Talk:SpaceX Starship/Archive 10

Calling the current flights failures is factually untrue.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

SpaceX had repeatedly stated before, during and after the flight that the measure of success is based on insights not meeting all ideal milestones. This has further been backed up by statements by Bill Nelson, Chris Hadfield, Tom Mueller, Garrett Reisman and others all of which being experts in the field.

If it was carrying a payload or was a milestone based test it would be a failure. However, by the criteria for success it was definitely not.

I'd argue success, partial and complete failure counters should be removed and a (developmental) should be added to the launch counter.

The "extensive discussions" have been roundabout arguments that have ignored the realities, objectives and opinions of experts on the actual outcome

This shouldn't need a consensus when there are literal primary sources confirming they weren't failures. Especially when we are in no position to make an assessment that would go against their views.

Agreed? JudaPoor (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

No. The local consensus is clear that the flights should be labelled as failures for the time being. This topic has been the centre of discussion in two previous RfCs which can be found in the archive in the talk page from which a similar consensus emerged to the latest RfC. This topic shouldn't be discussed until a later date when it's suitable to do so. Right now is not the time because we've just finished a RfC on the exact same topic. Yasslaywikia (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

As I stated, this isn't a consensus driven discussion. It's widely reported and well sourced what the actual requirements for success were.

This is further backed up by third party comments.

The previous discussions have simply been back and forth of the same arguments not anything constructive when this isn't a debatable topic give the evidence JudaPoor (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

This discussion from November provides a list of descriptions which reliable sources used to describe how successful IFT-2 was. Most of the sources listed described the test flight as either a failure or partial failure. Very few sources described it as a success.

I can't remember how most sources described IFT-1, but I think that most of them described it as a success despite the fact that it achieved less milestones than IFT-2, so I'm not sure what we can say about IFT-1, but the same consensus for IFT-1 was achieved with IFT-2, that is to describe both test flights as a failure.

SpaceX's opinion shouldn't be asserted in Wikivoice as it's a non-independent primary source, so in my opinion, it should only be used to describe SpaceX's aspirations for IFT-2 and whether or not they deemed it as a success. But, this shouldn't be used to put aside analysis by independent secondary sources to create a false balance, as most reliable sources have stated that IFT-2 has been a failure so far. Yasslaywikia (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

SpaceX's opinion is noted by secondary sources, and is shared by subject matter experts that are also noted by secondary sources. Foonix0 (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Still, that doesn't change the consensus. So please, just stop. Redacted II (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Have you polled the consensus? Or is that just a pure guess? JudaPoor (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Stop being tendentious. You can find the recent RfC here and the previous RfCs here and here, from which a clear consensus emerged that the test flights should be classified as a failure without further clarification of prototype status. Stop casting aspersions on other editors. Yasslaywikia (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to support your statement apart from those listed in the aforementioned discussion? I've tried to search for reliable sources which support the view that IFT-2 was a successful test flight, but I can't find many that seem reliable. I know that some sources in the previous discussion supported this view, however, some editors expressed concerns that these sources were editorials and couldn't be trusted from an objective point of view.

Best regards, Yasslaywikia (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

NBC, CNN, NPR, Bill Nelson, SpaceX themselves beforehand, FAA, Garrett Reisman, Nature, Tom Mueller, Thomas Zurbuchen JudaPoor (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

There were a lot of sources in the now-archived discussions that indicated some flavor of success, partial, or at least declined to state that it was a failure. Note that I'm just noting there is significant disagreement between the WP:RSBREAKING reports and SMEs.

Experts:

https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-second-test-launch-nasa-congratulations "A very successful 2nd test flight of a complex new vehicle, with huge progress and learning. Onwards ad astra, @SpaceX!" Hadfield See also his interview about IFT-1 which explains the rationale that also applies here. Hadfield is well qualified on this subject matter and is unimpeachable from a bias standpoint.

