95% done, in my opnion would def be partial failure. Also spacex was running low on money, and couldnt really afford a failure. Wether they used the same iterative design changes is debatable. Id say that should be partial failure too, if we apply the same logic. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 08:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what the financial state of the company has on the actual outcome of a launch.
There are lots of times a company or agency has said positive things about their launch despite the fact it wasn't successful, and I am not just talking SpaceX, but also the USSR and even NASA for the Apollo 6 launch.
Falcon 1 was not a partial failure, it was just a launch failure, same with Starship.
CtrlDPredator (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
What point say for you that it is failure exactly? What was its goal? Orbit? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well not blowing up during launch for a start, that is a non-negotiable. I can't find any other launches where the launch vehicle was lost during launch being classed as something other than failure.
If it gets to orbit (without blowing up), but the orbital characteristics are incorrect and it effects it's ability to complete all of it's mission, then it is a partial failure. That is roughly what other launches are held to.
CtrlDPredator (talk) 10:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I think actual launch and test flight are a bit different scenarios Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore, for test flights, we should look at goal/launch milestones to rate if it failed. A non test flight launch blowing up means losing payload, aka failure Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 11:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But we haven't done that in the past. The N1 launches were tests. So many other flights had boilerplate payloads just to simulate launch mass. Yet here people are suggesting to treat Starship differently.
CtrlDPredator (talk) 11:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
We dont N1 clearly didnt achive anything other then liftoff. And this “new” way shouldnt only be applied to the past Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Falcon 1 set their success point as orbit for every test flight. That has not been the case with Starship. Ergzay (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The flight plan for both Starship launches has been to reach a TAO orbit.
CtrlDPredator (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, the second came quiet close, ending the burn too fast, and exploding after, no payload was lost though. Id say its appropriate since it came so close to call it partial failure Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 10:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same as the Falcon 1 second launch, it didn't reach orbit and the vehicle was lost. That is just a failure, it isn't even close to other partial failures.
CtrlDPredator (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Doesn't matter Feher. It didn't achieve orbit. Chuckstablers (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It wasnt going to achieve orbit, it came just wrong of its planned suborbit Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was always planned to be an orbital flight, just a transatmospheric orbit, where the perigee is inside the atmosphere. That is still orbital, not a sub-orbital flight.
CtrlDPredator (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Alright, but it still came pretty close to the target speed/altitude. And everything else was fine. So why exactly do you call this failure level miss? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was a fair way off it's target speed and altitude when it exploded, so no it wasn't close and it didn't reach orbit.
CtrlDPredator (talk) 10:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Under 1km/s. And it would have reached an orbit, just lower. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1km/s is a lot, that is more than 10% of it's target speed.
CtrlDPredator (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
It would not have reached an orbital trajectory, as it's perigee would be within the atmosphere. Redacted II (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So orbit. AND it carried some payload no? And that was lost. Loosing a payload is automatic failure, no? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And also number one and two didnt come very close to orbit Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 10:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
CtrlDPredator
This is just embarrassing levels of Bludgeoning. I woke up today to find over 20 notifications. 16 of them were from you two. So, my recommendation is this: take a break to cool down, maybe for a day or two. There is no Rush. Redacted II (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have been having a conversation, I am not trying to bludgeon Fehér Zsigmond-03, they are asking questions directed to me and I am giving my reply.
As for the number of notifications, @
CtrlDPredator (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
fair.
I was just trying to give a warning. Redacted II (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many appear to have really strong opinion's about this. I think inevitably it was a failure because it didn't achieve all of its goals, not even the majority. Then in the very end both parts were lost a total failure. 120.22.209.92 (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've said this before: it did achieve the vast majority of it's goals.
According to precedent established by Falcon 9, landing/recovery (including the boostback burn) isn't a requirement for success.
So, at worst, it failed 2 of the mission goals: SECO and entry interface. And I would count entry interface as a part of the second stage landing.
Meanwhile, for the goals it reached, that includes staging, MECO, MAX-Q, and liftoff.
It also almost completed the second stage burn, with premature cutoff 30 second early. The under performance is small enough to make it count as a partial failure. Redacted II (talk) 13:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2 failed, 4 success. That is a majority, for success, not failure. Hence, partial failure. Redacted II (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of this entire discussion? If you personally think it's successful or unsuccessful, that's fine, but there is a whole lot of talk about personal opinions on an issue without consideration to whether or not it's relevant to how it should be covered on Wikipedia. Sub31k (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ship failed to even reach SECO, let alone the mission goal of splashdown off the coast of Hawaii. From SpaceX themselves the vehicle self destructed because it was not going to make it. That alone constitutes a full failure designation. Only scenario where "partial failure" could be applicable is if the ship made it through reentry but suffered a failure during atmospheric descent to the surface which would be somewhat akin to ending up in a wrong, but still usable orbit like Atlas V's partial failure. Brooklindevil (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Splashdown isnt something “active”, where the ship is actively doing something. And yes. Seco was somewhat failed, it shut down a bit early. The thing is. It was a BIT early, if it werent for safety zone it would have been probably fine. Splashdown isnt really a goal, but rather the finish line in this sense Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 10:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Landing doesn't matter for success v failure (when uncrewed, for obvious reasons). This has been established by dozens (I haven't bothered to count) of Falcon 9 failed landings.
Failure is the ship failing a bit before it actually did, or any kind of RUD during the boosters ascent phase. Redacted II (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We could also have to look at the examples the people who say classify it as fsilure say, because many are similar situations, yet classed as failure. But thats for after we have a concensus. But how could we reach it? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Establishing common ground, and making compromises. Redacted II (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We were trying to show why we think it was bad or bettter, convincing the other was kinda a side effect. And i think the def also includes useless, or smth wich id say our convo wasnt Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will note.
"Chuckstablers (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)" states 'it achieved 4 goals totally and failed 9', which is not over half its not even half.
Also most of the launches being used to claim this was a success or partial success use SpaceX's equipment to justify these claims. Without looking at any older datapoints of the NASA or Soviet launches.
Lastly the use of a Falcon 9 launch to justify a 'partial failure' further supports my statements in my opinion. 120.21.2.81 (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The failed 9 stat is false and violates consistency with Falcon 9, as the remaining 7 failures are with the landing procedure, which doesn't count for failure. Therefore, 9 becomes 2. Redacted II (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the best way to describe the launch is this: Starship failed, but Starship didn't. Redacted II (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While that may be confusing to some, i think it describes the situation well Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 06:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox image
If we can, we should get a photo of starship in flight, the videos were gorgeus Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've yet to see anyone freely release their photographs/videos they took of the launch, which would be an issue as they'd own the copyright and it'd violate the image use policy. Eventually we'll probably find one, might take a while though. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it looks like I'm the only one taking free pictures down at the launch site. I still have some photos of the vehicle on the pad that I need to get around to uploading at that point. Pleased with how this flight turned out, got much better photos than the last one [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 22:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Add to this as you see fit, I'm of the opinion that we go by the sources, I don't see the need to rehash our previous discussion which lasted far too long, wasted far too much of our editors time, and ultimately ended up aligning with the consensus view in the sources anyway. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The IFT-1 wikipedia consensus was to discard the subject-mater expert consensus in favor of the journalist consensus. Foonix0 (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are not having this debate again. Redacted II (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
19 is misleading, as it didn't explode immediately.
I think the sources are pushing more and more towards partial failure, but I am admittably biased. Redacted II (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these sources are talking about the failure of IFT-1. 87.200.147.139 (talk) 05:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked, they aren't, not sure what you're talking about. Chuckstablers (talk) 07:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to reassess them if you provide the source that you think is discussing IFT-1 and we can look at it? But I just confirmed all of them manually. Chuckstablers (talk) 08:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant by that previous reply was that most but not all of the source were talking about the failure of IFT-1. For example, number 6 and 13. For now I will stop adding comments here so as to not bludgeon the discussion and I will seek wider input. 87.200.147.139 (talk) 08:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Number 13 calls IFT a failure "SpaceX's starship failed it's test flight this morning".
Number 6 does not, just citing that it blew up prematurely and didn't reach space.
Summarizing: 7/13 explicitly call IFT-2 a failure, 2/13 call it "mostly successful" or a "successful learning experience", 4/13 don't call it a failure or success, noting that it was destroyed/ended prematurely. Chuckstablers (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So failure 7, partial failure 6. There isn't a decisive majority.
News media articles, especially headlines, are heavily biased towards negativity, because that’s what gets clicks and views.
They only factors for success or failure should be the evaluation of factual outcomes against stated mission objectives. 93.162.16.32 (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See
WP:INDEPENDENT for preference for independent sources (for example, prefer media vs a company itself when talking about a company or company's product). This suggestion might also be synthesis of source material, also something to be avoided. Sub31k (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
You can call them biased, but that's what the reliable sources are saying. Chuckstablers (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I belive number 4 is just wrong. Karman line is 100km, no? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I had a similar objection Redacted II (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See the wikipedia page for the Karman line: "at an altitude of 100 kilometres (54 nautical miles; 62 miles; 330,000 feet) above mean sea level. However, such definition of the edge of space is not universally adopted.".Chuckstablers (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only other definition of space (that I know of) is 80 km/50 miles. Redacted II (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Leading with words like "failure" and "explosion" are kind of like putting the headline “Derek Jeter had a strikeout” on a news story about the 2001 World Series game in which he later hit a walk-off home run. Like, it’s accurate. But it’s a lazy take that completely misses the point." Foonix0 (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So. 7 sources support failure, and eight support partial failure.
@Chuckstablers, let's stick with the sources and call it a partial failure (of a prototype, if I may be so bold) Redacted II (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With all respect but that article written by Eric Berger doesnt make much sense. Claiming success based of comparison to different launch system which accomplished all mission goals, because only part of SLS that is new is the corse stage, therefore other parts dont count and here booster also flew well till staging, really makes me question creditability of both article and the author. This article reads more like massive damage control rather than objective take on situation 2A00:F41:580B:6493:8D4:FE01:5FA6:9061 (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Almost no pieces are supporting "partial failure". It's between framing as failure, declining to frame in terms of success/failure at all, and two pieces that frame as success. Sub31k (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Taking a look at it, out of the list provided by Chuckstablers, I'm clocking 8 of them as a "failure" interpretation, 3 as "partial failure", and 2 as "partial success". Interpretations may vary, though! Sub31k (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)"[reply]
You said that about the same thirteen sources. Today. Redacted II (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. Interpretations, vary, so, to elaorate, of the 5 non-failure articles:
ABC does not comment on overall assessment - "successful booster lift-off and booster separation" is a discussion of milestones
CNBC: "successfully separating before its booster... before destroyed in flight", discussion of milestones. Incidentally mentions FAA mishap investigations as they pertain to rocket launch failures
NBC: "mostly successful"
NatGeo: "hit most of its goals"
LA Times: "the booster and ship did successfully separate"
A charitable interpretation: 3 counts towards partial success (based on achievement of milestones) and 2 towards partial failure (based on "mostly successful").
An uncharitable interpretation: 3 reports of failure with milestones achieved before failure, 2 towards partial failure.
