Jump to content

Talk:SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by C9po (talk | contribs) at 11:05, 22 April 2023 (→‎NPOV: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Page Title

@Ultimograph5 paging you w/r/t page title: on the SpaceX website, I see the official launch announcement as "Starship Flight Test". although "first integrated flight test of Starship" is used in the description of the launch, it's not a title.

https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-test

I think that you're right that people may be confused about which Starship test flights this may be referring to, but that's what Template:For is used for. [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 04:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

During the livestream, the hosts used "Starship Integrated Flight Test" throughout the webcast. It is also what SpaceX and Musk were using to reference the launch on Twitter the week before. ArrowMartian (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok as it is for now, since a Transatmospheric Orbit is still an orbit. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 April 2023

SpaceX Starship orbital test flight → Starship Flight Test – As I explained in a previous topic on this talk page, "Starship Flight Test" appears to be the official name used by SpaceX, on their webpage and live webcast. Although concerns that the test flight may be confused with other test flight may be warranted, this is exactly what hatnotes like Template:About should be applied.

Relevant: WP:TITLE, specifically WP:QUALIFIER.

[osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 06:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paging @CactiStaccingCrane [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 06:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't enough precision in the Starship flight test name. For the uninitiated Starship Flight Test can mean many things: Starhopper hops, or SN5/SN6 hops or even the high-altitude flight test of SN8/9/10/15. The current name, while longer and not "official", is not ambiguous. Even in inner spaceflight circles this Starship flight is usually referred to as OFT - Orbital Flight Test. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Starship Flight Test" appears to be the official name, or as official as it gets I suppose.
I mentioned this exact point you are raising in my two previous comments on this topic — hatnotes are used to disambiguate between much more ambiguous titles, so why not here?
Citation for "inner spaceflight circles"? Doesn't seem reliable to me. [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 07:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE. The starship has already had test flights. This is the first orbital one, therefore, it's name should remain SpaceX Starship orbital test flight. Redacted II (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth pointing out that this test flight was *not* an orbital flight, rather it was a sub-orbital test-flight, with Starship returning to Earth with a hard-water landing in the Pacific off the coast of Hawai'i. Starship would not have completed an orbit of Earth. 76.146.142.66 (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Although there is a slight disambiguation problem with List of SpaceX Starship flight tests, official denomination should prevail. If more flight tests come and they all have the same denomination "Starship Flight Test", we might need to number them. And it would be consistent to have the first one named "Starship Flight Test 1" like the others and not "SpaceX Starship Orbital Test Flight". Even if most of those flight tests don't get an article but get arranged in a list. CodemWiki (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it'll come to that like how there are literally dozens of missions named "Starlink Mission" but we'll come to that when we have to (which is still quite a ways away). [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 21:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - or rename it to Starship 250-km altitude flight test Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning is that this is precise enough, given Starship (the second stage) won't complete a full orbit, and "Starship suborbital flight test" is too easily confused with previous atmospheric tests; if more tests are announced number them sequentially Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hold for now; I see the reasoning behind the change suggestion, but, alas, there is at present no pressing reason for the change, well, so SpaceX names something officially, but our article title works from an external point of view: we add the SpaceX name, and we indicate that it is an orbital flight test (whereas the previous ones were suborbital flight tests). If future tests are announced/ conducted, a suitable change (e. g. to include the plural) would be in order. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The flight test is scheduled for NET 12 hours right now and will likely be ITN once it launches. There is some degree of urgency to this [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 01:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon my bluntness, but this urgency rather eludes me. If anything, the redirect already in place is sufficient for the time being, in my opinion. --Ouro (blah blah) 01:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the title seems definitely too generic if we remove SpaceX. Spaceship is a common name that people do not automatically associate with SpaceX. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 11:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While the reasoning behind the proposed move is definitely valid, including the fact that the test is orbital will definitely prevent a lot of confusion. Furthermore, the titles of articles don't always completely reflect the official names; for example, Crew Dragon Demo-2 was officially called Crew Demo-2 and SpaceX Demo-2, but the article has a different name. Liljimbo (talk)
Oppose Prefer to keep the current title for now and reassess in the future. The proposed title is too generic, and there's no urgency to change. GoPats (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - New title isn't specific enough. There have been other, sub-orbital Starship flight tests. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose there have been multiple "Starship" flight tests already. Most of them exploded when they landed. If it is renamed, it needs a date attached. It probably should have a date or number attached regardless, as there will be other flight tests in the future -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - True that this is the title, but it seems to just be a placeholder title by SpaceX. I'm not sure that it's the official mission title, and in any case it would be too general and not specific enough. ChekhovsGunman (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Multiple flight tests have been already performed, maybe "SpaceX Starship orbital test flight 1" could be used in the future Saltq (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Current title, while unofficial, is not as ambiguous as a "Starship Flight Test" (which, if the name is used again for another flight test [which is likely, with how generic it is], the article's title would have to be changed again). - Cheers, KoolKidz112 (hit me up) 12:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Current title is misleading as the flight did not, and was never intended to reach orbit (it was planned to get close to orbit, but not quite go all the way). Using the official name removes this problem, and we can always revisit the name when the second test occurs if that creates ambiguity 2A02:C7F:2CE3:4700:F4E1:539D:24BE:6186 (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The flight WAS intended on reaching orbit! Just a "trans-atmospheric orbit', where perigee is below the karman line Redacted II (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which is, by definition, not orbital 2A02:C7F:2CE3:4700:F4E1:539D:24BE:6186 (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as it is less specific and possibly more confusing than the current title Chaosdruid (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since removing the reference to SpaceX could potentially be confusing as there are other Starships. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Starship maiden test flight

