Talk:Starship flight test 1/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

29 apr, NYT quotes Elon Musk's Twitter audio chat

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/29/science/elon-musk-spacex-starship.html The NYT quotes twitter audio chat by Elon Musk, a primary source. Below some quotes, sorted sequentially, by time after launch:

1. Three of the 33 engines on the Starship’s booster stage were shut down before the rocket even left the launchpad. “The system didn’t think they were healthy enough to bring them to full thrust,” Mr. Musk said, “so they were shut down.”
2. The thrust of 30 engines unexpectedly generated a “rock tornado” that scattered debris across hundreds of acres and generated a giant dust cloud.
3. it got “clear of the pad with minimal damage to the pad.”
4. he acknowledged that the launch hurled debris across a wide area and generated clouds of dust, which reached a small town miles away from the launchpad at the southern tip of Texas.
5. The loss of the three engines caused Starship to lean to the side as it headed upward. “We do not normally expect a lean,” Mr. Musk said. “It should be actually going straight up.”
6. “The rocket kept going, though,” Mr. Musk said. It was 85 seconds into the flight “where things really hit the fan,” Mr. Musk said, when the rocket lost its ability to steer its direction by pointing the engine nozzles.
7. the end of the flight was tenser than it should have been. An automated self-destruct command did not immediately destroy Starship.
8. “The vehicle’s structural margins appear to be better than we expected,” Mr. Musk said.
9. From that point, the rocket started flying out of control and continued even after the termination command.
10. Instead, 40 seconds passed before the rocket finally exploded.
11. Instead of the rocket’s 33 engines firing directly onto the concrete below the rocket at liftoff, a large water-cooled steel plate will be installed. Mr. Musk said the plate was not ready for last week’s launch.
12. the next rocket and repairs to the launchpad would be ready within six to eight weeks.
13. The next launch would attempt to accomplish the goals of the first mission — for the Starship vehicle to successfully detach from the booster and reach space before circling most of the planet and landing in the waters off Hawaii.
14. Mr. Musk did not promise full success on the second try. He said he expected four or five more Starship launches this year. “We’ve probably got an 80 percent probability of reaching orbit this year,” Mr. Musk said. “I don’t want to tempt fate, but I think close to 100 percent chance of reaching orbit within 12 months.”

Currently used source for chapter 'April 20 attempt' https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/29/elon-musk-spacexs-starship-costing-about-2-billion-this-year.html seems based on the same twitter audio chat. Should the 'April 20 attempt' and 'Aftermath' chapters be extended using quotes from the NYT article? Uwappa (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I would say so. I'm not sure if we should include all of them, but certainly some of them in their respective sections. CodemWiki (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 27 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus is this is premature so I'll withdraw the proposal {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC) {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

---

SpaceX Starship orbital test flight → SpaceX Starship first orbital test flight – Following up from: #Requested move 15 April 2023. Per WP:QUALIFIER this was just the first test. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Premature once the second launch is imminent, then moving would be ok. For now, especially while on ITN, it would be an unnecessary technicality. 194.102.58.6 (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Premature - I also agree that this shouldn't be done until there's an article for the second test flight. Ergzay (talk) 07:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Also if I was to rename it, based on the naming convention used for other test flights, I would name it "SpaceX Starship S24/B7 orbital test flight". Ergzay (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Premature per reasoning above. Yasslaywikia (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SpaceX Starship integrated flight test

(SpaceX Starship orbital test flight → SpaceX Starship integrated flight test)

Support I support this title. Cause in " https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1wcilQ58hI&ab_channel=SpaceX " Spacex official starship flight test webcast, Spacex commentator mentioned it as "first integrated flight test" at 52:44. " https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1649033533846097927 " even in this official Spacex twitter account tweet, Spacex mentions it as "Starship’s first integrated flight test". so using words like first, second, third, orbital and maiden makes the titles unnecessarily longer so i dont think we should use those words also this launch wasn't planned to complete a full revolution/rotation around earth aka a full Transatmospheric Earth orbit so its not orbital , so i support this title. i would like to hear your guys opinion on this title whether you support or oppose this title . Swtadi143 (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Support Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose this is not the WP:COMMONNAME {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: The meaning of orbital includes relating to an orbit. More importantly, this title isn't going to be recognizable to people familiar with the launch and so it fails WP:CRITERIA. RAN1 (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Integrated is redundant. SpaceX_Starship defines the Starship as integrated: "The launch vehicle consists of the first-stage Super Heavy booster and the second-stage Starship spacecraft". Alternative: SpaceX Starship inaugural test flight. Uwappa (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• • Strong oppose alternative suggested "SpaceX Starship inaugural test flight" Clearly this is not the case. As discussed in the last move request, this is not the inaugural or maiden test flight of SpaceX's Starship. There have been many test flights before this. The inauguaral one was with the subsize prototype version called "Starhopper", several years ago. Several full-sized Starships have also flown before S24 as part of the B7/S24 integrated stack. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Agree with the poster two above. Integrated is redundant. The most significant aspect of this test flight was that it was an attempt to reach orbit, and it contrasts it with previous suborbital test flights. Secondly most news agencies also refer to it as an orbital test flight, rather than an integrated test flight. Ergzay (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

FAA Lawsuit

I’m certain that a new article is required for this subject, but the FAA has recently been sued by various environmentalist groups over the recent SpaceX Starship test. At the least, this warrants a mention in the flight test article and FAA article, which I’ll be adding to the latter soon if it hasn’t already. Yasslaywikia (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it's added already? (See the last paragraph here, currently associated with FNs 54 & 55.) Also, while it warrants mention here, I'd hold off on the FAA article. Administrative agencies get sued ... a lot. It's generally pretty hard to win those suits, especially if the plaintiffs are environmental groups. It's a bit premature to include the lawsuit on the FAA page. I'm also very certain that it's premature for a new article.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn’t notice that it was added to the article already! I’ve added the lawsuit to the FAA article already under the history section as I believe that it fits Wikipedia:Notability guidelines, however, if you wish to remove it given the reasoning that it’s a premature addition, then go ahead. I still think that it should be retained within the FAA article for the time being, unless nothing comes of the lawsuit. Yasslaywikia (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Nah I'm not an editor on that page. FAA isn't sued as often as others, at least to my knowledge, but just for some perspective, per pacer, it's currently the subject of 8 open lawsuits in the District Court for the District of Columbia (not including the closed cases that are on appeal). Since 2000, it's been the subject of 94 cases. Last three cases to close (so far as I can tell) were ... settled (Rugg v. FAA, 1:20-cv-00071), dismissed (Ash v. Buttigieg, 1:21-cv-02468, on appeal), and voluntarily dismissed (Doupe v. FAA, 1:22-cv-03076). That's not to say this most recent lawsuit is without merit! It's just to say ... administrative agencies are sued a lot.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Update image

It'd make sense to update the image, because it is almost the same as the one used on the Starship main article Cocobb8 (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Use of YouTube video related to engine failure

