Talk:Starship flight test 5

severe forward flap damage on IFT-4

As IFT-4 had a severe forward flap damage: will ship 30 have an improved forward flap? 80.146.191.213 (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

New TPS will be added, but see WP:Forum Redacted II (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this was not for discussion, but a hint to include this crucial info into the article... 47.69.66.56 (talk) 12:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

If you want, you can add that info:

As a recommendation, use these two articles as sources:

https://ringwatchers.com/article/s30-tps

https://ringwatchers.com/article/s30-updates Redacted II (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 4 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Two Launch dates in 2 months?

Infobox says launched in august, first paragraph says september 2A00:1851:8018:9A20:AB07:81D7:16D9:5729 (talk) 06:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This is due IP 58.235.154.8 who is constantly putting this in without any sources -> edit war. 47.64.203.33 (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Infobox changed to September since source keeps changing predicted launch. I am wondering if anyone protests to removing "Based on comments from Elon Musk, the fifth flight test is expected no earlier than August 2024." considering this statement is obsolete.

The tweet (source) by Elon Musk literally states "Flight 5 in 4 weeks" posted July 6. Elon Musk is notorious for being optimistic in predicting launches and project timelines (Landing on Mars 2022). And should probably not be relied upon solely.

I think the sentence should be removed, and if a credible secondary source be found replaced with that. Mikal N (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it would have been valuable to preserve that information, such that by keeping a record of how far off his estimates typically are you can extrapolate on future announcements. 174.108.0.135 (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

October launch date

We now have reliable sources confirming a mid-October launch of flight test 5 and the FAA still firmly stating that (paraphrasing) SpaceX has always been free to re-fly the same mission profile as flight test 4, but they won’t be authorizing a “catch” of the booster until late November.

In light of that, I think we need to rework the focus of this article into that it was expected to include the first attempted "catch" of the Super Heavy booster, but that it’s now unlikely unless SpaceX defies the FAA. RickyCourtney (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no evidence that supports a catchless IFT-5. Any such claims are Original Research.

(And if Original Research is to be allowed, it is very easy to determine that IFT-5 will feature a catch: the exclusion zones are further inland for IFT-5 than IFT-4) Redacted II (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I’ve already updated the intro. It’s not about saying that flight test 5 will skip the test, it’s about making clear to the reader that that they might skip the catch.

The point I was trying to make, and I think its an important story line here, after the NOTMAR went out, the FAA made a point to reiterate its previous statement to journalists that it did not expect to approve a new mission profile (with a catch of the Super Heavy booster) before late November, but that SpaceX has always been able to attempt another flight of the same vehicle configuration and mission profile as flight test 4.

This is at the heart of their very public spat: SpaceX is saying that they can’t launch because of regulations, while the FAA responds that they always could if they skipped the catch.

None of that is original research, it’s very much in the public record and well covered by reliable secondary sources. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The FAA also said that they may not be able to launch with the old profile (presumably due to the new heat shield)

Here is the exact statement from the FAA:

"SpaceX's current license authorizing the Starship Flight 4 launch also allows for multiple flights of the same vehicle configuration and mission profile. SpaceX chose to modify both for its proposed Starship Flight 5 launch which triggered a more in-depth review. In addition, SpaceX submitted new information in mod-August detailing how the environmental impact of Flight 5 will cover a larger area than previously reviewed. This requires the FAA to consult with other agencies.

SpaceX must meet all safety, environmental, and other licensing requirement prior to FAA launch authorization. A final license determination for Starship Flight 5 is not expected before late November 2024."

Important bit is in bold.

So, even if they try to fly Starship IFT-4 again, they can't. There is no evidence to suggest that they have even considered a Flight 5 without the catch. Redacted II (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Then we will shall see what, if anything, SpaceX plans to do on 13 October (because they still haven’t confirmed that they plan to do anything at all).

However, as of a few days ago, the FAA made it clear that they won’t have their blessing before late November to attempt a catch.

I’ve done my best to reflect that in the intro. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The fact that the vehicle configuration has been changed should be noted as well. Redacted II (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Way too much focus on the FAA

This article is currently being discussed over at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Starship_Flight_5 and one of the primary sticking points is that the article basically doesn't talk about the launch at all. The FAA content needs to be pared down to a couple paragraphs and it should be basically taken out of the lede. It's not that important for the launch now that the launch has happened. @RickyCourtney you reverted my removal from the lede and said you wanted to discuss. Ergzay (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Look at the coverage “in the news” specifically, The New York Times, which spent a considerable amount of its article on the launch discussing the very public tension between the FAA and SpaceX. It was a major part of the lead up to this launch and will likely always be part of the history of this launch. As such, it deserves at least some place in the intro. That said, I don’t oppose trimming it down, nor do I oppose trimming down the section in the main prose. RickyCourtney (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I've trimmed it down substantially. There's possibly mistakes or inconsistencies introduced however, so feel free to read it over. Ergzay (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking again, it still needs more trimming. It should be cut down to 2 paragraphs. I added a template and someone else can take a crack at it. Ergzay (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Trimmed it further Redacted II (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Did a little more trimming of unrelated stuff from the past flight and focused on what were the actual blockers the FAA described, namely interaction with the FWS and NMFS. Ergzay (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Focus should be on the catch of Booster 1 (and on the mostly nominal entry of shp 30). Redacted II (talk) 01:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