All of this also requires some reading-in-between-the-lines as opposed to the larger body of reporting that explicitly describes the events as ending in failure. Sub31k (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the CNN article to be a non-failure article, but as you said, interpretations vary. Redacted II (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's much room for differing opinions for the CNN one. Two direct quotes from the article.
"The root cause of the Starship rocket’s failure on Saturday was not immediately clear."
"The failure could spell significant delays for Starship’s development and the key missions lined up on its manifest, most notably NASA’s Artemis III mission. The US space agency tapped Starship in 2021 to serve as the lunar lander for that mission." Chuckstablers (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I must have missed those sentences.
Guess I was wrong (again). Redacted II (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have mixed feelings about this and really don't want a repeat of what happened last time; that was unpleasant. We have far more sources indicating failure than success, so there is no justification as we discuss this for it to be kept as partial failure. That would be keeping the minority view in the reliable sources as the default, and that's not appropriate in my opinion.
Following past spaceflight instances, a partial failure occurs when the rocket achieves nearly all objectives except for one, usually due to underperformance or failure to inject the payload into the correct orbit (though this is a test flight with no payload).
Three post-liftoff objectives were achieved
, one partially (booster boostback ignition with 9/10 engines lit, most flaming out immediately followed by booster loss), and nine were not achieved. According to prior precedent, this would categorize the launch as a failure since one or more objectives as per the FAA flight plan were not met.
More reliable sources label it a failure than a success; a few of those that don't can be seen as supporting a partial failure, but most would imply a failure. A careful reading of sources is necessary to determine their stance.
Objectively, it was far more successful than the first flight. We can't deny that. The first flight barely left the launchpad, reaching a max speed of 2,100 km/h and an altitude of 40 km. This one reached a ground speed of around 24,124 km/h, with an orbital velocity of ~25,834 km/h or ~7176 m/s. It reached 148 km; doing the math, it would've needed to be going 7,817 m/s to be in it's planned 250 by 50 km orbit at that point. Depending on the angle of its velocity to the horizon at the time of the loss of the second stage, it ended with an orbit somewhere between 148 km by -1622 km and 250 km by -1724 km using the vis-viva equation. So, it was far more successful and will be reflected in the body of the text regardless of how we categorize the outcome.
Ultimately, it boils down to two factors: what do reliable sources indicate, and did the mission fulfill all its objectives fully or partially? Typically, we categorize success or failure by examining the mission timeline and objectives. If all objectives are fully met, it's a success. If one or more are partially met, we label it a partial failure. If one or more objectives are not met, then it's considered a failure. Following this metric, it would be classified as a failure.
With regards to criticism from some editors with regards to source bias; "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."
WP:BIASED. I don't think this type of debate would be productive given this policy. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
One form of partial failure is the second stage underperforming, inserting the payload into the wrong orbit. As this was supposed to be transatmospheric, a underperformance would result in it being suborbital, with a trajectory similar to IFT-2s. A 700 m/s shortfall for a GTO mission would likely be partial failure. So why not for a TEO mission, especially when the payload wasn't lost (due to it not existing)?
For failure/success requirements, anything past stage separation of the booster is "bonus". Anything else would be inconsistent with the articles on Falcon 9. And the same applies to starship. So, your "nine were not achieved" is actually 1 (or two, if you count reentry interface, which I would attach to the ship landing). And according to the precedent you mentioned, that would also make it a partial failure.
Even STS-107 is labeled a partial failure. And seven people died during reentry. That's way, way more of a mission failure than IFT-2.
The
WP:BIASED
policy seems interesting (and counterproductive), but I can't comment further, due to not having read it yet.
Do the majority of sources point to failure: yes. But I don't think it's a huge majority. And remember, with IFT-1, the majority of sources called it a partial failure (they (and I) were wrong. It was a failure), at least according to several who had tried to label IFT-1 as a partial failure. That makes it feel like the rules only apply sometimes, which feels wrong.
I also don't want a repeat of the IFT-1 debate. And there's a lot I'd like to change in this article (such as clearly labeling B7S24 and B9S25 as prototype in the infobox). Redacted II (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, part of the problem last time around was that there was an almost perfectly even split in how media outlets chose to illustrate the rocket launch, and there was not a majority for either way, and certainly not for a partial failure -rather a mission failure but a successful learning experience. P.S. Where did you see STS-106 as partial failure? Sub31k (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The STS-107 issue was fixed (I hadn't double checked when writing that).
The almost perfectly even split is also occurring in this launch, with a bit more of a tilt towards failure, but with significantly more editors pushing for partial failure.
A major part of the IFT-1 problem, though, was my failure to accept defeat. While I wasn't alone in that, I deserve a large amount of the blame. Redacted II (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No need to self-flagellate. There's no thing like "accepting defeat" or "victory" or whatever. We've all got the same goal in the end! Sub31k (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't deserve the blame for that. Everyone got too heated. Easy to get your back up when everyone's being passive aggressive. I didn't help.
Here's where my issue really comes from. See Falcon 1.0, particularly the first two launches; both failures, even though the second one got about as far as Starship did here. "Successful first-stage burn and transition to second stage, maximal altitude 289 km. Harmonic oscillation at T+5 minutes. Premature engine shutdown at T+7 min 30 s. Failed to reach orbit.
If that's a failure, I just can't see how we can, while treating Starship the same as every other rocket, say it's a partial failure, you know? It just feels inconsistent with a neutral POV to be treating Starship with the kid gloves because it's something we all really like and want to succeed. That's kinda where my heads at. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Falcon 1s payload wasn't able to be delivered to a even somewhat functional orbit. Starship didn't have a payload. I think that explains the difference. Also, the Falcon 1 was further from the desired orbit than starship was. 1:37 for Falcon v.s 0:30 Starship (seconds left in the burn time).
I get your NPOV statement. I really do. But I have to disagree with you. I believe that if any other rocket launched with the same goals as IFT-2 (no payload), and had an identical flight to IFT-2, it would be called a partial failure. Redacted II (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it matters, but if you want an example of a prematurely ended payload-less test flight claimed as a success but definitely regarded as failure, you can look at the early Atlas-A flights. Sub31k (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, that definitely matters. Like, you may have just destroyed my entire argument.
I'll have to look into those to see how far off the ones labeled as failures were. Redacted II (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having now looked at them (or at least their Wikipedia descripts), all of the failures seemed to be much farther from the planned trajectory than S25 was, but it's very hard to accurately determine the planned trajectory. Redacted II (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is an opinion piece, not a factual reporting of the events. Very highly editorialised. Sub31k (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a source like any other, seems reliable enough. I think it falls more on the editorial side of things, but I think it's fine to include those. Chuckstablers (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfortunate that Berger makes no distinction betewen editorial writing (which this should very apparently be) and factual reporting (hehe). Anyway see
WP:RSEDITORIAL for words on editorials. Sub31k (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I think that firmly settles it. Redacted II (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Failure Vs. Failure for describing test flights
I believe that Partial failure, with a note explaining what the goal of flight testing was, would be far more accurate than the use of failure and press articles.
These flights aren't operational flights and milestones don't measure success but rather how much insight they can get into the vehicle. This is Iterative design.
Whilst they didn't meet all ideal objectives of the flight they weren't expecting it to as they stated numerous times throughout both the webcast on their website.
Arguably I wouldn't say a success or failure counter is accurate since these are developmental and not operational flights JudaPoor (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it came so close to completing basically any active goal of it, its innacurate to class it the same as last launch Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, if it was up to me, I wouldn't include IFT-1 or IFT-2 in the Infobox, as they are prototypes. Redacted II (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both the booster and the ship failed to achieve their goal and got destroyed. I would say that is a clear cut failure F.Alexsandr (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The booster had 100% success (landing doesn't matter for determing failure/partial failure/success. See Falcon 9)
The ship cut off it's engines 30 seconds early, resulting in the FTS detonating, as the ship would have reentered outside of the allowed zone. It was second stage underperformance, which is a partial failure! Redacted II (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would refer to these an unsuccessful test flights. Until Starship is declared to be operational (or at least begins to carry payloads to orbit), there is no clear definition of "success" and "failure". The importance of these flights is in their helping SpaceX to learn about and refine Starship. In that regard, they are successes. But if the goal is to have Starship complete its flight to the Pacific, then both flights are failures. Hence my view that the test flights were unsuccessful, but not failures. EMS | Talk 00:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Succes is reaching a goal you set, wich this launch definitely did Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unsuccessful, but not a failure, is a partial failure. Redacted II (talk) 13:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There have been other test launches before with no payloads and we haven't treated those any differently to regular launches. It is great for SpaceX to reach all these milestones with Starship, but the launches themselves are still failures.
CtrlDPredator (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Second stage underperformance, to this degree, is a partial failure.
Anything past SECO doesn't impact success v failure.
Same applies for Stage sep when regarding the booster Redacted II (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Second stage didn't reach orbit and was destroyed, that is an extreme level of "under-performance". Classing it as partial failure is completely inconsistent with all other launches.
CtrlDPredator (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
"Extreme level of "underperformance"".
No, actually, it's not. It feel short by less than 1 km/s. Which is consist with GTO partial failures Redacted II (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It did not get to orbit, and while 1km/s sounds small, it is 3600kp/h and more than 10% of the require speed it needed to reach orbit. So it did fall quite a way short of orbit. We also don't know why it under-performed by this much either, with a lot of speculation still floating around, particularly on the O2 falling rapidly towards the end, and no official word yet.
GTO partial failures still reached orbit and one or more of their payloads were still able to reach an appropriate orbit on their own.
CtrlDPredator (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I think several GTO partial failures have left the payload unable to reach the desired orbit, but I'll have to check Redacted II (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be their intended orbit, but something where they are able to be usable, even if in a reduced capacity.
CtrlDPredator (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
A lot of payloads in those missions are 100% worthless if not in GEO.
And again, starship didn't have a payload. So, the "payload couldn't reach desired orbit" bit of failure is 100% null and void (this doesn't mean a flight like starship can't be a failure, after all, IFT-1 happened, but that bit does not apply). Redacted II (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Classifying IFT-2 as anything other than a failure would be inconsistent with the standard every other launch vehicle is held to on Wikipedia. Not only that, but calling it a "partial failure" would likely mislead readers, since every "partial failure" listing on any other orbital rocket's page is only given to launches that at least reached orbit (usually an incorrect orbit). Thus, based on that standard, calling IFT-2 a "partial failure" would likely cause a reader to believe the vehicle reached orbit when it, in fact, did not. Wikipedia is meant to inform readers of the facts, not to give an opinion on how "good" a test was.
The (previously-uncontroversial) judgment is that if a rocket attempts to reach orbit, but fails to do so, then it's a failure, plain and simple. Whether it's a "test" or "developmental" vehicle is irrelevant, it's still universally categorized as a failure.
In addition to the N1 "test" launches and Falcon 1 launches that have already been mentioned in earlier discussions, I will also bring up Rocket Lab Electron's first launch. It too was a test (Rocket Lab literally named the mission "It's a Test"), it too had no payload, it too passed the Kármán Line, it too passed most mission milestones, it too "almost" got to orbit, and what ended up causing the failure wasn't even the rocket itself, but a bug with ground/communication software, software that was developed by a contractor and not Rocket Lab themselves. Yet the mission is still unanimously and uncontroversially considered a "failure" because, regardless of the factors involved, the simple fact is it did not reach orbit.