I wanted to flag these edits by @Gciriani:, because I'm not sure about them. Gciriani, is there any secondary source that describes the number of engines working? Maybe citing the YouTube video and saying "count" is cool, I get that that might be basic enough that we don't have to worry about WP:PRIMARY, but I couldn't find any coverage of it, and I'm a little wary of the YouTube reliance.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Jerome Frank Disciple While the medium is YouTube, it is on SpaceX's YouTube channel, and the link is the one posted by SpaceX in their launch page. So if you prefer we could post that link. The link I posted by the way, goes directly to the few seconds where all malfunctioning engines are shown. You can distinctly count 15 engines out of 20 working on the outer circle, 10 out of 10 working on the inner circle, and 2 out of 3 working in the center location. As a detail, the video they posted is a merge of the first launch attempt and the second launch we are discussing in the article; I watched as it was happening the day of the launch, and it is the same identical video that they were broadcasting live.--Gciriani (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I guess I have two concerns, both based on WP:PRIMARY: (1) smaller concern: accuracy of the interpretation; (2) larger concern: given the lack of coverage by reliable secondary sources, due weight--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, referencing YouTube videos like that falls under both PRIMARY (as Jerome Frank Disciple mentioned) and original research. However, the video is definitely suitable to use as a means of verifying reliability in other sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

In light of the OR concerns @Pbritti has raided, I added a disputed-inline template to the claim. (I also just want to make clear, in case it wasn't, that I hadn't yet reverted the edit.)--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

That's good for now. I wanna give time for Gciriani to acknowledge the concerns given their good faith communication here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

In support of Gciriani's approach I would like to point to WP:CALC and the fact that there is a WP:RS for the total number of booster engines (33) and that it is indeed self-evident that at some point the SpaceX video shows a total number of working engines of 15 + 10 + 2 = 27 (and not 28). To clarify this in the article, we could write "but in their webcast live video 27 were seen working implying that 6 of the 33 engines were not working". PS. With that I think the disputed-inline template can be removed. Lklundin (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Part of the issue with applying WP:CALC in this circumstance is that instead of adding up reliable sourced numeric totals we're relying on editor observation of the video. While that may seem trivial, an editor's visual assessment of whether an engine is functioning or not is well within the definition of original research. It is rocket science, after all, so reliable sourcing for that kind of claim is necessary. The dispute inline tag should remain as it's not reliably sourced and still in dispute. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

At first I was going to agree with this reasoning. However, for SpaceX's claim (of 5) to be correct, there would have to be 27 working engines each resulting in a bright, white, well-separated plume along with 1 working engine _not_ resulting in the expected bright, white plume. I really find that is a stretch - whereas it seems self-evident that a bright, white plume corresponds to one working engine. Lklundin (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I think this is definitely original research. It's good to ask ourselves whether a policy makes sense in a particular case, so here's my metric: "are we convinced, bang to rights, that we put more effort into this than any of the journalists that covered this story?" 1% of the time, we have good reason to believe that, and we can lean more on editorial judgment. But here, they all have access to the same video we do, and most of the likely watched it, so there's little to no room for WP:OR. One source says "up to five". One says "as many as eight" engines. One directly contradicts us and says: By T+100 seconds, six engines were not operating, although one was restored a few seconds later. We can't apply WP:CALC when sources don't even agree, despite all watching the same video. It was also worded unencyclopaedically ("but actually"). DFlhb (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

This is the official, public statement. "SpaceX's webcast graphics showed 5 engines shutting down during the rocket's ascent, but actually 6 were seen not working in their webcast live video." Is it possible we could amend it to say that 5 were officially said to shut down, while 6 were visibly to be malfunctioning? Something along the lines of, "SpaceX's webcast graphics officially showrd 5 engines to have shut down during the rocket's ascent, however (or meanwhile), 6 were visibly seen to have shut down (or malfunctioned)." I don't wish to impose, but it combines both statements, while avoiding original research, because the engine shutdown is public, as well. QuicksmartTortoise513 (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I'm having trouble Googling, apparently, could you link the official statement? The official statement says 6 were seen not working in the webcast video?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I meant to say that that was the current statement shown on Wikipedia that anyone could read. QuicksmartTortoise513 (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Protected page?

Why??? Anyways, Musk disclosed that at T+27 they lost communication with one of the engines as a result of an explosive event, some kind of damage around T+62 and at T+85 they lost the thrust-vector-control TVC on one of the central engines which resulted in the tumble later on. The FTS was activated 40 seconds before the actual explosion, so somewhere around T+200.

“The longest lead item on that is probably the requalification of the flight termination system. Because we did initiate the flight termination system, but it was not enough to, it took way too long to rupture the tanks,” Musk noted.

The goal of these early missions is just information. Like, we don’t have any payload or anything. We just try to learn as much as possible. And so, that’s why I would consider this to be a success because since the goal of the flight was to learn a lot, and we learned a lot, I would characterize it as a success. Obviously not a complete success, but still nonetheless successful.”

194.102.58.6 (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC) https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2023/05/musk-orbital-goal-starship-debut/

I wouldn't worry too much. This page will get some massive cleanups in a few months once the media frenzy around it settles and the next launches happen. When that happens we can come back and clean out all the misinformation in the article. Ergzay (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you implying that the Starship exploding mid-flight and making it a failure is misinformation, especially considering that it was meant to reach orbit regardless of what Elon Musk had to say? I'm pretty sure that there's an overall consensus that, for all intents and purposes, that this launch was a failure. Yasslaywikia (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Yasslaywikia Launch industry experts, reporters and insiders almost universally call the test a success or a partial success. I defer to them. The sources that call it a failure are those from outside the industry, so called generalist reporters who report on a bunch of topics and reported on the topic more from the Elon Musk angle than from the space industry angle. It was also stated by SpaceX themselves in numerous sources, during the web stream, on the website and in statements by the CEO before the launch that reaching orbit and completing re-entry had a very high likely hood of not happening. Once this launch is set contextually against later launches this page will get cleared out of a lot of these generalist sources and those sources will be correctly marginalized. Ergzay (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

That is contrary to what reliable sources say about the topic. Both sources cited, which are WP:RS, say that it was still a failure to some degree. There is still an overall consensus that the launch was a failure, which it undeniably was, as it exploded (this source also says that it was a failure, mind you). Keep in mind that Space.com, the first source [1] listed, specialises in giving out space news, so I think that this is quite specific to the topic! May I remind you that we must maintain a WP:NPOV when writing encylopedic content on Wikipedia regardless of what we think, which we do by reflecting what is said in (reliable) sources. Yasslaywikia (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

A source can be generally reliable, but still fail to understand nuance when things are different and simply paint something with a wide brush. Several of the failures in the first source for example did indeed have expectations set that it would not be a success unless landing happened, while some did not. The space.com link is a summary article so has to simplify. There's an aspect of WP:NPOV, discussed earlier on this talk page that editors selectively choose sources that accurately portray things. See user DFlhb's comment under Talk:SpaceX_Starship_orbital_test_flight#Discussion of OR & the opinions of Roesch and de Weck. There's also the issue of false balance. Ergzay (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

