Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from Talk:List of BFR flights)

List of SpaceX Starships Launches Draft

Given that this article only covers Starship Flight Tests, and not the operational flights that will follow, there should be a List of Starship Launches article.

I've already made a draft here.

Note: the Draft covers flights of Starship, and not Starship, so Hopper, SN5, SN6, SN8, SN9, SN10, SN11, and SN15 are intentionally excluded. Redacted II (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add the orbital refueling demo flight and the HLS demo flight to one of these? Thistheyear2023 (talk) 05:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, the draft already has both of those flights (technically, all 18 of those flights).
I'm not sure if this falls under the scope of this article, as while it is a test flight, its of V2 vehicles. Redacted II (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that in the Draft. Any future flights that carry a payload should be considered operational and not a test. But will be interesting to see what happens. I think at some point they’ll take a bit of a hiatus here until Pad B is done Thistheyear2023 (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we just start a consensus to rename this article to List of Starship Launches instead of a new article and merge the contents of the draft here afterwards? We could start a consensus now (I'll add the topic of if agreed on), especially since they are still Starship launches, and when Starship goes operational this article will become obsolete if not changed The Page Maker 2.1 (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hopper-SN15 weren't Starship launches, they were Starship launches.
Merging the two articles would leave those flights with nowhere to go. Redacted II (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[comment deleted]
I do consider your opinion and now suggest that once your draft is accepted, we would rename this article to "List of Starship (spacecraft) Launches," then remove the orbital flights and not add any more flights to this article as they will be allocated to your now-approved draft The Page Maker 2.1 (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That works! (Also, just a recommendation, if you want to edit your message, directly edit it, instead of posting again) Redacted II (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To forward, I would start a consensus about this The Page Maker 2.1 (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If no one else comments in 2 weeks, then there is a 100% consensus.
But none of this matters if the Draft is rejected Redacted II (talk) 12:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of this talk page

I have the strong feeling that on this talk page there is an overdose, if not misuse, of certain tools to prevent discussion or hide unwanded topics. This includes using an archive where there are really not so many topics that there is a need for it, and closing/shifting even recent topics there to get them out of the way and out of further discussion. And even more extensive use of semi-protection. Note: P:PP" Talk pages are not usually protected, and are semi-protected only for a limited duration in the most severe cases of disruption." I don't see where this is the case. Please consider to limit this in future, or we will have to look for help preventing further misuse. 47.64.131.12 (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection is added by Admins when a page is being disrupted repeatedly (like this one has).
The closed edit requests were because they had moved on to a different topic on the talk page.
The closed RfC was settled. Thats how RfC's work
Archiving is a tool to reduce talk-page size, preventing a page from being clogged by dead discussions. Its not being misused.
This talk page isn't semi-protected (otherwise, you would have had to make an account to post that comment).
And who is "we"? Redacted II (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potential conflicts regarding my edits

I just made edits that may be proven high-risk, so I made this topic to see if anyone would like to discuss. My main concern is the classification for the flight 2 launch of PARTIAL FAILURE instead of FAILURE. I consider the launch to be up to the booster staging and starship burn cutoff, which is confusing since even after the booster jettisoned, starship is still going, which I still consider the launch. In flight 2, the booster was successfully jettisoned, meaning that it was already on it's landing phase, and thus that part of launch was a success, but the starship exploded during it's orbital insertion, which was still part of the launch sequence. Therefore I consider flight 2 to be a PARTIAL FAILURE.

I also removed the references for the orbital flight vehicles since there were already none for the suborbital ones, and neither or the list of Falcon launches.

All being said, I'd like to ask if anyone has concerns? The Page Maker 2.1 (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a strong consensus for IFT-2 to be regarded as a failure.
I have partially reverted that edit. Redacted II (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've only reverted the outcome to "loss during flight" and left the IFT-2 outcome to be partial failure? I guess that's a compromise? I guess I would thank you for that contribution which helped me to conclude as a compromise The Page Maker 2.1 (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No... I must have made a mistake. It should say failure for IFT-1 and IFT-2 Redacted II (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the transition to orbital and future operations

As SpaceX has been more than a year into the orbital campaign, which is the next step to Starship's operational campaign, I have considered the fact that we are about to abandon the test campaign. However, we still have a significance of Hopper to SN15 to the point that they may be somewhere in an article.

To add, a user has made a draft of Starship's (not the spacecraft but the entire vehicle) launches, which I find consistent with the Falcon launches list, so I very strongly agree with. See the draft here.

When that draft becomes approved, I propose two things for this article.

  1. Rename this article to "List of Starship (spacecraft) Test Launches
  2. Remove the flights after SN15
  3. Not add further flights, as they will be added to the now-approved draft

Therefore, I request everyone's opinions on this action.

Support

Strongly Support: I strongly support this because this proposed draft will not only be in consistency with the Falcon launches list, but also the fact that we will end up archiving this article (of course not for editing purposes, but in the manner that no more flights are added). If we don't, this article will become misnamed when Starship goes commercial, but renaming this entire article to "List of Starship Launches" will create internal conflict because Hopper to SN15 were just the upper stage, but when we mention "Starship" as in "Starship goes commercial," we mean the entire rocket. Therefore, I find that the best way to deal with this is to move all the orbital launches to the draft article once it is approved and rename this article to "List of Starship (spacecraft) Test Launches" The Page Maker 2.1 (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support: This article is only supposed to cover Flight Tests. While I'd prefer to leave IFT-1 through IFT-6 here (and there, there is some overlap), transferring them completely makes sense.
However, this entire discussion is meaningless if the Draft is not approved. Redacted II (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think adding all the flights until the end of the "Test Flight" campaign here may be appropriate, unsure of how many more IFTs, but regardless all orbital flights to be added to the Draft (and hopefully, article) The Page Maker 2.1 (talk) 03:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There will be 2 more Integrated Flight Tests (Then SpaceX moves on to V1.5, which is a V2 ship on a V1 booster). Redacted II (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
just note that a) still everything is testing and b) everything is still suborbital, although the ships could have gone orbital with just a little more speed. You can postpone all this discussion until the first orbital and/or regular payload starship start is announced, sure not in 2024. 47.69.69.199 (talk) 08:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remark: The "a user" who did this draft is Redacted II again, who arguably posted the first anonymous post as well. This is no doubt once more one a dubious action to push opinions. Rethinking my previous arguments, I now add an oppose comment. 47.69.69.199 (talk) 08:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then use ~~~ (followed by a fourth ~) to sign your post in oppose. Its ridiculous that you accuse me (and you can check who started this thread using the difs in the talk page. It was The Page Maker 2.1) of doing exactly what you just did. Redacted II (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

strong no As said above: All that Starship has done and will do well into V2, as far as we know by now, will be testing, suborbital and non-operational. Thus, all this should stay here in this article, and a new article about operational non-test flights may emerge when time is there, and then retireing this one. Thus, a strong no especially to not causing even more confusion with more overlapping articles that cannot be updated accordingly anyway.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SpaceX_Starship_flight_tests&oldid=1233578035"