If Electron's first launch is called a failure next to IFT-2 being called a "partial success/failure", that's giving some very special treatment to Starship. Or it would require some excessively elaborate goalpost-moving. Gojet-64 (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with this assessment. We shouldn't be applying different standards to this launch compared to all other launches.
CtrlDPredator (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
"only given to launches that at least reached orbit (usually an incorrect orbit"
It barely didn't reach the desired orbit. With a perigee as low as the planned final perigee, the zone for partial failure should also be lowered.
The first electron flight was targeting a 500 km orbit. It exploded at 224. I can't call that "almost got to orbit", like I can for IFT-2.
The Falcon 1 flight that was mentioned earlier falls under the same issues: didn't get anywhere near as close.
The N1 launches were much closer to IFT-1, which was a failure. Redacted II (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Almost orbit" is not "orbit". And again, it's important that readers do not get misinformed by "partial failure" which has historically only been given to launches that actually reach orbit, and not some arbitrarily-decided threshold for "almost orbit". And even so, there's no shortage of launches that have reached "almost orbit", but are still soundly classified as failures. I'll be happy to classify a Starship launch as successful if/when one reaches orbit. But as of the time of writing, it has not yet managed that. Gojet-64 (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When the goal is to barely reach orbit, a partial failure (second stage underperformance) isn't going to reach orbit. It will come close (like this one did), but it will still be suborbital.
Can you provide some examples "of launches that have reached "almost orbit", but are still soundly classified as failures"? Because the ones you have so far didn't almost reach orbit. Redacted II (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Therein lies the issue, "almost" is not well-defined. Whereas "orbit" is much more clearly defined (having a perigee/periapsis above the planet's surface). The line has to be drawn somewhere, and "orbit" is a very clear line.
Regarding launches, this: [1] is but one subset of Thor launches, many of which failed due to an early 2nd-stage cutoff within a minute of reaching orbital speed.
Addiontally (as mentioned in previous discussions) there are several Atlas and Thor/Delta launches that actually got into full-on orbits, but are called failures because their payloads were put into useless orbits. However, if we say those "don't count" because they were carrying payloads, that doesn't leave us with a significant number of payloadless launches to work with. Perhaps Starship did indeed get closer to orbit than any other payloadless launch. However, now we're getting into the realm of special pleading and/or moving the goalposts if we're going to call IFT-2 a "partial failure" because 'it got close enough to orbit by an amount that includes Starship but not anything else'. Gojet-64 (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that the goalposts keep moving. Every time examples are giving of similar flights, the conditions for the "partial failure" being argued keep changing to allow Starship to fit it.
CtrlDPredator (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Do they keep changing? I've kept them fairly consistent, and so far your examples have (with one exception, which I don't think should even be classified as a failure, but that's a discussion for a different talk page) failed to met the conditions. Redacted II (talk) 13:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You replying to me or Gojet-64?
CtrlDPredator (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
The Electron flight is actually more than that. It was on track to reach orbit, but miss-configured ground equipment lead the range safety officer to believe it was off course and they terminated the launch. Subsequent review found that it was on a nominal trajectory would have reached orbit. Like Starship's second launch, it was clearly a test launch, it had no payload and was terminated before orbit. Unlike Starship, it was on a nominal trajectory to reach orbit. Yet it was still classed as a failure.
CtrlDPredator (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
It was farther from reaching orbit. We don't know what killed Starship, so it's really, really hard to determine classification.
(Also, I must say, if you are correct (I'm not doubting, you, I just want to double check), then Electron flight 1 shouldn't be a failure so long as the comm glitch wasn't on the vehicle's end) Redacted II (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Electron did get to a higher altitude than Starship, wouldn't say it was further from reaching orbit when it at least got higher.
CtrlDPredator (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
If it was a ground issue, then it shouldn't be a failure, but that's a conversation for the Electron page, not here.
Starship got much closer to it's desired orbit than Electron did, either way. Redacted II (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For Electron, the launch vehicle was lost, that was a failed launch. You asked for examples and this is one of them.
You have even stated that Starship was underperforming and wasn't going to reach orbit (and TAO is a very low orbit), where as Electron was higher and on a nominal trajectory and was going to reach orbit.
CtrlDPredator (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The matter of "was Electron flight 1 a failure" belongs on the Electron talk page, not here.
I stated that it was second stage underperformance, true, but they did say it was on a nominal trajectory during the second stage burn. So we don't know if the trajectory was off or not at the time of SECO. It probably still would have been able to reach orbit (due to immense margin without a payload).
We also don't know if Electron would have reached orbit or not. Something could have happened, but now we are in the realm of speculation. Redacted II (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for an example of a flight without a payload that was close to reaching orbit that was still a failure, and that is the Electron first flight, but now you want to ignore that.
Starship was lost, it was destroyed, it didn't reach orbit and you have already been speculating. You are applying different standards to Starship than other launches.
CtrlDPredator (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Height is only one component of the orbital equation. TAO orbits can potentially have higher apogees (and/or more total energy than) than LEO orbits. These things don't really say anything about which one was "more successful." Foonix0 (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
100% agreed.
Success is based on how close it got to the desired orbit.
A LEO mission intended to be a TLI mission is farther from the desired orbit than IFT-2 was Redacted II (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For every other orbital launch vehicle on Wikipeida, "partial failure" requires at the very least that a vehicle reach orbit. Starship didn't, and you have not provided a compelling reason why Starship should be held to a different standard than every other rocket (a standard which would confuse and mislead readers in the process, as they would expect "partial failure" to mean the vehicle reached orbit). "Reaching orbit" is, and always has been, the essential milestone for a launch vehicle's statistics. But now suddenly we want "almost orbit" to count too? I'm sorry, but "almost made it" still means you didn't make it.
The only way to classify IFT-2 that is consistent with the rest of the encyclopedia is to mark it as a failure. SpaceX might disagree with that, but it's fair to every other launch vehicle, and it's fair to the readers who deserve an accurate description without misleading stats.
If New Glenn or something ends up exploding 5 seconds before reaching orbit, no one is going to be claiming it should be called just a "partial failure". And I don't see any reason to treat Starship differently. Gojet-64 (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"If New Glenn or something ends up exploding 5 seconds before reaching orbit, no one is going to be claiming it should be called just a "partial failure""
You don't know that. Although, given that the first flight of New Glenn will have a Mars bound payload, then just reaching LEO would be a failure.
I think my logic regarding this is very simple: there was no payload, so no payload to lose. Therefore, second stage underperformance causing it to fall short of an orbit is acceptable.
The difference between the intended orbit and suborbital at the desired apogee is 15 m/s. If a launch vehicle trying to reach GTO fell short by 15 m/s, it would be a success, no questions asked. And it feels like that 15 m/s is your range for partial failure. Which would be treating starship differently from every single other vehicle. Redacted II (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have already provided examples where this isn't enough and you are also ignoring that Starship was destroyed
CtrlDPredator (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Redacted; where the heck are you getting 15m/s from? It's OVER 400 M/S DIFFERENCE. What are you talking about?? Look at IFT-2! Use the vis-viva equation this is not difficult. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm taking about the range they seem to be giving for partial failure (not IFT-2's actuall performance). Redacted II (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gojet-64 has summarized my position above, so I won't repeat them unnecessarily.
The
MoS guidance is to use a consistent meaning across instances of the same type of infobox, and in the template documentation
and other launch vehicle articles, partial failure has been applied to mean the rocket should achieve orbit even if it's the incorrect orbit.
|partial = <!--total number of launches resulting in partial failure (e.g. incorrect orbit but still usable), optional-->
IFT-2 failed to reach TAO, and for the debris to reach orbit, Jonathan McDowell stated it would have needed an additional 800 m/s of velocity.[2]
I am really surprised at the way this debate is still carrying on after a week. It seems people are coming up with various elaborate ways of saying the same things, which were mostly all said back in April and May, and coming to the same conclusions. As if the goal was to achieve a proof by exhaustion. Sub31k (talk) 07:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it seems the discussion is going nowhere but in circles. We may have to try something else to reach a consensus on the matter. Gojet-64 (talk) 12:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, but what? Some people say we should go by sources, wich have a roughly 50% split, and then there are people who say 800m/s is too far off, and people who say its a small enough number to make partial failure still apply. I personally say partial because yes, it was short, but it still would have splashed down near hawaii, just outside of the safety zone wich is because it was terminated. I understand if you say early is early, but i think there needs to be a set amount to make only one justifiable with the same claim Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no. Guys this is getting stupid. It's clear, we can keep going in circles but at this point I see two editors who consistently argue for the most favorable classification of the launch and the rest of us. It's not 50/50; not close. I have yet to see a convincing argument in favor of partial failure that is consistent with Wikipedia's core policies of neutrality.
We're treating Starship specially here and we all know it. That's not okay. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, if you want, I'll open a discussion where we can each define what is required for partial failure.
I don't think it's been done before, but I don't have every single debate on the talk pages on every single rocket memorized. Redacted II (talk) 13:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This may be the last thing that can make us reach an agreement Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is silly. It blew up before reaching orbit. That's it. It failed.
Where's the logic here? I'm seeing the same two or three talking points about how "it was close", or "it did achieve it's objectives", etc with zero engagement with the many, many arguments for failure.
Mixed in with the occasional "untruth":statements made, in descending order of how much of a blatant lie they are, include:
1.) Starship was 15 m/s short of it's planned orbit. No; it wasn't. Do the math. This is a fact. reality does in fact exist, and 15 m/s is not close to the remaining delta v required.
2.) The list of sources I provided are actually talking about IFT-1 (no, they aren't, read them, it takes 5 seconds, again a fact).
3.) one of those sources actually doesn't say it was a failure (yes, it does, read it, it takes 5 seconds).
4.) Atlas V had a "complete loss of thrust" and that we'd all be arguing for failure if that was Starship. This of course leaves out the fact that the first stage engine cut off seconds too early, and that the second stage HAD ENOUGH FUEL RESERVES so that this had zero impact on the mission, with Cygnus entering it's intended orbit. Just a bad faith argument while accusing us of being bad faith.
It's hard to build consensus when one side just... lies like this. It's exhausting. I'm tired from it, taking a break and will be back tomorrow. Chuckstablers (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1: read my post, and my response to your post. I don't feel like explaining myself again, but I will if I have to.
2: Huh? IFT-1?! Who brought that up?
3: Which source? Be more specific.
4: I was making a point, not arguing for reclassification.
Don't call me a liar, that's a personal attacks, and it can get you banned.
I'm also done for the day, and I'll also be back tomorrow. Redacted II (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear here; I thought you only did 1. Had I known that 3/4 of those points were actually you I wouldn't have made that comment as I didn't want to call you out (hence why I didn't name you). I want to make it clear that I don't have any problems with you.
That being said I'm going to respond in detail below. I don't think you're intentionally being bad faith or anything here, but I do need to say a few things. I was overly harsh with my language before and I'm genuinely sorry that I offended you.