If you have some specific edit you want made. You can list it here and I can add it. Ergzay (talk) 04:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a bit late, but the article protection expired just before the 5th, so they should be fine to edit. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Poor sources

@Jerome Frank Disciple As mentioned, SCMP shouldn't be used here as they're a state media source from China in competition with the US. They're good for some topics but not topics like this. Secondly, the guardian source was from 2 years ago. None of them used the term "serious damage". Ergzay (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Yasslaywikia Also see this. The edit keeps getting reverted but there's numerous issues. The sources are bad (SCMP, guardian source from 2 years ago), and they don't say what the edit states. Ergzay (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Apologies - I did not notice that the Guardian source was 2 years out of date. However, other RS point to more recent environmental damage caused by the launch which should be included as debris did fall back down onto the nature reserve following the launch. Yasslaywikia (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Yasslaywikia I completely agree debris landed in the state park, but the source does not state that as "serious damage". Adding something that talks about concrete debris landing in the state park would be completely fine. However the lede is getting long already, so keep that in mind. Ergzay (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

We also have lots of other sources that already talk about debris landing in the state park, including further down in the article. Those should be re-used rather than adding lede-only sources. Ergzay (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, so can we agree that damage to the state park can be included within the introductory paragraphs? Yasslaywikia (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes as long as we don't invent "serious damage" to the state park not stated in the source. Ergzay (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Not that it's necessarily relevant, but I personally don't think the damage to the park is ever likely to be significant, simply because the park is in a hurricane zone and the damage it incurred is similar in variety to what a hurricane would cause and much less severe than what a hurricane would cause. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the distinction to make here is that SpaceX chose Boca Chica as the location for where Starship will (principally) be developed and launched from. I think that it is disingenuous to compare the Starship launch to a hurricane as they're natural disasters, whereas the Starship isn't. The determining factor is that SpaceX could've picked another site to launch Starship from, which for me makes this notable. We don't apply the same logic to cars when it comes to the pollution they (can) cause. Yasslaywikia (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

But it's not a matter of pollution that would never happen naturally. It's a case of some bits of rock and dust getting tossed around, something which happens naturally in that area and much more energetically and for greater continuous duration. If the launch had spilled kerosene all over the place that would be different, but nothing happened that was substantially different in affect or more destructive than the normal weather events in the location. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I still don't think that it's a good comparison to make because a hurricane is still a natural event, and while the destructive nature of a hurricane and the Starship orbital test flight can be compared, the Starship orbital test flight, in theory, could've been prevented, whereas it is (virtually) impossible to do so with a hurricane. Yasslaywikia (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't like starship's environmental impacts either, but it would have faced the same hyper-scrutiny at any viable alternate site. I prefer to see starship as the lesser evil because, if successful, it will radically alter launch vehicle design dogmas and reduce the overall environmental impact of space travel as a whole. Or I could just be naive and clinging to my last shred of optimism for human ingenuity and post Sun swallows the Earth survival. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes I agree. No matter where this launched there would have been the same reaction, unless it was hidden from public sight like deep in a government land area, like Blue Origin does. Ergzay (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we should end the discussion here as it’s no longer relevant to the topic at hand as per WP:NOTAFORUM, but as part of my closing thoughts, if SpaceX chose not to proceed with an iterative and destructive approach to Starship’s development, but focusing on getting it first try, then perhaps there wouldn’t be so much “hyper-scrutiny” as you claim. That’s all I have to say in this regard. Yasslaywikia (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

That may be so, but that would not be SpaceX any longer and would not have gotten where they are today. Ergzay (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Your main thesis of "SpaceX could've picked another site to launch Starship" I think is not very valid, unless you mean just moving the destruction/removal of wildlife area to somewhere else. There's also VERY few possible locations to do it from. Also I don't see the only other real option (Cape Canaveral) to allow the type of destructive iterative development that has been done at Boca Chica given that it is government owned property rather than SpaceX property. Ergzay (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I don't want to this argument to become one of "SpaceX iS bAd!1!!!!!!" and "SpaceX iS gOoD!111111!!", however, the fact that the damage was preventable and that it was human-caused as opposed to being a natural process is what makes it distinguishable and notable in my view. The ways in that it has been compared to a hurricane by @Largely Legible Layman illustrates my point in a sense - if it was human-caused and can be compared to the destructive nature of a hurricane, then surely it's notable enough for inclusion? Yasslaywikia (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I would like to point out I was comparing the variety of damage to a hurricane, not the scope, scale, or severity. A hurricane would have done tens of times more damage to hundreds of times more area. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I mean yes, I agree in the extreme case the damage was preventable, but it wasn't reasonably preventable. The alternatives were multi-year delays in moving to a new launch site or a fundamental change in the development methodology that has been followed for Starship since the beginning (and SpaceX in general for that matter). I don't think either is a reasonable request. Building a traditional dig-into-the-ground flame diverter for example isn't possible at this location. Ergzay (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Despite being applicable in an exceptional circumstance, the decision to prevent Starship’s launch was still there, right up until liftoff. I still think that there’s a strong distinction between a man made event and a natural event. Beginning to repeat myself here… Yasslaywikia (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for barging into the conversation on a side point. I don't care much about the man made event versus natural event aspect. I care more about the claim of it being preventable. Ergzay (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

There was no substantiated reason to prevent Starship's launch until after it happened though... Most of the damage was from the pad fragmenting, an outcome that was unprecedented based on substantial prior experience.

In a total digression: Beavers build dams that can cause immense flooding and change the course of rivers, seriously damaging the habitats of other lifeforms and even driving them extinct. Is that a natural disaster? Or a beaver made event? Largely Legible Layman (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Has there been a consensus that sources connected to China aren't reliable as to this article? Also, the AFP isn't connected to China, but it used the term "serious" [1]--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jerome Frank Disciple We could re-use the AFP source for the status of the pad, but most sources do not use the term "serious damage", so I'd be a bit skeptical to use it in the lede as statement of fact rather than the opinion of the source. But the AFP source doesn't mention the state park at all, let alone say it had "serious damage" or "some damage". Ergzay (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you give examples of sources, preferably reliable ones, which demonstrate this? Yasslaywikia (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you're asking for. Do you mean sources that covered the launch but make no mention of "serious damage"? If so I can provide several. Ergzay (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes please, and if applicable, the words they use to describe the damage caused to the launch site, surrounding infrastructure and state park. Yasslaywikia (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Here's a couple, if you want additional, let me know. I think these are all already used in the article.

https://spacenews.com/environmental-groups-sue-faa-over-starship-launch-license/

"In an April 29 audio chat on Twitter, SpaceX Chief Executive Elon Musk said the debris and plume were unanticipated, based on the results of previous tests that showed only modest erosion of the concrete pad. “If we had expected to dig a hole, we would not have flown,” he said. He noted the debris was “basically sand and rocks,” although particulate material can cause respiratory problems."

https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/05/elon-musk-provides-detailed-review-of-starships-first-launch-and-whats-next/