Alternative proposition now that it flew: How about Starship maiden test flight since it didn't really reach orbit? --Ouro (blah blah) 14:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support for Starship maiden test flight - As the flight was not orbital. Some of the future launches will eventually reach orbit, whereas this one was not even planned to be orbital but only trans-atmospheric. Not even SpaceX referred to this flight as orbital. CodemWiki (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I like this and concur with CodemWiki. – The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 16:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 18:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is appropriate, perhaps SpaceX Starship maiden test flight to be even more clear? PythosIsAwesome (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support for SpaceX Starship maiden flight or SpaceX Starship maiden test flight 2001:4BC9:1FB0:D51C:7099:CA4C:9AD6:973F (talk) 06:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support In my opinion it's more suitable because per nom, the ship did not really reach orbit. Gtgamer79 (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a more suitable name per nom. The person who loves reading (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, this makes sense. - Cheers, KoolKidz112 (hit me up) 14:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support my main problem with the current title is that SpaceX is not needed in the title, and of course it wasn't orbital so this proposed title makes sense. Yeoutie (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose This is not the maiden test flight. There have been several test flights already, in which the Starship section generally has exploded on landing. The maiden test flight was taken by Starhopper, the prototype version of Starship. And several full-sized STarships have already flown before S24. This propsed name fails WP:AT it does not accurately describe the topic as a descriptive title, as it is not even close to being the maiden flight of smoething called Starship (from SpaceX). It is only the maiden orbital test flight, and not the mainden test flight. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I will note that there are non-SpaceX Starships with maiden flights that are also not the topic of this article, so not the SpaceX maiden flight and not the maiden flight for other non-SpaceX Starships -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose this was the first integrated test flight, not the first flight overall, so proposed title is as misleading as the current one, just for a different reason. 2A02:C7F:2CE3:4700:F4E1:539D:24BE:6186 (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. As other's have said, this wasn't the first flight. It was just the first integrated flight. The current name is in no way misleading, so any change based on that principle shouldn't even be considered Redacted II (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question — reaching orbit was the goal; should we remove "orbital" simply because it failed? Is this consistent with similar articles? As CactiStaccingCrane said above, the best candidate for WP:COMMONNAME seems to be (Starship) "orbital flight test" or "orbital test flight" (recent media sources either use "orbital" in the headline, or upon first mention of the launch). Doesn't it make sense to keep it, for recognizability? DFlhb (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reaching the orbit actually wasn't the goal at all, the test was suborbital by design! "The second stage would have followed a suborbital trajectory and performed an unpowered splashdown approximately 100 km off the northwest coast of Kauai (Hawaii)" [1] Ain92 (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As 2A02 says, it was not the maiden flight of Starship. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceX Starship first integrated test flight