1. I misunderstood what you meant, apologies. It's just the 15 m/s thing came out of nowhere, and the way I interpreted it is really the only way it reads as a response to the actual argument being presented, ultimately though my bad, I should've double checked it to make sure that was the intended meaning. I go in depth a bit below.
In response to someone saying that, if New Glenn blew up before reaching orbit we wouldn't call it a partial failure, you start talking about a 15 m/s difference in orbital velocity with no relationship to anything being discussed, and then said "it feels like that 15 m/s is your range for partial failure. Which would be treating starship differently".
Your response fails to address the core argument that "partial failure" for such vehicles traditionally requires reaching orbit; your reponse does nothing to challenge to this or provide a counter argument. You bring up a hypothetical scenario, imagine that they'd take a contradictory stance on it, and leave it at that implying they're impartial. It wasn't a counter argument and that's kind of what I have an issue with.
2. (ctrl-f for "most of those sources", wasn't you, like I said, I didn't even think most of these were you).
3. Ctrl-f for "I consider the CNN article to be a non-failure article, but as you said, interpretations vary". The article specifically calls Starship a failure at least twice, you agreed you were wrong there, it just frustrated me and came to mind because it comes across like you didn't read the source and just read the headline, like I said I didn't even remember it was you).
4. You are drawing a false equivalence between the Starship launch where the vehicle blew up and didn't get to orbit and the Atlas V launch where the first stage shut down 5 seconds early and the vehicle got to it's intended orbit delivering a payload. It's not a fair comparison, I hope we can agree on that. While also kind of accusing other editors of being NPOV by saying that we'd all be clamoring for failure if that was Starship (we definitely wouldn't). That's a logical fallacy (false equivalence) and I have to call that out, no disrespect to you meant at all.
I think it's clear you care a lot about Starship and want it to succeed; that's great and it's that kind of passion that is why Wikipedia is successful and exists, and I'm happy that you're here. I really mean that. I also think right now, kinda like last time (and I think you kind of admit this when you said a few days ago that last time you didn't know when to "admit defeat"), your views on Starship are making it difficult to engage in a way consistent with NPOV and general consensus building. Please don't take the wrong way; it's really hard not to do that when you feel strongly about something, but I'd encourage you to take a step back and reassess in light of the arguments that have been presented. Because I'm pretty sure that ultimately this will end up as failure. There's just way too many strong arguments supporting it. Again; didn't mean to upset you and I'm sorry for that. Chuckstablers (talk) 05:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We both crossed a line there. I shouldn't have threatened you with ANI (or wherever it would have gone).
But you have asked for my argument for why, on this mission, reaching orbit isn't a requirement. And here it is.
The difference (at apogee, 250 km) between the planned flight and a suborbital trajectory (perigee altitude: 0 km) is 15 m/s. For most vehicles, a 15 m/s deviation wouldn't be grounds for partial failure, much less failure.
So, if partial failure requires starship to have a perigee above 0 km, then you have a 15 m/s zone for partial failure. And this just seems ridiculous.
Starship was going fast enough to test reentry, so it was (technically, because it would have exited the designated range) a "usable orbit".
I would love to here what you think is the minimum for partial failure on this flight. Redacted II (talk) 12:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to the telemetry shown on the official SpaceX broadcast of IFT-2, Starship reached a maximum speed of 24,124 km/h (6,701 m/s) which is 1,089 m/s short of orbital speed for a 200 km orbit.
Additionally, as we have mentioned before, the threshold for 'partial failure' for any orbital launch vehicle is to reach orbit (which we can define as having a perigee/periapsis above the planet's surface). Since a 'usable' orbit would still need to be an 'orbit', it stands to reason that 'reaching orbit' is the minimum requirement for 'partial failure' (for orbital launch attempts). Gojet-64 (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One: that leaves a 15 m/s range for starship, which for any other launch would be considered absurd.
Two: it wasn't going to enter a 200 km orbit. The semi majoral axis was 150 km. Redacted II (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1: As explained above, it was 1,089 m/s short from reaching orbit, not 15 m/s.
2: A 150 km orbit would actually have a slightly higher orbital speed (200km was just one of the numbers I had on hand at the time), meaning it fell short by even more than the 1,089 m/s quoted earlier. Gojet-64 (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1: The 15 m/s is the area you seem to be allowing for partial failure. Please read what I say before responding.
2: not at the location it failed. At 148 km (it's final altitude), a semimajoral axis of 150 km will result in a lower velocity than a semimajoral axis of 200 km. Redacted II (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1: For every other orbital launch vehicle, 'orbit' is the minimum required for a partial failure. The MoS indicates that a partial failure is 'incorrect orbit but still usable". You can't be in an 'incorrect orbit' if you're not in orbit at all.
2: Incorrect, that's not how orbital mechanics work; lower orbits have higher orbital velocity. Consider that typical LEO satellites have an orbital velocity of around 7,500-7,800 m/s, while GPS satellites in MEO are around 3,900 m/s, while geostationary satellites orbit at about 3,100 m/s. Also, 150km and 200km in this context is referring to the orbital altitude, not the semi-major axis. To get the semi-major axis, you need to add in the Earth's radius. Gojet-64 (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1: I'm objecting to that because it allows a 15 m/s range. And the final velocity would have been usable to test reentry, so it was a usable suborbital trajectory. See
for an example of reentry testing on a suborbital trajectory.
2: At 148 km, a semimajoral axis of 150 km will result in a lower velocity than if the semimajoral axis was at 200 km.
Use the vis-viva equation. SQRT(GM*(2/r-1/a))
G=6.6742*10^-11, M is the mass of the earth (in kg), r is the distance from the center of mass of the starship-earth system, and a is the semimajoral axis.
You will often see semi-majoral axis exclude the radius of the earth, you just have to add it back in. It's much easier to write that way.
I think your assuming I'm talking about a circular orbit, but I'm referring to an elliptical one, where, at a given altitude, the higher the semi-majoral axis, the higher the velocity. Redacted II (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are correct about the velocity of elliptical orbits. However, we're not arguing that 15 m/s (or any arbitrary number) should be considered the margin of error for a partial failure. The criteria for a "partial failure" is a "usable orbit", with "usable" being dependent on what the mission objectives are. How big the error margins are is largely irrelevant, as it will vary from mission to mission; some will have a big margin for error, others small. What matters is whether the orbit is "usable" or not to fulfill all goals/objectives of the launch.
I've been giving Starship the benefit of the doubt and saying we only judge its launch performance, not its launch + landing performance. If we consider the mission objective was to test reentry, then that doesn't help Starship's case, since you need the vehicle intact to test that. The mission would still be considered a failure since it failed to test reentry (regardless of whether or not it was at a good enough speed/orbit to test it, since it literally blew up). Gojet-64 (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Keeping it near the left for maximum readability):
"If we consider the mission objective was to test reentry, then that doesn't help Starship's case, since you need the vehicle intact to test that"
Please separate mission and launch success. An excellent example of this is Apollo 13. Even though the mission failed, the launch was a success.
"However, we're not arguing that 15 m/s (or any arbitrary number) should be considered the margin of error for a partial failure."
Yes you are. The orbit requirement gives a 15m/s range for partial failure. While you aren't arguing for it directly, your doing so indirectly.
"How big the error margins are is largely irrelevant, as it will vary from mission to mission; some will have a big margin for error, others small."
This launch, given that it had no payload, should have had a huge error margin.
"The criteria for a "partial failure" is a "usable orbit", with "usable" being dependent on what the mission objectives are."
Agreed. And the final velocity was fast enough to test the tiles. So it was in a usable trajectory. Redacted II (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with Starship launches and landings being counted separately. Although, that's going to be dependent on the mission. Consider for example that the Space Shuttle, on every flight, was not only supposed to reach orbit, but also bring back payload (most importantly, the astronauts) safely to Earth. Thus, STS-107 is still regarded as a failure despite successfully reaching orbit. It depends on what is being asked of the vehicle, and how well (or not well) it accomplished what was asked of it.
Regarding error margins, if 15 m/s is the margin for success for IFT-2, then so be it. Plenty of missions going to LEO would be considered a failure if they fell short of their target speed by a similar amount, since they'd reenter the atmosphere. Again, this isn't about 15 m/s being an arbitrary number to apply to all launches, it's about what sort of margin a particular mission is being asked to hit in order to accomplish mission objectives. If 15 m/s was the margin for this mission, then that's what it was for this mission (but not necessarily all missions).
"This launch, given that it had no payload, should have had a huge error margin"; I have an issue with this as being a huge gray area; how much is "close enough"? You have argued that Falcon 1 flight 2 should be a failure while IFT-2 should be a partial failure, without defining what threshold Starship reached that Falcon 1 didn't.
And I disagree with the notion that Starship was on a "usable trajectory" to test reentry, because while it may have been fast enough, it definitely wasn't in-one-piece enough. Gojet-64 (talk) 06:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its goal as far as i know would be test staging, and reentry would have been usable if it didnt blow up due to safety zone beimg exited this way. Reentry would still have been tested, altough with a high probability of it not surviving Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 10:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"I would be fine with Starship launches and landings being counted separately. Although, that's going to be dependent on the mission. Consider for example that the Space Shuttle, on every flight, was not only supposed to reach orbit, but also bring back payload (most importantly, the astronauts) safely to Earth. Thus, STS-107 is still regarded as a failure despite successfully reaching orbit. It depends on what is being asked of the vehicle, and how well (or not well) it accomplished what was asked of it."
I 100% agree with this. If IFT-2 had been carrying crew, then I don't think anyone would be arguing for partial failure.
"I have an issue with this as being a huge gray area; how much is "close enough"? You have argued that Falcon 1 flight 2 should be a failure while IFT-2 should be a partial failure, without defining what threshold Starship reached that Falcon 1 didn't."
Falcon 1 Flight 2 reached 5.1 km/s, with a goal of a stable LEO. Starship reached 6.7 km/s, with the goal of TAO. It got much, much closer to it's desired trajectory. How close is required, as we have both said, depends on the mission.
As for what I think the error margin is, it's probably around 1.5-2 km/s (for this mission). It only needs to be going fast enough to test the tiles.
"Regarding error margins, if 15 m/s is the margin for success for IFT-2, then so be it. Plenty of missions going to LEO would be considered a failure if they fell short of their target speed by a similar amount, since they'd reenter the atmosphere."
But when the goal is to reenter the atmosphere, that 15m/s margin is just ridiculous. As has been proven earlier, it was going fast enough to test reentry.
"And I disagree with the notion that Starship was on a "usable trajectory" to test reentry, because while it may have been fast enough, it definitely wasn't in-one-piece enough."
When I'm saying "usable trajectory", I'm saying right before it stopped being in-one-piece, not after. Redacted II (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you define mission partial success as going fast enough to test the heat shield, then how does that go together with a system failure preventing any testing of the heat shield? Sub31k (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a partial failure, because the mission is separate from launch (except when returning payload/crew via the launch vehicle, as has been established by the Space Shuttle). Redacted II (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it werent for safety margins it would have been fine Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 06:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we don't know what happened to the upper stage, so we can't say that while trying to remain accurate, Redacted II (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. But looking at what we do know, safety margins, the remaining time to burn, I think that is the likely cause. But sou are right. We shouldnt just write this in without source Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 12:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Likely cause means nothing. Until confirmed by SpaceX, any theory is just that: a theory. Redacted II (talk) 12:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it would have reached, just lower. I dont know about you, but a few seconds early on ANY rocket should be partial Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.
