Talk:SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 2

Success or Failure

Hear ye, hear ye brave people, the (hopefully not) overly long debate about whether or not the launch was a failure is about to start, have a seat. It's gonna be boring. Different sources are gonna say different things, and honestly my opinion is that we should not even take a side, or describe the fact that the result of the launch was differently regarded by different people/news articles. If more people/articles consider it a failure, also specify it. CodemWiki (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

We should probably just say that some stuff were successful (like the pad, hot staging and engines), while others (like SECO and boostback) were not. Stoplookin9 (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

"Partial failure" is probably fine. I wouldn't say its fully "successful" until its met every single objective. (even if it did achieve many) Clayel (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Partial failure seems like an appropriately concise answer, proportionately to the relative pointlessness of the debate. Fine with me, I'll add it. Was already added. CodemWiki (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with that as someone who participated in the previous discussion. It you know, didn't blow up the launchpad so that's progress. And it achieved most of it's objectives. "Partial success" is how it's listed, I'm changing that as we use the term failure not success generally? Chuckstablers (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Here: SpaceX Starship flight tests#Orbital_launch_statistics? IMO it should be Partial failure because Partial success should probably be reserved for something like everything worked but one of the stages failed re-entry. CodemWiki (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with partial failure: it didn't cause another rock tornado and SpaceX achieved what they really wanted, which was getting to hot staging. We can't make it a success obviously because it didn't make it to orbit (technically). Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

If notable entities (SpaceX, NASA, NASA personnel etc) describe it as a success or failure, wikipedia should note that they say so. But painting in too broad of a stroke is just going to invite more endless nonsensical edit warring.

Drop the labels entirely and just state what happened. Foonix0 (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

This is absolutely the wisest approach, but it's not applicable everywhere such as in charts or infoboxes. CodemWiki (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

If this mission is "partial failure" then the last mission was also "partial failure", if we're going to stay consistent. I'm a big fan of making that change. Ergzay (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Seconded Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Me too. First flight should be classified as partial failure such that total launches = 2, partial failures = 2. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The best consistency on here is to follow guidance of WP:INDEPENDENT sources about the event and to avoid original research. Sub31k (talk) 05:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

the previous discussion on the "success or failure" issue may be relevant. reading 50 pages of disagreement may be easier than writing it. please focus on the differences between IFT-1 and IFT-2. 135.180.103.131 (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Flight results speculation

Speculation warning! (until confirmed by SpaceX). I'm going to speculate stuff here, and anything that gets confirmed will be placed in the aftermath section (doesn't exist yet for obvious reasons)

From aerial shots by RGV aerial photography, it looks like the OLM sustained some charring (especially by booster QD hood). This might be from the "power slide", or more formally, the pad avoidance maneuver. Ship QD arm may have sustained some damage (probably a piston that got damaged/sheared off)

Water deluge plate looks intact though, also no rock tornado yay!

I'm pretty sure ship and booster were destroyed by fts due to engine problems. Booster probably due to some engines not relighting and hot staging damage (probably both). We need to wait for more info about ship (early SECO might have contributed to FTS, but that's not confirmed)

Now we just need to wait for official sources to disprove me. Reply when theories get proven/disproven Stoplookin9 (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Speculation: I think the engines on super heavy shut down due to the vehicle experiencing negative acceleration from the exhaust of Starship pushing on the hot staging ring. Theory put forward by Scott Manley [1].

Of course, requires confirmation Stoplookin9 (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

in addition to the booster engine problems due to propellant sloshing, there was a LOX leak on stage 2 late in flight, also courtesy scott manley 135.180.103.131 (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Upper stage failure

This is best placed here, so that more experience editors can add it in (or not) as is appropriate.

All times are flight times in minutes and seconds from launch as indicated by the flight clock in the video.

Observations: At 7:06, a plume appears heading off to the left side of the spacecraft. Up until then, the view had been of a tight spec from the rockets firing. At 7:40, there is a flash and a puff going off in all directions. I see the engines getting brighter and then duller after that. At 7:47, the engine appear to be to the right of the main plume, where they had been behind it before. At 7:53, I last seeing the engines burning. At 8:04, there is a flash and a plume expanding in all directions. At 8:07, there is a bigger flash and plume. After that, nothing more is visible.

Interpretation/Speculations: There was a failure of some sort in Starship at or before 7:06. Certainly at 7:06 material starts spewing out of Starship in an anomalous fashion. This is evidence of either an engine breach or a hull breach. As the plume is ongoing, it is most likely being formed by combustion products. The 7:40 event is appears to be an explosion. The changes in the engine brightness afterwards and the 7:47 position of the engines indicate that Starship has started to tumble. SECO appears to have occurred by 7:53, but this may not have been a controlled cutoff. The 8:04 event is another explosion, which may be the beginning of the FTS sequence. The 8:07 event is certainly the FTS doing its job.

EMS | Talk 19:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Fluctuating brightness usually indicates a dying engine/leak/fire.

Also did a bit of rough math here. Assuming SpaceX webcast GUI is accurate, the vehicle was moving at about 24000 km/h. This is about 4000 km/h short of orbit, or about 1100 m/s. Assuming 4gs of acceleration (based off of Falcon 9 second stage and the fact this is planned to carry humans in the future), SECO is about 28 to 30 seconds early.

Considering this is the first time an RVac has flown in a vacuum, I wouldn't be too surprised if one of the RVacs is burning engine rich exhaust. Stoplookin9 (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

table

should include the previous flight for comparrison. 86.120.129.22 (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

NOAA images

Can someone add the NOAA images of the debris clouds, both of the first and second stages? Those should also be able to be plotted onto maps, for maps of where the debris should be at. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Will do Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 12:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced milestone achievements

@Cammurray0420 Please stop restoring the list of milestones achieved without citing sources. There is no way to tell where or not this is original research, and in general content must be verifiable by cited sources. Sub31k (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Cammurray0420 Please do not continue to perform unexplained reverts restoring uncited content. Sub31k (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:SpaceX Starship integrated flight test which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit war - mission timeline

Cammurray0420, you have reverted the edits of multiple editors regarding the same content. Instead of edit warring, please use the talk page to discuss the content and reach consensus. Redraiderengineer (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

no. Cammurray0420 (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)