Or "First integrated test flight of the SpaceX Starship" --- While it is rather a meaty title, there are plenty out there with longer titles. We have to be accurate and reduce any possible confusion and I agree with 2A02 in that this was the "First integrated test flight of the SpaceX Starship". Chaosdruid (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceX Starship first integrated flight test

Support I support this one instead of the above one even though it has almost the same title but i prefer flight test intestead of test flight. 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 or you can also choose "SpaceX Starship first integrated orbital flight test" if you want but i prefer what the Spacex commentator said. " https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1649033533846097927 " even in this official Spacex twitter account tweet, Spacex mentions it as "Starship’s first integrated flight test". Also in my opinion you can also use "SpaceX Starship maiden integrated flight test" (cause maiden seems like a proper word instead of first and i am not adding the word orbital cause it was not supposed to go orbit anyway) or "SpaceX Starship integrated flight test" (cause I do not think using words like first, second or third in title is appopritate in this context and i think this is the best among the several titles i have mentioned cause this is close to what Spacex and Spacex commentator mentioned). or you can also add orbital to those titles even though i am against it (cause i have heard Transatmospheric Orbit is still orbit but i do now know, is it still orbit? since it wasnt planned to complete a single revolution aka rotation around earth) so you can probably use "SpaceX Starship maiden integrated orbital flight test" or "SpaceX Starship integrated orbital flight test". So i have many titles here and you can choose between them. Also I have only highlighted the proposed titles not any simple words.Swtadi143 (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support for SpaceX Starship first integrated flight test I still maintain that this flight wasn't orbital and no one will remember this flight as "orbital". CodemWiki (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Time zone name

Should we use CT or CDT? Saltq (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to all instances of CDT to CT Saltq (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CDT, although admittedly I'm following my own precedent in spaceflight article editing, I like it because it adds specificity to the date Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense Saltq (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison to the N1

Is there a source for the comparison in the lede to the N1 rocket explosion? Unless we have a source describing the explosion's magnitude, I don't think we can make that specific claim. Rainclaw7 (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that too. Booster 7 was mostly empty when the destruct command was sent in this case, where as the N1 was fully fueled at the time of the explosion. PythosIsAwesome (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was the fourth (and last) N1 flight that made it until MECO and failed to separate the stages. The major explosion you're talking about happened during N1's second launch attempt. Starship's flight and issues were similar to those of N1's fourth flight. 2001:4BC9:1F90:19FF:934:FC6C:4FC4:4FE9 (talk) 06:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily removed uncited material

I removed the following material from the live article due to the high risk of citogenesis (from breaking news outlets), moving it here so sources can be found before it's added back in:

Formerly at the end of the first lead paragraph:

and consequently also made the largest rocket explosion in history since the N1 rocket of the Soviet Union.[citation needed]

Formerly the third lead paragraph:

Starship's maiden orbital launch attempt also marks the most thrust ever produced by a rocket. However, because SpaceX intentionally minimized the launch protection infrastructure (such as not installing a water deluge system or a flame diverter), the rocket caused severe damage to the spaceport and surrounding infrastructure.[citation needed] The concrete underlying the launch mount and the rocket was completely blown off, leading debris to shower the spaceport and dust to fly to outside the launch exclusion zone.[citation needed]