And Atlas V has had an early engine cutoff (complete loss of thrust, in this case) on the first stage on a previous mission. If that had been Starship, you would all be screaming "FAILURE". Redacted II (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how it got to orbit though eh? Starship also... had a complete loss of thrust. By blowing up. What is the argument here? Atlas V GOT TO ORBIT. Specifically which launch are you talking about? Chuckstablers (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, I would not deem that mission to be a failure, because it reached orbit, which has been the distinguishing factor for all previous launches for all previous vehicles, and the standard we're arguing Starship should also be held to.
I'll be happy to classify a Starship mission as a success if one reaches orbit, even should it burn up on the subsequent reentry. Gojet-64 (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we going back to making up our own definitions of failure and success?
OA-6 was widely reported as a narrow launch vehicle success because despite the subnormal performance, the objectives (inject Cygnus into X orbit) were fulfilled.
This flight test is widely reported as being a failure, because of reasons including subnormal performance, but also because key objectives were not met. Sub31k (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was making a point, not pushing for a reclassification.
I've stated that elsewhere. Redacted II (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is "if it didn't fail then it wouldn't have failed so it didn't fail". Convincing.
In all seriousness; so what? Had it got to orbit then GREAT! It didn't. Close isn't good enough. Had it been carrying a payload it would've destroyed the payload and been a complete failure in every sense of the word. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it didnt fail? Underperformance, yes, but the fts blew it up, wich isnt a failure, it just went outside of the safe zone, thats it. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 06:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason "fts blew it up" is because the rocket failed to reach its intended target, namely orbit. Calling that anything but a failure would be grossly misleading to readers, and would also be blatantly inconsistent with any other launch that had to be ended by an FTS. Gojet-64 (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(For most topics, it would be easy to tell, but there is a huge block of debate between the first comment and this response) Redacted II (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is going in circles. Of those engaged in this topic, only two of the eight editors
unanimity
, the consensus-building process will continue to break down.
The
consistent meaning across Wikipedia. If an editor is interested in proposing a change to that definition, the infobox talk page
is a more appropriate venue. Unless the definition changes, the policy-based action is to determine if IFT-2 meets the current partial failure criteria.
Redraiderengineer (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Im saying we should treat test flights differently then normal launches, since so many things are different then in a normal fully capable launch Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The IFT-1 mishap investigation was performed by SpaceX
The rewrite of the mishap investigation paragraph is incorrect. The CNBC source says "The FAA oversaw the SpaceX mishap investigation while NASA and the National Transportation Safety Board served as official observers." That's because it was SpaceX doing the investigation. Admittedly, the wording in the article is ambiguous, but it is clear from FAA statements that the investigation was conduced by SpaceX.
"Following the launch, the FAA, [...] required SpaceX to conduct a mishap investigation in accordance with its approved mishap plan under FAA oversight. [...] The FAA has been provided with sufficient information and accepts the root causes and corrective actions described in the mishap report. Consequently, the FAA considers the mishap investigation that SpaceX was required to complete to be concluded." Foonix0 (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah am fine with it. Glad we have sourcing for it now. Chuckstablers (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Foonix0 Do you plan to add this wording in? Ergzay (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal to temporarily exclude 'Success', 'Partial Failure', and 'Failure' listings from Starship infobox
In light of ongoing discussions, there appears to not yet be a consensus on how Starship flights should be classified into these 3 categories. Until such consensus is reached, I would propose temporarily removing these numbers from the infobox so as not to mislead readers; anyone wanting to know the outcome of these flights can read the articles on the individual flights and come to their own conclusions.
Regardless of the eventual outcome, the most important thing is that we can settle on something that's least likely to misinform readers. But at the moment, we haven't yet settled on anything, so I don't think we can be making declarative statements about success/failure without some kind of consensus on how those should be counted. Gojet-64 (talk) 07:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, we dont want this to be in while the discussion is ongoing. Especially now that the very foundation of failure or not is being questioned supposedly Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 10:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.
To be 100% honest, I don't think the IFT starship flights should even be counted in the infobox, just as Grasshopper didn't count for Falcon 9. Redacted II (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This could remove the debates entirely, as starship will get more complicated, like for example final v1s areg getting readied then the 9vacuum 10 meter stretch will be implemented, so we could count that too. Id say we should just say prototype launch and thats it Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the Grasshopper didn’t count, it wasn’t an orbital flight. (Technically neither is IFT, but it’s close enough.) CoastRedwood (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Grasshopper would have counted if it was an actual Falcon 9 (I believe the Dragon In-Flight Abort test vehicle is counted in the Falcon 9 infobox). But given that B9/S25 have a vast number of differences from even the later "v1" vehicles, they shouldn't count as a starship vehicle. Redacted II (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Im not sure what you mean by that. Could you elaborate? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 12:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Grasshopper's flights didn't count as being a Falcon 9 flight due to being very different from an actual Falcon 9 vehicle. B9/S25 are very different from the remaining v1 vehicles, and those designs are already outdated. Counting them as actual Starships would both violate established precedent and be quite misleading to any readers. Redacted II (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this diff is worth a revisit. It's been months and the same arguments are happening without a major change. Sub31k (talk) 06:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since "v1" is already a recognized category. Redacted II (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with @Redacted II here. These flights are the equivalent of Grasshopper test flights. They should be listed as number of goals completed, in a table of some sort, rather than a single "failure" or "success" label, though if you have to pick one, they should be labeled as "successes" unless they produced an extreme outcome that prevented further progress (loss of human life for example). Ergzay (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The best option is to leave the success/failure count with the {{
essence
of Wikipedia.
The
purpose of an infobox is "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article..." So, the information should still appear in the article. Further, removing the success/failure count wouldn't address other articles (SpaceX Starship flight tests, SpaceX Starship (spacecraft), SpaceX Super Heavy, etc.) where the information will still appear in some fashion. Redraiderengineer (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The proposal isn't "purge this article of all information regarding IFT-2 and it's outcome". The idea, if I understand correctly, is to remove the partial failure and failure from the Infobox until a permanent decision (that we can all at least not actively hate) is made.
The other articles that have the information are much more specialized than this one, and they would not be affected by this in any way.
Finally, adding a "disputed" tag doesn't magically prevent misinforming readers. Redacted II (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it's not a purge is the point. If we follow
MoS guidelines
, the information should still appear in the article outside of the infobox. If "partial failure" is considered to misinform in the infobox, it will generally misinform elsewhere in the article.
The intent isn't for the disputed tag to be a magical solution. It's a statement of caveat lector. More importantly, the tag is in the accuracy dispute guideline.
It is never called partial failure in the article, only in the infobox. A more detailed description is used instead. Redacted II (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with your suggestion, a "disputed" tag on the launch-outcome counters would likely be better than outright removal of the listings. Gojet-64 (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There already is a disputed tag. Redacted II (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That inline tag is now updated to reflect the dispute with a link to the RfC below while this gets sorted out. Redraiderengineer (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The problem, as I see it, is that various reliable sources have their own conflicting definition of "success" and so there is endless debate here as a result. The infobox can only contain one answer, which invites editors to pick a "correct" one. The current article text for both IFT-1 and IFT-2 show that prominent and meaningful sources have praised the launches as a success, which is inconsistent with what the infoboxes currently say. As @Redraiderengineer points out, infobox should reflect what the article says, but they don't currently, nor can they, because different sources say different things.
There is absolutely no need to do this. Just delete it from the infobox and let the article text list which notable sources had which opinions. Foonix0 (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is the "Other Outcome" option. Should I put both IFT-1 and IFT-2 there for now?
If so, I'd prefer to label them there as "Prototype Failures". Redacted II (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But then people come with the argument of specially handling starship and making it too complicated, i support it though Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree. Just do another RfC instead of going in circles like this. – Jadebenn (talk·contribs·subpages) 13:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Should the SpaceX Starship IFT-2 launch be categorized as "failure" or "partial failure" in the infobox? – Jadebenn (talk·contribs·subpages) 13:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Failure
Failure: The
MoS guidelines
. Unless the definition changes, the policy-based action is to determine if IFT-2 meets the current partial failure criteria predicated on reaching orbit.
IFT-2 failed to reach orbit, so it doesn't meet the "partial failure" definition or standard used across other launch vehicle articles. Redraiderengineer (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Failure: A couple of things. Firstly: listing some form of "flight successful" or obscurism through removal of the box would be at odds with a supermajority of published independent media reports, which variously describe a test flight failure. And a test failure needn't be of any shame: don't they call this a fail-fast program, anyway? Apart from that, the test did not meet the objectives set for it and for which substantial preparation was made. I see a lot of increasingly specific definitions of success/failure being made here so that this recent test flight just barely falls on the "win" side. I'd also like to clarify that the infobox is not some kind of scoreboard. It's just a way to show flight outcomes. Sub31k (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've made my statements before, but will summarize here. Every rocket gets treated the same acrossed all of Wikipedia, with perfect consistency & consensus except for Starship. I'm not going to pretend the issue isn't a small group of loud people who feel attacked if SpaceX is criticized with industry norms in any way. I;ve been here long enough to know that. Test flights aren't given special treatment anywhere else, for any other company and I know most of you arguing for "partials" would all classify the first Vulcan launch as a failure if Centaur's FTS activated during it's first burn. Don't pretend you wouldn't. A quick test flight recap for you guys:
H3, second stage did not ignite. Vehicle later terminated by range, did not reach orbit. Failure
Electron, telemetry was lost and the RSO destroyed the rocket during second stage burn. Failure
Rocket 3, Failed during first stage burn, deviated from trajectory and destroyed by RSO. Failure
Terran-1, second stage failed to start. Failure
Launcher One, LOX line rupture, starving engine of oxidizer. Failure.