"In a wide-ranging talk on Saturday night, SpaceX founder Elon Musk reviewed the debut launch of the Starship rocket on April 20. The bottom line, he said, is that the vehicle's flight slightly exceeded his expectations and that damage to the launch site was not all that extensive. He expects Starship to fly again in as few as two or three months."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/04/20/spacex-starship-explosion-launch/

"The rocket carried no crew, and the Federal Aviation Administration said there were no reports of injuries or public property damage. Camera views from the launch site showed some damage to the area around the launchpad, with debris strewn about. A video of the launch posted by SpaceX shows debris hitting the beach and even splashing into the waves well past the shoreline. It was not immediately clear how widespread the damage was or whether it would delay SpaceX’s next launch attempt."

https://spacenews.com/environmental-groups-sue-faa-over-starship-launch-license/

"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said in an April 26 statement that its assessment of the damage from the launch found debris scattered over 385 acres of SpaceX property as well as the neighboring Boca Chica State Park. The plume from the launch deposited sand-like material more than 10 kilometers to the northwest. There was also evidence of a 3.5-acre wildfire caused by the launch in the vicinity of the pad." Ergzay (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Yasslaywikia Are these sufficient? Ergzay (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I’d say so, yes. Yasslaywikia (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

So can we agree on removing the "serious damage" aspect and go with just "damage"? I'd also like to keep the "unexpected" aspect but we can add "according to SpaceX" to it. Ergzay (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it’d be better to add ‘according to SpaceX’ alongside ‘unexpected’ considering that their view that the mission was a success is highly contested and that some sources, including reliable ones which were mentioned previously. My personal presence is to not add any descriptor which may overemphasise or downplay the damage caused by the launch, since considerable damage was dealt to Starbase as a result of the launch. Yasslaywikia (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes that was what I said, that we should add "according to SpaceX" alongside "unexpected". Note that it's not "reliable sources" but "generally reliable sources". Editors should select sources used based on their factuality and select which statements are used from such sources.

My personal preference is also to not add any descriptor which may overemphasize or downplay the damage caused. Repairs have proceeded extremely quickly following the damage showing that the damage was overstated in some sources. Elon Musk's spaces interview which has been quoted in a few sources shows that they're not that worried about the pad damage. Shotwell has said similarly in an interview as well. It was certainly more damage than they expected in the cause of a non-pad explosion, but it seems to be less than what many sources have been stating.

I'll go ahead and make an edit and we can discuss further. Ergzay (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Would this justify another revert to bring back what was previously added? I think that saying the damage was 'unexpected' is disingenuous as well. Yasslaywikia (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Well it can't be reverted as is with that 2 year old source. Ergzay (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ergzay:—Just a heads up, by my count, you're in WP:3RR territory. 1 2 3. If you and @Yasslaywikia: agree on an alternative wording, great, but you should not revert again.--Jerome Frank Disciple

@Jerome Frank Disciple: Do you want to go to the administrator's notice board then? Because you're adding back in a completely irrelevant source, from a previous event from two years ago, and suppositions that aren't even in the articles your adding. This counts as vandalism. I don't understand why you're doing this. Ergzay (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd like for you to not contravene WP:3RR. I'll happily remove the Guardian source, since it appears both of you agree it doesn't belong. If you need a third opinion, head to WP:3O. (And, no, reverting a user contravening WP:3RR does not qualify as vandalism.) By the way, I've noticed the SCMP article is actually, also, the AFP article.--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of using WP:3RR as a cudgel whenever improperly sourced content is added to an article. Ergzay (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest that, regardless of whether a fan, you get used to following WP:3RR.--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

For some reason people doing the reverting of reverts get to label other people with WP:3RR and then do the same when they're the one's doing the reverting as well. It's a policy that favors whoever mentions it first. I avoid mentioning it as it's simply non-conducive to finding a solution, but that inevitably leads to it getting thrown at me. It's very tiresome and old. Possibly one of the worst policies on Wikipedia. Ergzay (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, here you have multiple editors, which is really what tips the balance. But again, I'm not really taking part in this discussion—it sounds like you and Yasslaywikia are very close to coming to an agreement, anyway. If you don't come to an agreement, you can try WP:3O.--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Nice work here, everyone.--Jerome Frank Disciple 23:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Huge Success?

Not sure how an explosion 4 minutes into launch meant to orbit can be considered a massive success, even as a test launch. LoomCreek (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Also there were massive engine failures. LoomCreek (talk) 09:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I think only four of them failed. They can look to see why they failed on the telemetry data and be able to fix them in future prodction. Nem086 (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Visual inspection from video shows more than four engines out before the flight was terminated. By about two minutes into flight, it was six engines out. I've heard as high as eleven engines out. 130.156.43.94 (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Because it didn't blow up on the launch pad. Nem086 (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you personally think. The source says it was a "huge success" and it's a direct quote. Eric Berger is a highly respected (and highly accurate) space industry reporter. Ergzay (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The magnitude of what was accomplished cannot be understated. No new vehicle (especially as complex as this one) gets to orbit without encountering an anomaly along the way. The fact they got past max-q is tremendous on a first attempt.

I didn’t fail 1000 times. The light bulb was an invention with 1000 steps -Edison 173.79.116.181 (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

This was the first flight of the Super Heavy booster, the largest and most complex rocket ever flown. In a nominal flight, its 33 engines are only expected to burn for a bit less than 3 minutes. It flew longer than that, meaning they acquired data for pretty much a full launch profile. "Huge" is subjective of course, but getting all that data puts them in a good position to have a better second flight and get to an operational status with fewer iterations.--agr (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

SDLENGTH

Hello @Redacted II: That's WP:SDLENGTH too long. If my version is inaccurate perhaps something else is short enough but perfect accuracy isn't necessary. SD isn't a full description. Invasive Spices (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Currently it's: First integrated test launch of SpaceX Starship

Maybe: First Orbital Test Flight of SpaceX Starship

Both are above 40 characters, but it's hard to compress this down further. Redacted II (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Chronology for component level unplanned events

As noted above, it might be useful to have a chronology if "unplanned" of events related per engine (or other component). I went over Ars Technica's article that stemmed from the same twitter talk about for the 29 April NYT article on this talk page and here is what I have so far. I think this is easier to read than multiple paragraphs of chronological events. Some of this is redundant to the planned mission timeline, but unplanned events like explosions don't fit neatly into a table comparing multiple launch attempts. Any thoughts?

(I know that some youtubers have made more detailed frame-by-frame observations, but for now I'm sticking to secondary source material or at least information potentially originating from SpaceX engineering. I imagine SpaceX or NASA may release more detailed information in the future, but for now let's stick to what is reliable.)

