Talk:Starship flight test 1

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 [1])--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)

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)

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)

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)