Firefly Alpha F1: Engine failure 15 seconds after launch, lost control authority at ~T+2:30, activating FTS and destroying the vehicle (remind you of anything?). Failure
Ariane 5 V88/501, first launch of Ariane 5, decided it was 90 degrees off course, deviating from trajectory and subsequently destroyed by RSO. Failure
Zhuque-2, Vernier engines failed, precluding any chance of reaching orbit. Failure
Zhuque-1, Attitude control failure on stage 3, failed to reach orbit. Failure
Soviet N1, started to drop engines shortly after liftoff, causing a fire in the first stage, all engines shut off at T+68 seconds. Failure
Falcon 1, Engine failure at T+33 seconds, vehicle destroyed. Failure
Proton-K, flew off course and exploded shortly after launch. Failure
Long March 7A, lost pressure in a side booster just before MECO. Failure
Zenit-3SL, failed to reach orbit due to a guidance problem. Failure
ABL RS1, all engines shut down shortly after liftoff. Failure
Notice how there wasn't raging discussions about those (Are some of you going to push for N1's test flight to be counted as partials) because they failed to reach orbit on test flights. Why is Starship different? Why does it and only it get to be special and not allowed to fail? An orbital (Transatmospheric orbit) flight that is destroyed before reaching even an initial orbit is a failure. Don't sight SpaceX's definitions of success because that's a first party source. Wikipedia must retain it's unbiased and neutral POV, and giving only ONE rocket a pass on everything is clear and consistent bias. If this gets classed as a "partial" I may push for some N1 flight to be reclassed alongside a chunk of those above. And I'd expect every one of those in favor of partials to do the same. --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This rocket is evidently different from all of the ones indicated above. This is an incomplete prototype. The design has even radically changed from one launch to the other (hot staging). The approach is totally different from what has been attempted by the industry so far. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 19:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we then count it as failure but, when it's significantly upgraded, count it as a different vehicle or at least a different version and separate the stats? That seems like the most honest/responsible way to do this. It is almost indisputably a full failure, but it's an *expected* failure, so it would be a shame if it taints future reliability numbers once it's more polished up. TheSpaceGoat (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(this belongs in discussion, but with that out of the way):
"Can we then count it as failure but, when it's significantly upgraded, count it as a different vehicle or at least a different version and separate the stats?"
I think Partial Failure is the right classification (see Partial Failure for my reasoning), but I agree, it it's counted in the infobox, it needs to be separate from "actual"/production/v2 vehicles. Redacted II (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Failure is my end state, as said above in regards to IFT-2. --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Failure. This was a failed launch (it did not complete objectives), while being a successful test. This isn't even controversial; there's a statement to the effect that when NASA has a launch failure, you get congressional hearings, when SpaceX has a launch failure, you add something to the blooper reel. IFT2 provided lots of test data, and is an addition to the blooper reel. Tarl N. (discuss) 18:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Failure. It was successful as a test but unsuccessful as an attempt to reach orbit. Our infoboxes and launch lists all use the latter. --mfb (talk) 05:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Failure - Other similar flights, speficially the Electron 1 launch, were all classed as failures and we shouldn't be treating Starship differently by moving the goalposts around to squeeze it into partial failure. It doesn't matter how much test data they successfully collect, the launch was still a failure.
CtrlDPredator (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Failure: All other orbital launch attempts that do not reach orbit have been classified as "failures" on Wikipedia; it doesn't matter how close it got, or whether it had a payload, or what was the expectation of the company/organization launching it. If it was attempting to reach orbit, but failed to reach orbit, that's a clear-cut failure (note that "attempting" and "expecting" are different things). Classifying IFT-2 as a "partial failure" would be grossly inconsistent with how any other launch outcome is classified on Wikipedia, and would likely mislead readers into believing IFT-2 reached orbit when it did not, as reaching orbit is the minimum requirement for "Partial failure" for any other orbital launch attempt. We have to classify these launches clearly and consistently, and not give any special treatment to Starship just because "it's a prototype" or "it got close". Gojet-64 (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
we once again, do not treat starship differently, and many similar flights that were classified as failure, should have been the same partial failure. Spacex new way of testing isnt the same as for any other company, therefore should be differently classified then other ways of testing. Would you classify an overpressure tank test as failure? Likely not Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure what your argument is. In the very same post, you said "we ... do not treat starship differently" and "[Starship] should be differently classified". You can pick one, but not both. Regarding your example of a tank test; no that would not be considered a launch failure because it wasn't a launch attempt. And that's what the infobox entries are based on: launch outcomes, not test outcomes. If SpaceX considers the test to be successful, then good for them, but the launch is still a failure. And as mentioned previously, whether it's a prototype or developmental vehicle is irrelevant. The N1 launches were also iterative vehicles which had substantial changes between launches, yet there is no controversy in calling all of those launches failures. Plenty of other examples are also given in the discussion section below. What matters is clearly communicating to the reader what the outcome of an orbital launch attempt was, and if an attempt to reach orbit failed to do so, then the clearest way to communicate that is by classifying it a "failure". Gojet-64 (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that we dont treat starship specifically differently, but rather similar scenarios too. The N1 is a REALLY poor example, because the lack of quality engines made it so they had no choice but fly it. Starship isnt as similar to the n1. Some barely lifted off, some exploded during first stage burn, not accomplishing much. This is different from ift1, where the only goal was to not destroy the pad, wich it very much didnt fully do. Communicating failure would miss the development that happened to the second launch, and not reflect what starship had achieved. As i said, this isnt a working non-prototype rocket, therefore it doesnt have the same goals. At the very least we could separate these two, to better reflect what flew, and what it achieved. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 13:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are talking about the milestones that Starship has passed as measures of success, not the launch itself. You are advocating for Starship to be treated differently when it isn't any different to other test launches that have occurred before.
CtrlDPredator (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Partial failure
Partial failure. We do have a general criteria, which means partial failure would only be applicable if a payload is placed in an incorrect orbit. This is for actual production launches. We don't have such a criteria for test flights. As per my comments in the above section, I believe this should be a partial failure as it made it past the Karman line before the Starship vehicle was lost. I believe test flights should be separated from actual launches.
However, it now also seems that the general convention is that test flights like the IFTs aren't included in the count. No other launch vehicle has test flights included in the success/failure count. Starship is still in its prototype stages and we can start using the count once Starship is in full production, and then we treat Starship with the usual criteria. Therefore, as an alternative, remove the IFTs from the counts entirely. 87.200.147.139 (talk) 06:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to some other comments I've seen with articles including test flights into the count. These test flights uses the actual production launch vehicle, not a prototype. Starship is still a prototype and not the final vehicle. A lot has already changed between IFT-1 and IFT-2, and probably again for IFT-3. But no other article has prototype test flights in the count. 87.200.147.139 (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are test launches that use boilerplate or mass simulator payloads, and test launches that don't use any payloads at all.
For the first Electron launch it was literally called "It's a Test" and still included in the launch infobox. It too had no payload, same as Starship, and it too was destroyed after first stage separation, just like Starship.
CtrlDPredator (talk) 08:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree, but please read the comment above. What I'm saying is that prototypes like this (rapidly evolving, trial by flying) aren't usually considered. The Electron launch you mentioned is a test flight but not the same nature. 87.200.147.139 (talk) 11:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please take this argument to the discussion section. Redacted II (talk) 12:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that removing the prototype flights seems unlikely, I'm switching to Partial Failure, as IFT-2 satisfies all of the requirements (payload/crew not lost, vehicle entered usable, but not the intended trajectory). Redacted II (talk) 12:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of RfC
Pinging editors that have previously participated in the discussion:
Why is Partial Success a category? There is no difference between Partial Success and Partial Failure. Redacted II (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both point to a failure in the end, so there should only be partial failure Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We can't waste all this time for every launch. We should decide a rule to apply to all launches. Not decide on a case by case basis. I think given SpaceX's unique modus operandi in which they test partially incomplete prototypes as part of their development program we should distinguish between test launches and launches with an operational payload. With a clear method of understanding what a "success" is that is consistent across all vehicle types. Otherwise the infobox won't make any sense. This is probably a more centralised discussion rather than something we should decide in the article talk page of a single rocket. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 13:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, prototypes should be separate from fully capable vehichles Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Due to SpaceX's unique testing practice marking these test launches as failures for Starship would cause a lot of confusion if Starship enters common use. Bugsiesegal (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that prototypes/test flights should have separate criteria from full production launches, but again there should be a general criteria for each, instead of a case by case basis. 87.200.147.139 (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a general criteria:
Is the crew killed/payload destroyed: if yes, failure, if no...
Is the final trajectory usable, if no, failure, if yes...
Is the final trajectory the intended one, if yes, success, if no, partial failure. Redacted II (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring that the vehicle was lost before achieving orbit. You are trying to hand-wave that since there was no "payload" that it doesn't matter that it blew up, but that was never applied before now. As well as using "trajectory" instead of orbit to try and get around that it didn't physically get there because it blew up. We shouldn't be trying to twist and change these statuses to fit Starship into partial failure.
CtrlDPredator (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
That is completely disingenuous, was not an orbital flight and was destroyed to successfully test the in-flight abort system of the dragon capsule.
CtrlDPredator (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
It was not destroyed to test the in-flight abort system. It's destruction was expected, however.
And a launch is a launch, orbital, suborbital, or atmospheric. Redacted II (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its also different scenario then other test flights, since the design process, iteration is different, and isnt expected to survive. So is it not surviving really a failure? Wouldnt say so. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 12:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gtoffoletto take discussion to this section of the RFC.
Also, that user has indicated that they aren't going to be convinced, no matter what you or anyone else says. Trust me, I tried. Redacted II (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove that assessment from the infobox Infoboxes are only useful for slam-dumk certain factoids. The are problematic for everything else; the don't have the space for the necessary nuanceing, explanations, attributions etc. for cases like this the oversimplified "answer" is inherently
WP:OR and controversial. In this case it leads to the many quandaries of subjectively deciding which of the many meanings of the words "success" and "failure" to use. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
An amendment to this: remove it for the Integrated Flight Test's only. Once Starship is flying operationally, and not as a test vehicle, failure v success v partial failure should be much clearer and included in the infobox. Redacted II (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just like Grasshopper wasn't a Falcon 9, IFT-1 and IFT-2 shouldn't even be considered Starships. Different second stage design, different gimbling mechanism (booster on IFT-1, both ships), no payload bay door (they were sealed around a year or so ago) and probably a host of other factors that none of us know about.
By including them at all in the infobox, we are misleading everyone who reads this article. Redacted II (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? Sub31k (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes, and this belongs in the discussion section. I'll be moving my comments in failure down there shortly Redacted II (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Practically everyone, including SpaceX themselves, call these vehicles Super Heavy and Starship. That is not your determination to make. Frosty126 (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And? Prototypes aren't included in the infobox for every vehicle except Starship. Redacted II (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see prototypes in the info box, where exactly is this? Frosty126 (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It took me a bit of time to realize what you meant, the only similar scenario I know of is with Enterprise and the ALT tests, the main difference is that IFTs are testing the entire system, not just Starship or Super Heavy. Frosty126 (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"the main difference is that IFTs are testing the entire system, not just Starship or Super Heavy."
I think that's irrelevant. Both stages were prototypes, so the only difference is that it was two prototypes instead of one that flew.
If you want, I could probably get a dozen sources that call the IFT-1 and IFT-2 stacks prototypes. Redacted II (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide examples of entire system prototypes being excluded from the launch count? I acknowledge that they are prototypes, but they should still be included in the count as they are still flights of the Starship stack. Frosty126 (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a counter-example, I'll point to the page for SM-65 Atlas, which lists the prototype SM-65A Atlas in its count. Sub31k (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There really haven't been a lot of entire system prototypes, so no.
@Sub31k excellent example, however, the SM-65A wasn't constantly changing (unlike the Starship prototypes), it was a full up version, with each missile being essentially identical. If you have a source that says otherwise, please share it. Redacted II (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That aside, it really seems like you search for any way in which historical flights are at all different to SpaceX Starship to justify a different treatment, starting from a position (Starship is different!) and working backwards from there. I don't think this is going to result in any meaningful resolution. Sub31k (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the article you linked, and I don't think the changes were as substantial as the ones between B7/S24 and B9/S25 (removed engine skirt and additional engine shielding, compared to the previously mentioned changes for starship), but I'll read it a few more times to make sure.