Unplanned Mission Event Timeline

Time	Affected Component(s)	Event
-00:00:06 - 00:00:00	Engines ?, ?, and ?	Startup aborted before reaching full thrust due to health test failures
00:00:27	Engine 19	Loss of communication from engine 19
00:00:27	Engines 17, 18, 19, and 20	Loss of heat shields due to an explosion
00:00:62	Engine 30	Heat shield damage seen near engine 30. (Engine 30 continues to run)
00:00:85	Hydraulic system and Inner 13 gimbaling engines ??-??	Loss of thrust vector control, loss of steering of the rocket as a whole

Foonix0 (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC) Foonix0 (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Mentioning of AFTS activation is highly disputed at the moment

It is currently disputed, if the Starship mission control has been able to activate AFTS at all - or if the mission simply failed due to spontaneous disintegration (caused by a visible accumulation of defects) way before AFTS was able to trigger mission abort. Among one of the sources that have brought forward this claim with logical rationale, is Common Sense Skeptic on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErDuVomNd9M 83.144.244.82 (talk) 09:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not against editing the article for the unsure nature of AFTS activation but do you have a better source than Common Sense Skeptic? Scott Manley was cited on here at some point as well but then his claims were removed because they were consequent enough that a better (reliable by WP standards) source was needed. CodemWiki (talk) 10:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Quote from

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/29/science/elon-musk-spacex-starship.html "Then, said Elon Musk, the company’s founder, in an update delivered during a Twitter audio chat on Saturday night, the end of the flight was tenser than it should have been. An automated self-destruct command did not immediately destroy Starship. Instead, 40 seconds passed before the rocket finally exploded."

Original audio of chat, part about AFTS starts at 2:22: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ93kFiyPdc&t=142 Uwappa (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh ok you took the quote from nytimes not CNBC, I checked the source at the end of the sentence, it was CNBC and I couldn't find it there. CodemWiki (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for including ref to nytimes. This quote from the CNBC article seems in line with nytimes and audio chat:

"Additionally, Musk reported that it took about 40 seconds for the rocket’s AFTS (Autonomous Flight Termination System, which destroys the vehicle in the event it flies off course) to kick in, which SpaceX will need to correct before the next launch attempt.".

Uwappa (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

According to https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2023/05/musk-orbital-goal-starship-debut/ The Flight Termination System (FTS) was activated soon after the vehicle started to tumble, but it failed to destroy the vehicle.. It was destroyed by aerodynamic forces. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

"the still-integrated stack held together for around 40 seconds before succumbing to its wounds from the FTS being triggered and the aerodynamic stresses.” Both played a role it seems. CodemWiki (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

NYTimes, CNBC and Nasaspaceflight all 3 write that both played a role. These sources can be verified against the primary source, the audio chat mentioned above with quotes from Elon Musk:

3:49 so the aerodynamic forces would have I think at lower point in the

3:54 atmosphere aided in this destruction of the vehicle and in fact that's kind of what happened when the

4:00 vehicle got so low of altitude the atmospheric density was enough to cause

4:06 structural failure

Earlier, at 2:40 the proposed solution that may require most time for re-qualification:

2:40 we need more detonation cord to end of the tanks at altitude and

2:48 ensure that they basically the rocket explodes immediately

Uwappa (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

It needs to be made clear that the AFTS did in fact activate, which means the explosives blew up, but that didn't cause structural failure right away because of the lack of atmospheric forces on the vehicle, as Musk makes clear in the audio chat. Ergzay (talk) 05:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree, Musk is very clear in audio, listen from 2:17 to 4:11. Quote from secondary source, the mentioned NY times article:

the rocket started flying out of control and continued even after the termination command.

“It took way too long to rupture the tanks,” Mr. Musk said of the flight termination system, which is intended to destroy an out-of-control rocket. The delay did demonstrate the resilience of the rocket, which stayed intact as it tumbled.

“The vehicle’s structural margins appear to be better than we expected,” Mr. Musk said.

For the next launch, more explosives could be added to ensure that “the rocket explodes immediately if flight termination is necessary,” he said.

Uwappa (talk) 05:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

What is the proposed change to the article? I see no reputable source questioning if the FTS was activated. Common Sense Skeptic is not reliable in any way. The delay between its activation and the destruction of the vehicle is already discussed. --mfb (talk) 08:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that there should be some mention of great value in discovering the inadequacy of the flight termination system so early in the test program. Had the fight been closer to nominal, this issue would remain unknown and if a future mission veered off course in a more dangerous way, the 40 second delay could have resulted in tragedy. Has anyone seen a source that mentions this?--agr (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I haven't seen any so far ... but, by that "well that's what practice runs are for" standard, couldn't you spin almost any malfunction as a good thing?--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

No, because the standards for the test were set before the launch, multiple times in multiple venues. Further, it's specific objective was to learn. It wasn't carrying anything worth anything at all. Legally, it was a mishap as according to the FAA any flight that does not follow the exact prescribed path before launch is considered a mishap. There's a difference between what something is legally and what is written down about the test before it's run. Ergzay (talk) 05:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

You say no, but then when you say, Further, its specific objective was to learn .. it seems like you mean yes ... or at least "yes in this situation".--Jerome Frank Disciple 10:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

It's possible my grammar was incorrect. I'm an engineer by trade. However, I'm not sure how you get to an interpretation that my "no" is in fact a "yes". That's quite the stretch. Ergzay (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we're getting too off topic. Obviously the question here is how reliable sources cover the event, not how we should think of it independently. My only point was that by characterizing a flight's specific objective as "to learn" ... any defect could be viewed as a good thing. If the thing didn't launch and just tipped over, you could say "well thank goodness they caught that on this run and not one of the more important runs! a learning experience, for sure! mission accomplished."--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jerome Frank Disciple No you couldn't as that was not the expectations set before launch. SpaceX and the CEO of SpaceX, and the president of SpaceX set the expectations that clearing the launch pad would be considered a success and that if it just fell over on the pad or otherwise blew up on the pad, that would be a failure. For example here is such a source. https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02/as-early-as-today-starship-faces-its-final-exam-before-a-launch-attempt/ Speaking Wednesday at a commercial space conference in Washington, DC, SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell said Thursday would be a "big day" for the company. "Keep in mind, this first one is really a test flight," said Shotwell, who knows her spaceflight history. "The real goal is to not blow up the launch pad, that is success." The only metric of success or failure here by the standards set by SpaceX before the test is whether you consider the pad destroyed or not, which varies by sources, with some calling it destroyed, and most just calling it damaged. Ergzay (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

FYI Common Sense Skeptic is not a good source for anything on Wikipedia. They're an extremist that posts complete nonsense to get view counts. Ergzay (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@83.144.244.82

Common Sense Skeptic was demonstrated multiple times to lack even basic understanding of mechanics involving spaceflight and can in no way be considered to be WP:RS on spaceflight topics. 2A02:A420:51:7A00:45A6:DD8B:B945:8204 (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence for this claim, please? Yasslaywikia (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ergzay Can you respond to the above as well please? Thank you! Yasslaywikia (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I like watching YouTubers but in general they aren't a reliable source to build an encyclopedia, as they mostly provide opinions and guesses. For details it may be fine in a few cases but serious claims, no. Some of Scott Manley's assumptions had to be removed for that exact reason as no source could be found elsewhere. CSS is no exception and after having followed him for years, I would argue he is especially unreliable. Notorious Musk skeptics, such as Eric Roesch, don't even want to be associated with him.

