Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests/Archive 3

November 2023

Totallyepicgamer, instead of edit warring, please use the talk page to discuss the statement and reach consensus. Redraiderengineer (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redacted II, the edit by another editor one hour directly before mine added the partially successful claim. I was returning it back to the neutral state. Additionally, the revert included the previous wording of the launch description better supported by the source.

I urge you to revert your edit to maintain the no change policy you cited in your edit summary. Redraiderengineer (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A piece of advice: leave a talk page message instead of this. I'll do a partial self-revert. Redacted II (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Totallyepicgamer, instead of edit warring, please use the talk page to discuss your edits. Redraiderengineer (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

found on different page - delete this topic

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

IFT-4+

For IFT-4 and subsequent missions, all the details listed are known. @Nicoli nicolivich why remove sourced and well known info? Redacted II (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the referenced source is some photos of some boosters. it does not provide any of the information listed in the table. you're just guessing at what future flights might be named. provide a source if you want to list this information. Nicoli nicolivich (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, that is not all the source says.

"Super Heavy boosters for the next three flights, with a fourth ready to stack, in the Starbase Megabay"

This confirms B13 for IFT-6 (it's the booster ready for stacking)

Then, actually look at the boosters. B12 (middle booster) has one engine visibly installed. B11 has at least 20 (right booster). B10 is already confirmed for IFT-3. This heavily implies B10>B11>B12.

If that isn't good enough for you, I present another source:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jkmQ0XF8yI&t=1s

It's a video by NasaSpaceflight, which labels B11 as "flight four's booster" (timestamp: 9:50). Redacted II (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this directly supported (i.e., "the information is present explicitly") by the source? Redraiderengineer (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the second source, yes. Redacted II (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i just watched the video you provide.

it doesn't name the upcoming launches. doesn't say that they will be integrated flight tests. doesn't say that they will launch from the orbital pad. doesn't say that landings are planned and say which order the booster will launch in.

the primary source from the video is the tweet so i don't think it counts as a second source to corroborate the tweet.

they might call the launches something else. they might build and use a different launch pad. they might do a non integrated flight test. all we have is a heavily implied booster sequence. anything more is speculation. Nicoli nicolivich (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"doesn't say that they will be integrated flight tests"

That's SpaceX's naming scheme.

"doesn't say that they will launch from the orbital pad"

There is no other launch pad. And they can't build a launch pad that quickly.

"doesn't say that landings are planned"

Read flight documentation.

"say which order the booster will launch in."

B11 for the fourth flight. That means b12 for IFT-5 and B13 for IFT-6.

Additionally, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxlV8tNBSSs calls B12 the flight 5 vehicle AND b13 the flight 6 vehicle. The video was made before the Tweet.

"they might do a non integrated flight test"

That is clearly not the plan.

"all we have is a heavily implied booster sequence. anything more is speculation"

Incorrect, we know how SpaceX names flight tests AND we know the order they will fly in. Redacted II (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"That's SpaceX's naming scheme" [citation needed] The information is not in the sources you're providing.

"There is no other launch pad." yes there is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLVxGW31-xA at 1:18

"Read flight documentation." what flight documentation? if your source is some flight documentation, then add a citation to that.

"we know" [citation needed] Nicoli nicolivich (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"yes there is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLVxGW31-xA at 1:18"

That is very early on in construction. We don't even know where it will go yet.

"The information is not in the sources you're providing"

Let's see, https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-2 "Starship returned to integrated flight testing"

"what flight documentation? if your source is some flight documentation, then add a citation to that."

Let's see, read the initial license for IFT-1, and the flight plan described in the FCC license for flight 3 (I don't have a link right now, sorry). Or the mission plan for IFT-2.

""we know" [citation needed]"

Have you not been reading anything I've written? Redacted II (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Redacted II, can you provide quotes and/or timestamps that directly support the names, dates, and vehicles of the upcoming flights?

"A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified." However, the current sources appear to be speculating on these details.

Vehicles: From the referenced video, it seems NSF is speculating to some degree, and at a minimum, the predictions should include appropriate context to avoid "undue bias to any specific point-of-view."

Then there's flight six, which, if all of the other numbers line up as we suspect...

IFT-3's date: Is early March based on the NSF commentary or Musk's "about three weeks" post (a timeframe that doesn't explicitly exclude the end of February)? If NSF, undue bias is a concern.

I think February is off the table at this point, in my opinion...the beginning of March I feel like...

It's possible. I would probably go with four weeks personally. Maybe four.

Redraiderengineer (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2024/02/starship-3-stacked-first-time/

It's at the end of the article:

"After Flight 3, Booster 11 and Ship 29 are slated for Flight 4. Currently, based on a SpaceX post on X last week, Booster 11 may have all of its engines installed and could be very close to being ready for a static fire.

Ship 29 should also be getting its engines – if it already doesn’t have them all – as Raptors have been seen going into Mega Bay 2. If Flight 3 goes well and the pad is in good shape, Booster 11 and Ship 29 could roll out relatively shortly after launch.

For Flight 5, there is Booster 12 and Ship 30. Booster 12 is currently sitting on the center work stand in the Mega Bay, getting fitted with engines ahead of static fire testing. Ship 30 is in the High Bay, slowly getting ready to take the second ship work stand recently installed in Mega Bay 2.

Flight 6 has gotten a big update in the past few weeks, as Booster 13 is fully stacked and will be completed ahead of cryo-proof for the next few months. Ship 31 is having its crane lift points tiled over and general heat shield work ahead of cryo testing." Redacted II (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For IFT-3s date, it's based on Musk's tweet, which does exclude February.

21 days after Feb 12 is March 4. Redacted II (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Redacted II and @WyoGrad2024, please use the talk page to discuss your edits.

Redacted II, multiple editors (at least four) have questioned the inclusion of launches beyond IFT-4. You've reverted multiple editors to keep what appears to be speculation in the article while claiming consensus. The schedule (e.g., names and dates) of future launches should be directly supported to demonstrate verifiability, or the content should be removed. Redraiderengineer (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One: the debate was over. For over a month. I think after an entire month, it's safe to say the consensus was to keep IFT-5 and IFT-6 (and I'm not the only one to add them back in).

Two: the statements are sourced. This has already been discussed above, but I'll go over them again.

Source 1 is a photo of 3 super heavy booster (B10, B11, B12), labeling them as the boosters for the next 3 flights (at the time of the Tweet from SpaceX, since then, B10 has flown). This source is mainly just backing the Source 2.

Source 2 states S29/B11 for Flight 4 , S30/B12 for Flight 5, and S31/B13 for Flight 6.

The naming scheme for Starship flight tests is IFT, but this is often abbreviated to just Flight test. There are a huge number of sources that prove Starship Flight tests are Integrated Flight Test _ (basically almost every single source for IFT-1, 2, and 3) Redacted II (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]