"That aside, it really seems like you search for any way in which historical flights are at all different to SpaceX Starship to justify a different treatment."
I do go through every example failure listed to see what differences there are, and if they are enough to justify IFT-2 being a partial failure, and not a failure. So that might be what's causing it.
"I don't think this is going to result in any meaningful resolution."
I do have some compromise ideas that may satisfy both sides, but some of these were denied during the IFT-1 debate, so I'm not sure how it will go. If you want me to list them, I can do that.
Finally, let's take this to the discussion section instead. Redacted II (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as second option to partial failure. Remove the classifications for the IFTs only, and add those once Starship is in full production and is no longer in its prototype stages. Or, we should list these prototypes separately, but that was discussed before. 87.200.147.139 (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
please move this to Partial FailureRedacted II (talk) 13:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JadebennSuccess is my vote. You're missing the option of "Success". This launch and even IFT-1 were "Successes" because they were test flights with end goals of eventual vehicle destruction. Once this is all done we're going to have to have another RFC to relabel all the test flights as successes and then have a separate category for operational launches. What we're talking about is the equivalent of Grasshopper test flights right now, of which only the last one was a failure because they were not intending to test the vehicle to destruction. For Starship test flights all vehicles are intended to be tested to failure. Ergzay (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IFT-1 lost control and broke up, IFT-2 was terminated. The final objectives of both flights were successful re-entry of Starship. When did SpaceX ever state these were destructive tests? Frosty126 (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Launch and mission are separate, as has been established by Falcon 9. Failure/Partial Failure/Success distinctions end for the booster at Stage Separation and SECO for the ship.
(Though, in the mission plan, SpaceX clearly indicates both vehicles would be destroyed in a nominal scenario) Redacted II (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Frosty126 SpaceX stated during the live stream and before both tests that the goal of IFT-1 was to "not destroy the pad" by blowing up the vehicle on the pad and the goal in IFT-2 was "to get through staging". Ergzay (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Success for SpaceX and Success by Wikipedia standard are very different things. Redacted II (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe we can work on changing Wikipedia's definition to allow for SpaceX's industry standard violating definitions that involve iterative development, something not performed elsewhere in the industry. Ergzay (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion is for Project Spaceflight (or Rocketry), not here Redacted II (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone other than SpaceX would ever consider an unintentional loss of vehicle a success. While getting through hot-staging was the main objective for IFT-2, it was not the final nor only objective. A successful test would be expected to verify all components of the system for operational flight. Frosty126 (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to ignore anything past SECO for the ship and anything past stage separation of the booster when referring to launch success.
Anything past those two milestones for the respective vehicles is referring to the mission, not the launch. Redacted II (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to the test as a whole, which I'm pretty sure means the whole mission. Frosty126 (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This RFC is referring to the Launch, and not the mission. So using parts of the mission to determine success of the launch is misleading. Redacted II (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the launch only, the vehicle was lost before orbital insertion, meaning the launch was still a failure. Frosty126 (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but how fast did Starship need to go in order to test reentry? That would be the definition of the "usable orbit" required for partial failure.
And previous flights have shown suborbital trajectories (similar to the final trajectory of IFT-2) are sufficient for testing the heat shield of orbital reentry vehicles. Gemini 2 and Atmospheric Reentry Demonstrator demonstrate this very well. Redacted II (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if the orbit was usable, however loss of vehicle is what made this a failure. Frosty126 (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it inserted the payload (in this case, itself. Does starship count as a payload?) into a usable orbit, then it's a partial failure. Redacted II (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ift1 wanted to lift off, ift 2 wanted to test staging. Spacex never stated this would survive, wich is similar to it Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, completely remove the section as @Redacted II presented above, which is also for some reason not an option in your poll.Ergzay (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RfC Statement: @
discouraged
.
I recommend: "Should the SpaceX Starship IFT-2 launch be categorized as "failure" or "partial failure" in the infobox?" This question is specific, neutral, and brief. If this RfC doesn't resolve additional points of contention, we can
create further RfCs to address these points. Redraiderengineer (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I disagree, the current RFC description is neutral and is specific enough for the current debate. Redacted II (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Modified accordingly. Can someone separate the discussions out of the position listings? They're supposed to make it clear which editors hold what position. The actual discussion of said positions should be confined to the section here. I'd do it myself but it's very difficult to do the edits from a phone. – Jadebenn (talk·contribs·subpages) 18:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start moving mine out. Redacted II (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read the previous discussion. There are reasons for almost all (but not all, like the Electron launch. I'd support reclassification of that to "Other Outcome") of the example launches to be a failure.
H3 first flight: Desired orbit: LEO. Final "orbit": Very suborbital. Failure
Rocket 3: LEO attempt, failed to get past staging. Failure
Terran 1: No second stage ignition. Failure
Launcher One: First stage engine failure, didn't reach staging. Failure
Ariane 5: Didn't even make it to staging. Failure
Zhuque-2: Wasn't a prototype vehicle, and was almost twice as far from the desired orbit as IFT-2 was at the end of their respective flights.
Zhuque-1: Desired orbit: LEO. Was slower than IFT-2 near staging. Failure
N1: Not prototype vehicles, never made it through first stage burn. Failure
Falcon 1: Failed to make it through stage 1 burn/stage 2 issues much farther from desired trajectory than IFT-2/engine destroyed by first stage residual thrust. Failure
Proton K: It flew off course very early on in the flight (although we might be referring to different flights). Failure
Long March 7a: didn't make it to staging. Failure.
Zenit-3sl: didn't reach orbit on what seems like a GEO launch. Failure
ABL RS1: Engines failed right after liftoff. Failure
And, for the two Starship launches:
IFT-1: didn't make it near the karman line, much less TAO. Failure
Notice how you structure each one of those around Starship. You're making Starship the baseline. In effect, saying getting close but not as close as Starship IFT-2 is failure. "Too slow" "not as far downrange." Incredibly flawed analysis. The baseline for an orbital launch is orbit, not "as close or closer than Starship got." Let's be serious. --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(amended descript)
H3 first flight: Desired orbit: LEO. Final "orbit": Very suborbital. Failure
Rocket 3: LEO attempt, failed to get past staging. Failure
Terran 1: No second stage ignition. Failure
Launcher One: First stage engine failure, didn't reach staging. Failure
Ariane 5: Didn't even make it to staging. Failure
Zhuque-2: Wasn't a prototype vehicle, stage 2 (3? Zhuque-2 does switch engines) issues with over 2km/s left.
Zhuque-1: Desired orbit: LEO. Stage 3 issues with over 2km/s left. Failure
N1: Not prototype vehicles, never made it through first stage burn. Failure
Falcon 1: Failed to make it through stage 1 burn/stage 2 issues with over 2km/s./engine destroyed by first stage residual thrust. Failure
Proton K: It flew off course very early on in the flight (although we might be referring to different flights). Failure
Long March 7a: didn't make it to staging. Failure.
Zenit-3sl: didn't reach orbit on what seems like a GEO launch. Failure
ABL RS1: Engines failed right after liftoff. Failure
And, for the two Starship launches:
IFT-1: didn't make it near the karman line, much less TAO. Failure
You are ignoring the first Electron launch which was also a failure, despite having no payload, being a test and completing 1st stage separation. And just stating a list of other failed launches doesn't make IFT-2 a partial success.
CtrlDPredator (talk) 06:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
That's because I objected to the first Electron Launch being a failure. The failure was of the ground system, not the vehicle itself.
But, if you insist:
I don't have it's final velocity anywhere, but it seems like it was at least 2-3 km/s from the desired final trajectory (and over 270 km from the desired altitude). And for a 500 km orbit, that's more than enough to make it a failure. Redacted II (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It could be argued the terran 1 launch is succes because they wanted to test the strenght of the printing Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(moved from failure discussion):
Reaching orbit gives a 15 m/s window, while the velocity needed to test the heat shield is probably in the 5.5-6 km/s range (see Gemini 2). Redacted II (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rocket 3.0 on 15 December 2020 got, by your own definition, closer to orbit (short by 0.5 km/s). The only failure that could be realistically sent to partial on the merits of reaching orbit was the June 21 1985 Zenit launch. 2nd stage engine blew up near end of burn, sending some fragments of the vehicle into orbit. Back to "discrediting everything else but Starship" as I said before, demonstrating my argument. 18:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)) --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, using logic to explain why your examples weren't partial failures, while using the same logic to say IFT-2 was a partial failure, is "discrediting everything else but Starship"?
Rocket 3 (again): failed to reach orbit, desired orbit was 390 km circular (if I am wrong, please correct me and
List of Astra rocket launches
). Failure, as orbit wasn't stable.
I don't think your being serious with the June 21 1985 Zenit Launch, but in case you were,
Zenit-2: Failed to reach orbit, lost payload.
IFT-2 did not lose the payload (only because there was no payload), and the final trajectory was usable for testing reentry.
Edit: Having saw your "Failure is my end state" message, I'll stop trying to convince you otherwise.Redacted II (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tarl N. Completing all mission objectives is not required for a successful launch. The only launch milestone not met was SECO (Anything with the Booster after stage separation isn't required, as has been established by Falcon), which it missed by a minute while going fast enough to test the tiles. Redacted II (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Redacted II Where is it written down that this is the definition of launch success? Personally I don't even consider IFT-2 a "launch" but a "mission". The IFT-2 mission was to test multiple aspects of the vehicle with success of that mission set at the point the of staging. The point of success for IFT-1 mission was leaving the pad (it could be argued the mission for IFT-1 was a partial failure because of the unintended damage to the pad). Ergzay (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thats partially your way of seeing things, but it certainly makes sense Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The definition is from established precedent on every single rocket's infobox. Redacted II (talk) 12:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mfb In order for the "orbit" to be usable, it needed to be going fast enough to test the tiles (on this launch). Gemini 2 and the Atmospheric Reentry Demonstrator both tested orbital reentry vehicles on suborbital trajectories. So, it was going fast enough.
And if the "orbit" is usable, it counts as a partial failure. Redacted II (talk) 12:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't loss of vehicle make this a failure, regardless of whether the orbit was usable? Frosty126 (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, as the Dragon 2 In-Flight Abort vehicle was destroyed (though this was expected, and after payload "deployment") before the FTS went off. Redacted II (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that Starship is part of the launch vehicle and payload, as it puts itself into orbit. Loss of Starship would be comparable to the loss of Dragon 2 or the Space Shuttle orbiter, not the loss of the booster. Frosty126 (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Loss of Starship would be comparable to the loss of Dragon 2 or the Space Shuttle orbiter, not the loss of the booster."
Is it? Starship is a second stage, which deploys a payload into the desired orbit. Just because it returns from orbit doesn't make it the payload. Redacted II (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is, they are all spacecraft, and the orbiter and Starship just happen to be part of the launch vehicle.
"Just because it returns form orbit doesn't make it the payload." My point was that it being put into orbit does. Frosty126 (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Yes, it is, they are all spacecraft, and the orbiter and Starship just happen to be part of the launch vehicle."