I liked AstroKiwi's videos on the character. See here and here. CodemWiki (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand. I haven’t heard about all the drama regarding CSS, so I wondered what basis this claim had. While it depends on the qualifications of the creator, YT is generally unreliable source from what I understand and based off of your reasons, I don’t think that we should be making much reference to YTers at all. However, that being said, after a few minutes of watching AstroKiwi’s video, I don’t think that CSS as a source should be used at all, at least without careful consideration - although this would be stepping into Wikipedia:OR territory. Yasslaywikia (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Yasslaywikia You can pick any given video he's ever done and spend hours poking them full of incorrect points using sources. That's a lot of time that I'd prefer not to waste. I've done it in the past and would prefer not to do it again. He uses invented sources, invented data, data taken completely out of context, and also ignores updated data when it's available and cherry picks an out of date in-error piece of data instead. Ergzay (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

It's akin to trying to debunk a moon landing denier or a flat earther. It's a lot of effort and mental energy that serves no purpose. Ergzay (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Article contradicting sources

In the first sentence of the "Aftermath" section, are we really sure to write "The launch was generally regarded as a successful test flight" if the sources, which are cited explicitly to support that specific claim, have the headlines:

• "SpaceX's massive rocket Starship explodes 4 minutes after liftoff"
• "SpaceX giant rocket explodes minutes after launch from Texas"
• "Starship Explosion Shows Just How Far SpaceX Is From the Moon"

I changed it to the following more neutral wording: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship_orbital_test_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1154581922 Zae8 (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The headlines are by no means a complete picture of what the preponderance if the reliable sources.

Reuters: "At least two experts in aerospace engineering and planetary science who spoke with Reuters agreed that the test flight delivered benefits. 'This is a classical SpaceX successful failure,'"

Bloomberg: "Though the test launch ended prematurely, SpaceX did notch some big wins. "

Ars Technica: "getting the Super Heavy rocket and Starship upper stage off the launch pad was a huge success."

I'd recommend taking a look at this Ars article, which seems to be aimed at addressing your particular point of view specifically.

Many people are looking at this from the perspective that it failed to do what it said on the schedule. Others are looking at it from the perspective that it proves that various previously fringe concepts are actually viable. Foonix0 (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, "delivering benefits" is not the same as "success". "Successful failure" is not the same as "success". "Getting [...] off the launch pad was a huge success" is not the same as "The launch was [...] successful". And your selection was only an optimistic selection of all reports.

I agree that there are widely different interpretations. That's why I changed it to a more neutral tone. Zae8 (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

(Sorry for arriving late) Saying "The launch was generally considered a successful test flight is 100% neutral, because it has been considered a success by so many sources. Redacted II (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Page move

I've boldly moved the page to SpaceX_Starship_Integrated_Flight_Test. Based on my assessment of the most recent move discussion, this doesn't seem in conflict with the consensus which was in opposition to moving to Starship Flight Test. Seddon ^talk 19:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Water permits

User:Pbritti Thank you for your change, that seems an improvement over the previous text. However the source doesn't quite seem to state in the positive that they decided it doesn't need one, just that they didn't apply for one. It says "SpaceX hasn’t said why it went ahead without a permit and didn’t respond to a request for comment." Regarding your comment "I feel like this could be removed if it's later demonstrated there was absolutely no legal mandate", I'd suggest the opposite: Unless there is some plausible evidence (or at the very least, an allegation from a credible source) that some legal mandate existed, It's WP:UNDUE to include insinuations of such lawbreaking. "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

Honestly, the source here presents mostly a Loaded question. That's why I favored removal. It uses the term "wastewater" five times, but it doesn't actually say that the water is "wastewater." They cite "ESGHound" as a source, who is a biased spacex opposition blogger. The cite Center for Biological Diversity, which has COI because they are currently suing the FAA to stop further launches. The only neutral source they cite is Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, and the worst thing they had to say about it was that they are "currently evaluating the use of the pressurized water system as part of SpaceX launch operations to see if state environmental regulations apply or were violated." That part is interesting, so perhaps include that? But, at the moment, there are no sources actually alleging that anything but ordinary water was used for the test. Foonix0 (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Foonix0: You're right: my phrasing didn't summarize the source precisely. Based on your reasoning, I favor removal pending additional sourcing. Thank you for pinging to notify me of the discussion opening. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Image annotation that you can see that some engines have failed

@Zae8: and @Foonix0:—it appears you two are in a dispute concerning the very topic addressed in this section. Rather than revert back and forth or leaving comments for each other on the article page, please discuss the proposed text here before inserting it. Thanks!--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Zae8 do not edit war. The appropriate thing to do is discuss the changes here and then, once a consensus is reached, act accordingly. For what it's worth, I'm a little skeptical that the YouTube video you've cited (Why Did STARSHIP EXPLODE?! SpaceX Launch Frame By Frame Analysis--With Scott Walter) is a reliable source, and you should also include a timestamp for when the claim is made. But, again, regardless, the thing to do is discuss the edit here, not keep editing the article.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Jerome Frank Disciple, since you reverted my change: What problem do you see? The OR concern of User:Foonix0 obsolete, since it contains a reference. Zae8 (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Also note that the discussion in this section is not relevant here, because my contribution does not make any claim about the number of failed engines. It just states the obvious fact, that you can see in the image that some engines have failed. Zae8 (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

As I just stated, I have concerns about WP:RS and the fact that you didn't include a timestamp in your 53 minute video. When in the video is the claim made?--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Do I understand you correctly that you doubt the claim that missing white dots indicate failed engines? Zae8 (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Why did you dodge the question? You made a claim. You were reverted for OR. You then cited a 53 minute YouTube video and said that the OR concern was resolved. Now, I'm asking you for a timestamp, and your response is, essentially, "Aw come on, are you really saying I need a source?" Let's make this simple: You've cited a YouTube video for a claim. When in the video is the claim made? (And, just for the record, Foonix0 did seem to take a factual issue with your claim [2])--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The reason I was "dodging" the time question was because I was too lazy to look up the specific location, because it was hard to believe for me that someone could doubt statement, and therefore I was optimistic that you agree with me anyway without me having to invest the time in looking it up. Yes, I'm lazy, sorry for that.

And my understanding of Foonix0 concern was only that you cannot see any failed engine as missing white dot, but the image description is only that a failed dot clearly shows a failed engine. So Foonix0 convern is also fully addressed. But anyway, if Foonix0 still has concerns Foonix0 can say so.

But anyway, now I looked it up. Are you satisfied when adding the following link? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6oTFHVRHv4&t=1757s Zae8 (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

For me it's an interesting experience that such a change, which looks absolutely trivial and obvious to me, causes so much convern and discussion. Zae8 (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Let me also mention that when having a concern related to an edit, I think it's better to fix it instead of just reverting the whole contribution. For example, reference missing? Add it or add this missing-marker-note. You don't liked my inline comment? Just remove it. Zae8 (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

First, try to slow down a bit. You're posting multiple comments within minutes of each other. There's no rush! If you recognize that a source needs to be added (or at least if you're adding a source to address an OR concern that's been raised), then you need to properly cite the source—just throwing up a 53-minute video and essentially say "it's somewhere in there". And, yes, obviously we should give Foonix0 (and other editors) time to see this section and respond. If Foonix and the other editors don't have a concern, I'll also withdraw my concern.