.. which is still not reflected much in the article. Not even the near abort of the catch, and all aftermath. 47.67.225.78 (talk) 08:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

We need a prose section describing the flight in words

Just having a table of flight events is not a very good thing to have in a wikipedia article. It makes it seem like the flight was unremarkable and not historical. Ergzay (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Support. Furthermore, the "Mission Summary" is confusing. It sounds like it says "B12 shut off its engines thirteen seconds earlier" than "Ship 30 splashed down in the Indian Ocean", which is not true at all.

I think what the author intended was actually "B12 shut off its engines thirteen seconds earlier than B11 did in the previous launch". 208.82.100.219 (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Sources

We are using Teslarati as a source on this page. A previous discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard seemed to come down that it was a generally unreliable source for Wikipedia. (See WP:TESLARATI) We should replace that reference.

Ringwatchers looks like a self published source and would benefit from either being replaced or second sourced by an established reliable source.

Also, just more generally, we are citing a lot of tweets and YouTube videos on this page. It's fine if there's nothing else, but where possible, we should be citing published news articles.

Just wanted to share those thoughts. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 03:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on Teslarati.

Ringwatchers are extremely reliable. Redacted II (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

IFT

@RickyCourtney IFT has continued to be used recently.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2024/06/starship-launch-fourth-time/ "Just over a year after the first integrated flight test"/"three Starship integrated flight tests"

https://nextspaceflight.com/starship/hardware/40 "Booster 11 and Ship 29 are the Super Heavy and Starship pair that launched the fourth integrated test flight"

https://spacelaunchnow.me/launch/starship-integrated-flight-test-5/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIKI7y3DTXk "Watch SpaceX Catch A Starship Rocket From Space!!! #IFT5"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjDFirLcQDM "integrated test flight of Starship"

Its been used up to Flight 6. Redacted II (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

None of this proves that it’s an official, alternate name. Show where SpaceX has been using IFT-n in an official, alternate capacity. The finding of the move discussion three months ago was that they weren’t and to my knowledge, they still aren’t. Just because some writers and YouTubers haven’t noticed that SpaceX dropped the IFT name doesn’t mean we should be adding it as an official, alternate name. That’s not the purpose of that infobox parameter. — RickyCourtney (talk) 08:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

To quote you:

"official, previous or alternate names"

Or heavily implies that it doesn't need to be an official name to be listed. Only that it is a commonly used name. Redacted II (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

This is why edit summaries are not a substitute for a talk page. What the comma was intended to convey was: “An official name. Previously or alternately used.” RickyCourtney (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The Spaceflight Infobox template states:

"list of previous names if the spacecraft has been renamed. Include the dates applicable if possible, and separate each name with a linebreak. Omit if the spacecraft has only ever been known by one name. Do not include Harvard, COSPAR/NSSDC or SATCAT/NORAD/NASA designations as alternative names"

There is no mention of an official name requirement. And the second sentence implies that the launch merely has to be known by a name for it to be listed. Redacted II (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

There you go, this mission has not been renamed. It has always been called Starship test flight 5, which again, was established in the move discussion three months ago. RickyCourtney (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The flight has been called IFT-5 before by multiple, independant, sources. That is sufficient for listing it as an alternate name. Redacted II (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I feel like I’ve made my point.

Here on Wikipedia when a change is contested, editors must seek consensus, so I’ll step back and let others have their say.

Per the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle please remove your contested edits until a consensus is reached. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I've hidden the IFT text until consensus is reached. Redacted II (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems like SpaceX has in the past officially referred to those launches with the phrase "Integrated Flight Test", but never actually used it in the abbreviated form "IFT-x", at least not officially. More recently, it seems like they have shortened to just simply "Flight X" or "Flight Test X". Nonetheless, the abbreviation "IFT" is still commonly used by enthusiasts etc, and so I think it may be reasonable to also add in "IFT-5" as an alternative name. Policy doesn't require a name to be officially used to be eligible for inclusion here, just that it is commonly used. It is also used by multiple independent sources. User3749 (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The instructions for Template:Infobox spaceflight state that the names_list is a: List of previous names if the spacecraft has been renamed. [...] Omit if the spacecraft has only ever been known by one name. In the past, SpaceX has referred to previous launches (specifically flight 1, and to a lesser extent flight 2) as an integrated flight test. However, this flight, and subsequent flights were never called integrated flight tests, and therefore were never renamed. There is no policy as far as I know that states that a name does not need to be "officially used to be eligible for inclusion here, just that it is commonly used." -- RickyCourtney (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no policy that states that a name needs to be officially used, either. Redacted II (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Something can't be renamed if that name was never "officially used." -- RickyCourtney (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)