"My point was that it being put into orbit does"
Centaur upper stages are put into orbit. Are they spacecraft? No, they aren't. So why is Starship a spacecraft? It deploys the payload, and (with the exception of crewed starships and HLS, but neither have flown) doesn't carry a crew. Redacted II (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Centaur upper stages are put into orbit. Are they spacecraft? No, they aren't." My point was being put into orbit made them payload. Frosty126 (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, the Centaur is part of the payload of the Atlas V? I don't think it i.
The S-IVB isn't counted as part of the TLI payload of the Saturn V, as another example. Redacted II (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "them" was referring to was Starship and the Space Shuttle orbiter, they can be considered payload because they are operational spacecraft. Frosty126 (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Starship counts as a payload, but I can confirm that shuttle doesn't. Look at the payload capacity listed on it's article: 27550 kg (204 km LEO). The dry mass of the lightest orbiter is 78000 kg. As 78000 is more than 27550, the space shuttle is not counted as a payload on it's article.
So why should Starship be any different? Redacted II (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the context, when talking about what the system puts into orbit, the orbiter and Starship can be included. However, in most cases it refers to cargo of the spacecraft to be payload. Dragon carries cargo and Starship carries cargo, while both are spacecraft, Starship is part of the launch vehicle. The only reason I made that distinction is because Starship isn't just a stage, but a spacecraft with a very large (projected) cargo capacity. Frosty126 (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see your argument, but I have to disagree with you.
The final decision was that the Shuttle is part of the launch vehicle, and not part of the payload. During every flight, it was the orbital insertion stage, so (technically), the shuttle was a two stage launch vehicle.
Given that Starship is much closer to being a full launch vehicle than the shuttle was, then it shouldn't be considered a payload. Redacted II (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't test the tiles, and it never had a chance to test them without reaching its target orbit (which it failed to do). --mfb (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple examples of suborbital trajectories being used to test heat shields of orbital vehicles (Gemini 2, Atmospheric Reentry Demonstrator). So it was in a usable "orbit" for the end goals of the mission. (though it's debris didn't reenter in the exclusion zone).
Reaching the target orbit is a success (such as Starship reaching orbit but burning up)
Reaching a usable trajectory is a partial failure (IFT-2)
Not reaching a usable trajectory is a failure (IFT-1). Redacted II (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The heat shield wasn't tested because communications were lost and the thing exploded. That should be important to note if you use heat shield testing as a criterion for a viable orbit. Again it seems like you're going with the minimal viable definition that includes IFT2. Sub31k (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The heat shield wasn't tested because communications were lost and the thing exploded."
Is it confirmed that it exploded because comms were lost? I thought comms were lost because it exploded. If you have a source that says otherwise, please share it.
"That should be important to note if you use heat shield testing as a criterion for a viable orbit."
A viable orbit is one that allows for heat shield testing, but testing the heat shield is part of the mission, and not the launch (the divider is really weird for vehicles like Starship and the Space Shuttle).
"Again it seems like you're going with the minimal viable definition that includes IFT2."
For me, it seems like you (not just you) are going with the opposite, throwing in requirements to exclude IFT-2.
But the definition I used is identical to the definition used for every other vehicle: it must enter a (somewhat) usable trajectory, and not cause the death/destruction of the crew/payload.
IFT-2 had no payload, so the second part does not apply. And it did enter a usable trajectory, thus satisfying the first part. Redacted II (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I've been of the opinion that since independent reporting is saying test failure, then the infobox would do fine mirroring that. Everything else is just throwing in opinions to arguments that others have brought up.
It's nice to have physical criteria, but given how subjective under interpretation they clearly have been, it's not something I'm very interested in. And anyway, two different events will always have differences in the details. But one has to avoid "splitting hairs". Everything is an exception to the norm in its own way. Sub31k (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Personally I've been of the opinion that since independent reporting is saying test failure, then the infobox would do fine mirroring that"
Well, for IFT-1, the majority of sources called it a success or partial failure (If I remember correctly), and not failure. I am not saying IFT-1 needs reclassification, and will oppose any push to label it as a partial failure.
"It's nice to have physical criteria, but given how subjective under interpretation they clearly have been, it's not something I'm very interested in."
If something meets the criteria to be a partial failure, then why shouldn't it be a partial failure?
"And anyway, two different events will always have differences in the details. But one has to avoid "splitting hairs"."
Yes, different events will always have differences. And those differences, if major enough, can result in different classification. I don't think pointing them out constitutes "splitting hairs", but, as you have said many times, "Interpretations vary".
"Everything is an exception to the norm in its own way."
It did not reach a usable trajectory for a heat shield test. It was programmed to blow up if it doesn't reach its target orbit. A test at lower velocities was never an option. --mfb (talk) 07:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because safety margins, if it werent for that, it very well could have done it. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know if it was safety margins that destroyed the vehicle. Redacted II (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Im not saying we do, im saying that its a likely reason for the activation of the explosives Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 13:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Im not saying we do, im saying that its a likely reason for the activation of the explosives"
Here's a quote from you that contradicts this:
"Yes, because safety margins, if it werent for that, it very well could have done it."
Don't say it was safety margins as a fact when the actual cause is still unknown to everyone (with the exception of everyone who actually works for SpaceX, and even then, they still might not have figured it out yet, cause it's only been 12 days). Redacted II (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are examples of suborbital trajectories being used to test Orbital Reentry Vehicles (Gemini 2, Atmospheric Reentry Demonstrator). So "A test at lower velocities was never an option" is completely wrong. Redacted II (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing Starship, not these other vehicles. Starship was programmed to blow up if it can't get fast enough to deorbit near Hawaii. It couldn't get fast enough, so it blew up. Testing the heat shield at lower velocities was never an option for this flight of this vehicle. The general ability to get data about a heat shield at 6.5 km/s in a flight is irrelevant. --mfb (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Starship was programmed to blow up if it can't get fast enough to deorbit near Hawaii."
It wouldn't deorbit during a nominal flight. If it had to, that would be a complete failure (accidentally reaching a stable orbit)
"The general ability to get data about a heat shield at 6.5 km/s in a flight is irrelevant."
The mission was to test entry. It was going fast enough to test entry. However, it was not fast enough to reenter in the designated area, so it exploded. So, the ability to get data at that velocity is very relevant. Redacted II (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are roughly five arguments the small but vocal group of editors opposing the classification of IFT-2 as a "failure" are making.
Argument 1: Starship is a prototype with an iterative development process.
consensus may change. Future versions will likely be listed in a similar format to the Falcon 9
infobox. However, that discussion is beyond the scope of this RfC.
Argument 3: IFT-2 satisfies the “partial failure” criteria.
For an orbital launch, the “partial failure” criteria are predicated on reaching orbit. Orbit is used synonymously with the term trajectory in some replies.
There is a general criteria: Is the crew killed/payload destroyed: if yes, failure, if no... Is the final trajectory usable, if no, failure, if yes... Is the final trajectory the intended one, if yes, success, if no, partial failure. — User:Redacted II13:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
While an orbit is a trajectory, the term specifically refers to a trajectory (in this case) around Earth. IFT-2 failed to reach orbit and doesn’t meet this criteria as applied on other launch vehicle articles.
Argument 4: Ignore anything past SECO.
CRS-1 is listed as a partial failure in Falcon 9 infobox. Dragon, the primary payload, successfully reached its orbit. However, the secondary payload couldn’t reach its intended orbit after SECO, and the launch was declared a partial failure.
Argument 5: IFT-2’s mission was to test re-entry.
The IFT-2 article states the mission’s primary objectives. Further, during the SpaceX stream, the objectives (as viewed by SpaceX) were discussed. Re-entry wasn’t the standard set by SpaceX.
So, let’s talk about some objectives for today. The primary goal for flight one was to clear the pad. We did that, and we got amazing data that helped us to improve the vehicle and pad that you see right there. Today, this time on flight two, we’re hoping to get all the way through stage separation where we will try to perform this hot staging maneuver. In the bigger picture, ascent is the most critical objective today, and everything else is learning.
"First, numerous launch vehicles include non-operational launches (e.g., prototypes and test vehicles/flights) in the infobox launch count"
All the examples you listed flew production vehicles. Test launch does not equal prototype launch.
"Once a new version of Starship has flown, consensus may change. Future versions will likely be listed in a similar format to the Falcon 9 infobox. However, that discussion is beyond the scope of this RfC."
How is it outside of the scope of this RFC? It's titled: "RFC on Infobox Flight status".
"While an orbit is a trajectory, the term specifically refers to a trajectory (in this case) around Earth. IFT-2 failed to reach orbit and doesn’t meet this criteria as applied on other launch vehicle articles."
So, your back to the 15 m/s range. Which is ridiculously small, given that other flights (with payloads and even crew) have much larger ranges for success, much less partial failure.
"CRS-1 is listed as a partial failure in Falcon 9 infobox. Dragon, the primary payload, successfully reached its orbit. However, the secondary payload couldn’t reach its intended orbit after SECO, and the launch was declared a partial failure."
It wasn't inserted into the intended trajectory. This doesn't violate "IFT-2’s mission was to test re-entry."
"So, let’s talk about some objectives for today. The primary goal for flight one was to clear the pad. We did that, and we got amazing data that helped us to improve the vehicle and pad that you see right there. Today, this time on flight two, we’re hoping to get all the way through stage separation where we will try to perform this hot staging maneuver. In the bigger picture, ascent is the most critical objective today, and everything else is learning."
So, primary objective was hot staging (though this logic has been rejected (by people who want failure, not partial failure). Which was successful. So this argument falls apart. Redacted II (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good summary of the arguments and I feel it rightly shows how there is an attempt to redefine partial failure to fit the last Starship launch, instead of evaluating the launch for what it was.
CtrlDPredator (talk) 09:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Did you read the reply of Redacted II? He basically counters every argument against it. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I don't feel like they did. Inventing your own criteria around an arbitrary 15m/s and presenting it as some sort of agreed upon threshold isn't countering the argument. We have discussed this over and over and it is clear that no matter how many similar examples or precedents are presented that the goalposts keep changing to try and fit Starship into Partial Failure. No one is going to change their mind here.
CtrlDPredator (talk) 13:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
"Inventing your own criteria"
The criteria I listed is what has been applied to every partial failure and failure I have found. If you can find one that violates this definition, please share it (and why it violates the criteria).
"arbitrary 15m/s"
The 15 m/s value is the difference between 100% success and 100% failure with reaching orbit being a requirement. I calculated the value using the vis-viva equation.
"no matter how many similar examples or precedents are presented that the goalposts keep changing to try and fit Starship into Partial Failure"
I've also mentioned precedents and similar examples that support partial failure, so the goalposts have not moved.
"have discussed this over and over"
Agreed. Seven talk pages is ~five-six too many. And a 17 day debate is just ridiculous.
"No one is going to change their mind here"
So long as each side stubbornly (and everyone here is to blame for this, including you and me) insists on getting everything and refuses to make compromises, then no, I don't think anyone will switch sides.
However, I have offered to make compromises. These offers were ignored. Redacted II (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