DFlhb (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing these sections. While I have seen speculation on Twitter around the former third lead paragraph, we need an actual source before making that claim. I have not seen any evidence to support that the explosion was on the scale of the N1, and any such evidence will likely require an analysis of the explosion to determine its magnitude. Rainclaw7 (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I did find a few preliminary secondary sources. The second passage ("former third lead paragraph") seems both verifiable and accurate at first glance.
  • For "most thrust ever", I found this source, but it seems so uncontroversial that I bet we already cite sources that support this
  • For the water deluge and flame trench, I found this source, which while self-published, seems plenty reliable
  • For damage to the launch pad, I found a Gizmodo article and this WaPo article which support the sentence at first glance
Still looking for a source on the N1 comparison. DFlhb (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Second passage now restored, with citations DFlhb (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MaxQ

I do not think that MaxQ can be considered a success, of course the Starship reach a maximum Pdyn, at some point, but never reached the values of the predicted MaxQ due to suboptimal thrust. Hektor (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At Max_q#In_rocket_launches the definition reads as the maximum experienced during the flight. Does that definition need adjustment? At T+1:18 SpaceX does call out MaxQ. Was that wrong? The scheduled MaxQ moment was T+0:55. Are the 23 seconds difference due to lower speed, lack of thrust? Should it really be a theoretical maximum based on optimal trust? Can't suboptimal be sufficient for a successful flight? Isn't there any redundancy in number of engines? Could MaxQ have been reached if only one or two engines failed? Please explain. Uwappa (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In all honesty, considering that it held together during those crazy Kerbal loops, I am pretty sure the rocket endured FAR more than the calculated stress expected at the theoretical max-Q. It blew up cause it was intentionally detonated, not cause the aerodynamic pressure did something notable, as far as we know. 194.102.58.8 (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Explosion should be mentioned earlier in the lead section

As it is now, the explosion is the last thing mentioned in the lead section, with the opening paragraph dedicated instead to describing how impressive the launch was. Most Wikipedia readers do not read the whole article, or even the whole lead section, and the actual events of the launch should probably be mentioned earlier and more clearly than “safety personnel were forced to activate the flight termination systems.” 49.184.15.181 (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "forced", which sounded awkward. But I oppose this, since our articles should be understandable, not dumbed down. An encyclopedia shouldn't try to appeal to low-attention-span folks, who can just read the tabloids. Nor do I think the most powerful rocket ever flown is about "how impressive the launch was"; it's factual information. The current lead simply follows the chronology. DFlhb (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I abridged the lead anyways since it was listing off trivia. RAN1 (talk) 07:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; was indeed necessary — DFlhb (talk) 10:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible restoration of concrete impact passage

I liked the passages about the impact of the launch on the pad. I would prefer it (and the ESG Hound and Gizmodo sources) be restored. I believe it would also be in the interest of enforcing neutral point of view, the reactions section seems heavily skewed toward praise. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and it looks like RAN1 already took care of it. DFlhb (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DFlhb: NYT discusses ESG Hound and the water deluge. RAN1 (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work. Hopefully my concerns on NPOV will be addressed more fully as the weeks go by Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence only cited WaPo; I've brought back the wording (except "intentionally") and cited the whole paragraph to both WaPo and NYT. DFlhb (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have a photo of the explosion?

It could improve the article Saltq (talk) 05:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We'd need a freely-licensed image. C-SPAN has it (at 13:35), but it's low-resolution, and there isn't much to see. Don't think it's worth including unless we find better footage. DFlhb (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

@FinTGM, going by the comments in #Explosion should be mentioned earlier in the lead section and #Possible restoration of concrete impact passage, there's consensus for minimizing trivia in the lead and presenting RS criticism of the lack of acoustic suppression. Reverting those gives undue weight to SpaceX's perspective. RAN1 (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I also find the wording "early conclusion" irritating. For comparison, the wording in the Challenger disaster article is "broke apart". The better word in the starship case may be "exploded", that's also easy to find sources for , i.e. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/20/science/spacex-launch-explosion-elon-musk.html. C9po (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency of Units

Per the MOS, the units should be consistent, in this article they are all over the place. This could be considered science and SpaceX uses SI units, even displaying them to the public. I think the SI units need to be first. Avi8tor (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SpaceX_Starship_integrated_flight_test_1&oldid=1151174186"