Second, I'm not sure I am satisfied with that timestamp? I'm not sure I actually hear anyone say something like "multiple failed engines can be identified by missing white dots", though maybe they get close? Here's the transcript from the timestamp:

... and I'm not sure if it pops up. So, we'll see it here, and it's a little hard to see when we zoom in. So, basically, there's a 2-1-2, alright? But what we're seeing is a 2-1-1. So you can see from that—and it's rotated about 180 degrees. So the center engine that's out you'll see is on the left side [inaudible] on the right side here.

--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

In the video they are obviously comparing the missing white dots in the main video with the indication at the bottom left. Therefore they are obviously taken it granted that missing dots are failed engine. In other words, the statement that missing white dots are failed engines are so trivially obvious for the guys in the youtube video, so that they don't state explicitely: "Let me first explain to the viewers that missing white dots are failed engines!" Obviously they assume it's obviouos, and discuss the number and location of failed engine based on that trivial basis.

In short: The statement that missing white dots indicate failed engines is WP:BLUE. Any disagreement?

But now you have dodged my question: Do you really doubt that the missing dots are failed engines? Do you really think that that Foonix0 is doubting it?

Zae8 (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I added a new version of the change, which should address both your and Foonix0's concern.

If you are still not happy, please consider fixing the problem instead of reverting the whole contribution.

But let me suggest that you may consider that the change is really harmless and that the added information is obvious. If you really disagree, I suggest discussing it here how to imrove it first before reverting the whole change.

Thank you!

Zae8 (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Let me also note that this was discussed in many analyses. But again, isn't the statement obvious anyway, even without reference? But anyway, I provided a reference. Zae8 (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Also let me note that I didn't edit war:

I added information. It was reverted with the explanation OR. Then I didn't just revert it again, but added the information again and adding a reference, addressing the OR research. Then you reverted it because you said my inline comment was not the right way of doing it. Again I didn't just revert again, but I addressed also your convern. I don't think this is edit warring. Zae8 (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Zae8 says YouTube will be a reliable source if a video identifying failed engines is from a notable organization called SpaceX. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

First, may I ask why the statement that missing white dots show failed engines is not WP:BLUE?

In case you doubt this, do you think there is a reason why this particular video is in any way not trustworthy? The channel is not SpaceX, but definitely a notable organization, well known in space circles. Your comment sounds like SpaceX is the only notable organization on earth.

Zae8 (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

John L Kundert-Gibbs explains why starship exploded. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand what you want to say.

This contributions has nothing to do with the explosion. Zae8 (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Zae8 you've been repeatedly told that your proposal was challenged and that a discussion concerning its inclusion needed to happen before it was reinserted into the article. You cannot sidestep that discussion by making minor changes to your proposed edit. You are in violation of WP:3RR. You need to self revert. If you do not, or if you're reverted by another editor and you revert again, we'll have to go to ANI. I understand your preferred rule is "keep content in and make small changes", but that's not what WP:NOCON says.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I didn't just make minor changes.

One person reverted my change (instead of fixing it) by citing a lack of reference. I addressed it fully by adding it. Some other person reverted it (instead of fixing it) because I added a comment in he Wiki source code. I addressed that fully by removing it. You complain because John L Kundert-Gibbs explains why starship exploded. I don't understand that at all. This all makes no sense to me. Zae8 (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Seriously, I'd prefer not to escalate this. You need to self revert. Here's how the process works: now that the content has been challenged by multiple users, it's not appropriate to put it back in until we reach a consensus here.

If you find a better source, fantastic—mention it on the talk page. But don't edit the article again and say "oh well now, in my opinion, the problem's fixed". That is edit warring.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

You have reverted me with the reason "John L Kundert-Gibbs explains why starship exploded" which makes no sense at all in this context. This is torpeding any serious consensus discussion. Instead you are threatening me with reporting me. Please refrain from this. Thank you. Zae8 (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I did not revert you for that reason. You're confusing me for another editor. Also it's pretty clear you won't self revert. I tried.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The thing to do when you realize you've violated WP:3RR is self revert immediately, not say "no but wait can you explain more about why I was reverted?"--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Because people already wrote exactly in their revert message why they reverted. And I addressed it fully. Before somebody else came up with a completely different reason. Do you deny this? Zae8 (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I saw that you self reverted so I aborted the ANI post. Thank you for self reverting. I might come around your way on this discussion, but the discussion needs to happen, first.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Let me just point out again that your comments on my talk page were not true. You claimed that I "were repeatedly told to wait". This never happened. People complained aboout perceived OR and other issues, which I addressed explicitely. I always did exactly what people requested from me at all times. Therefore your ANI threat was and is not appropriate. I would appreciate if you acknowledge this. Thank you. Zae8 (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Additional, I would like to ask you why you think that your revert is no violation of WP:ONLYREVERT (and WP:ENCOURAGE)? Also thank you.

Adding the trivial obvious note to a picture that you can see failed engines on a rocket leads me to being ANI reported? What a crazy world. Zae8 (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's productive to have discussions multiple places. You raised this here and on my talk page, I responded in full there.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't see this thread before reverting.

User:Zae8 several reasons it's not WP:BLUE.. first off we don't really know that this particular frame of this video represents the maximal amount of engines that went out. An engine could have failed, for example, during the tumble where no one could see it. Second, although a lack of light from the engine probably indicates a failure, the presence of light doesn't indicate a lack of failure. Finally, we wind up in the weeds of "what is a failure exactly?" which is a huge swath of this talk page. Is loss of thrust the only indicator of a failure? What about a partial throttleback due to an issue? How about loss of thrust vectoring? How about damaging its self to the point of being unusable without refurbishment? We are not qualified to answer these questions and we shouldn't be making guesses.

Adding further analysis of which engines failed wouldn't be out of the question. How about a diagram of the engine layout, which can be annotated with failures noted from the sources? I think that would accomplish your goal of showing which engines are known to have failed, and possibly be more informative to the reader. Foonix0 (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The intention of the contribution was not a exhaustive discussion of what engines failed exactly why. It's not claiming any maximal amount. It's not claiming that the presence of light does indicate a lack of failure. It's not saying anything about loss of thrust vectoring. It's not discussing the life, the universe and the rest. Nothing.

It is just pointing out in the image that you can clearly see that some engines have failed.

Nothing more.

What is the issue with that? Why is this not a simple obvious WP:BLUE statement? Zae8 (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, let's start over. The text currently in question reads. "Multiple failed engines can be identified by missing white dots." To me this is far too close to saying "You can just subtract the number of white dots you see from the number of engines to get the number of failures." Although it doesn't technically say that, it fills the negative space around the idea. It seems to pointedly avoid not saying that.

There is a second WP:UNDUE problem I just noticed.. this phrasing is featured prominently on the sidebar twice, including the topmost image in the article now. Although engine failures are notable, they aren't more notable than the launch as a whole. WP:UNDUE specifically "prominence of placement" I believe this is unnecessarily negative to elevate a small aspect of the larger article like this.

Please, state what you are trying to do exactly so that we can help find a version that is more broadly acceptable. Would you be open to the idea of having a table of notable engine events, including what SpaceX notes as "failures?" If so I'll be happy to give it a try later today if you don't beat me to it. Foonix0 (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

What I am "trying to do exactly"? Well, the two images obviously show an irregular pattern of dots. A reader may wonder what that means. My only intention is to add an explanation that these are failed engines.

Nothing more. No claim about which phase in the flight this image is from. No claim about any number of failed engines. No subtraction. No negative space around anything whatever this means.

Since it is visible in both images, and the engine failures were a significant event in the launch I think it makes sense to add that explanation to both images.

But well, if you are worried about somebody starting some subtraction, what about one of the following proposals?

• Multiple failed engines can be identified by missing white dots (this is the original version which has been there for some time, and which I still like best because of its simplicity, but I am open for any other propopsal)
• Multiple of the failed engines can be identified by missing white dots.
• Multiple of the failed engines can be identified by missing white dots (the exact number is not known).
• Multiple of the failed engines can be identified by missing white dots (the exact number is unclear).
• Multiple of the failed engines can be identified by missing white dots (the exact number is disputed).
• While it is not clear which engines failed at which time, multiple of the failed engines can be identified in this image by missing white dots.
• Multiple (but not necessarily all) of the failed engines can be identified by missing white dots.
• Multiple of the failed engines can be partly identified by missing white dots.
• Multiple failed engines can be identified by missing white dots. But under any circumstances don't subtract the number of white dots you see from the number of engines to get the number of failures, because this may result in you being blocked from using Wikipedia. (Just to clarify to avoid another ANI report: this proposal is only a joke.)
• Any other suggestions?

User:Foonix0 (and anyone else who doesn't like this version), it's your turn!

If you don't like my proposals, in spirit of WP:ONLYREVERT, it would be nice to suggest a version you would accept. Zae8 (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I proposed some changes in a new section below. I believe this is more useful than asking the reader to count the dots, but serves a similar purpose. If the reader wants to, they can count lines in the table based on whatever "failure" criteria they choose. Foonix0 (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

You are rejecting all my proposals listed above? What new proposals are you referring to? I couldn't find them. Zae8 (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

How about: Starship engines during first orbital test flight. Not all engines were producing a visible plume, probably due to failure. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 23:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Would be fine with me. And I like the "visible plume" wording better than my original "dot" wording. (But I am wondering why only "probably", because obviously the reason was failure.) Zae8 (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

No point edit warring over a YouTube video. It's not a reliable source, and reliable sources came to different counts based on the exact same "missing dots". So we shouldn't invite readers to do a lil' Dunning-Kruger and "guess the missing engines"; we should wait until multiple reliable sources agree on how many engines went out, and then put that in. DFlhb (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The contribution never claimed how many engines went out. It just stated the obvious that you can see in the picture that some (unspecific numbers of) engines failed. Do you doubt this? You think no engine failed? Zae8 (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

It's funny that an obviously harmess, trivially correct explanation, which can be helpful for many readers who know not much about rockets, that you can see failed engines in two images leads to multiple reverts, a multi-page discussion here on the talk page, even to ANI reporting. Zae8 (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Zae8 you are the one making all this noise over a tiny image caption. Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process and listen to other users. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I tried to take all concerns regarding my contribution into account. What did I miss listening to?

Yes, I am irritated by the noise over a tiny image caption, too. Why do you think this noise was initiate by me? Zae8 (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Gizmodo captions an equivalent picture "A view of the booster engines at the 1:20 mark of the mission, showing multiple unlit Raptors." The Verge says "between five and eight of the 33 Raptor engines appeared not to be firing at various points during the rocket’s ascent" and links to a similar picture. Proposal: Cite 0-2 of them with the caption "Starship engines during first orbital test flight. Multiple engines are not lit [optional: at this point]." --mfb (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I think I'd be okay with that! This is outside my area of expertise, so I'd like to hear from other users, but I tentatively think that'd work.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Much better. Or how about a more general: Starship engines during the first orbital test flight. Multiple engines could be seen failing during the flight. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

^ Also would support this! Great suggestion. (Though I do just want to again caveat that my subject matter knowledge is nil, so my approval shouldn’t count for much. As long as we have reliable sources and no back-and-forth reverting, I’m a happy camper)—Jerome Frank Disciple 15:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe it should also be mentioned that there was a discrepancy between the graphics shown by SpaceX and what could be seen live. That in my opinion explains why media sources were in disagreement, but it's a separate issue.--Gciriani (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

FAA investigation closure and next steps.

User:Pbritti I didn't want to step on any edit you might be making, so here's a secondary source. FAA primary source. It's still primary sourced, but spacex has released some more information about what happened and corrective actions. Notably, the loss of steering seems to have been caused by a fuel leak fire leading to severed cabling between primary flight computer and the majority of the engines." Foonix0 (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Foonix0: Thank you! I ended up using the CNBC article—I had wanted to use the Houston Chronicle's reporting but I guess I've used all my free articles. If you have access to that source, please feel welcome to amplify anything I may have missed. I think official-channel primary sourcing is acceptable, especially for the next couple days while reporting is still sparse in details. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

After comparing, I don't think the Houston Chronicle article has much if anything that the CNBC one doesn't. Foonix0 (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Quote from https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-2

The second flight test of a fully integrated Starship could launch as soon as mid-November, pending regulatory approval. Uwappa (talk) 09:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

2023 in the United States collage submission

This article was proposed as a potential choice for the 2023 in the United States collage. You are free to participate in the collage choice discussion here: Talk:2023 in the United States#Collage submissions. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

IFT-2

IFT-2 now has a NET date. Should we give it a dedicated article? Redacted II (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Given that this page was created almost a year in advance, it might be a good idea. Considering that articles like Artemis 5 exists, and that we are probably less than a month away from IFT-2, we should probably create it.

As for the title, we probably need to come up with something new. SpaceX Starship Second Integrated Flight Test probably won't work. What about the third flight? The fourth? The 18th flight? The 197th flight (okay that might be a bit too much, but you get my idea). Stoplookin9 (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

There are Wikipedia pages for the flight tests of the Saturn 1 (even the four without upper stages). So, I'd feel fine with having the page names be:

"SpaceX Starship First/Second/Third... Integrated Flight Test". By the time the numbers get absurd, the flights won't be Integrated Flight Tests anymore, and will most likely no longer be notable according to Wikipedia standards. Redacted II (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

This means we'll need to move this page to "SpaceX Starship First Integrated Flight Test" (it's officially called by SpaceX as First Integrated Flight Test) Stoplookin9 (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Moved: as suggested. Renerpho (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)