"Congrats to the teams who made progress on today's flight test. Spaceflight is a bold adventure demanding a can-do spirit and daring innovation." Bill Nelson Why would the administrator of NASA publicly congratulate a contractor for a "failure"?

https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/11/heres-why-this-weekends-starship-launch-was-actually-a-huge-success/

Eric_Berger_(meteorologist) This is an opinion piece, but see WP:PRIMARY "The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint". Berger specializes in reporting on the space industry and wrote a book about SpaceX, so he seems to qualify to be able to state a "significant viewpoint".

Non-expert news reports indicating some kind of success

https://www.americaspace.com/2023/11/18/spacex-achieves-successful-first-stage-burn-starship-separation-in-ift-2-test-flight/ "SpaceX took a significant forward "

https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/18/spacex-launches-starship-for-the-second-time-ever-going-farther-than-ever-before/?guccounter=1 " it was still a huge success for the company "

Non-spacex source for SpaceX's viewpoint:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/spacex-starships-second-flight-was-an-explosive-milestone/

"Indeed, SpaceX hailed Saturday's test flight as a success."

Statements about the program in general:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/21/world/spacex-starship-explosion-success-failure-scn/index.html

“With a test like this, success comes from what we learn, and we learned a tremendous amount,” reads a post about the launch on SpaceX’s website. " SpaceX's website being quoted.

“SpaceX is completely different,” Garrett Reisman that and several quotes from Reismanand John Muratore support that this development program should have different standards of success. Foonix0 (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

SpaceX's statement (not opinions) were clearly stated beforehand and detailed objectives exist on a flight plan published before both flights. Adding to this numerous third party officials from NASA as well as other similar agencies and organisations have came out and given statements affirming SpaceXs assessment and intentions. For example, Bill Nelson, the NASA Administrator, who directly called it a successful test.

Many sources use eye catching headlines and all clearly state that SpaceX considers it a success (who, again, are the conductors of the tests). For example, Reuter falsely claimed that the aim was to make it to space which was never publicly stated and if it was published on wiki would constitute original research. It also ignored the fact that it DID make it so according to the criteria they made up.

A number of experts from the industry were also interviewed who affirmed this being a success.

In the context of iterative development, calling these flight failures is simply unfactual and clickbait media articles which get clear facts wrong and have inconsistent outcomes to the criteria stated shouldn't take precedence over industry leaders, experts or the organisation that conducted the yes.

But AGAIN my issue is not with it not being called a success, it's that for these developmental test flights they should be labelled clearly as such and due to the nature of iterative development the success and failure tally should be reserved for operational missions of demonstration test flights. JudaPoor (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

"I'd argue success, partial and complete failure counters should be removed and a (developmental) should be added to the launch counter."

This isn't the right talk page for that, Project Rocketry would be better.

"The "extensive discussions" have been roundabout arguments that have ignored the realities, objectives and opinions of experts on the actual outcome"

Agreed, but trying to do this now significantly hurts the chances of this happening in the future. I recommend waiting a year. Redacted II (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I see no reason why waiting would help. In a year the arguments against amendment could very easily be "why change it after a year?" JudaPoor (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

By waiting, you give time for tensions to lower. By doing this now, you only make things worse.

And V2 should be flying within a year, so by that point, prototypes will have been separated from actual launches. Redacted II (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

But tensions won't lower in a year. They never do with SpaceX.

Plus there shouldn't even be tension. There is direct evidence showing that these are developmental and that success was based on insights not milestones.

The fact that anything other than this is even being considered is a disservice to truth and fact. It shows a collective denial of reality over opinion and mindset by uniformed individuals JudaPoor (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Three RfCs have addressed this topic, and the clear consensus from the second RfC was against this type of note.

NOR policy prefers reliable secondary sources for articles, and editors should avoid evaluating or interpreting primary sources. On that note, an appeal to authority is a fallacious argument and doesn't make a claim true or false.

With time and development, it's possible (likely) that the consensus will change to classify the launch outcomes by version. Redraiderengineer (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

This isn't an interpretation of a primary source. It is a direct statement from a primary source.

This also isn't an appeal to authority. It's listening to the organisation who planned, conducted and broadcasted this test.

Ignoring their statements is lying by omission and by definition unfactual. It's placing personal opinion over that of official statements and the nature of the test itself.

There have also not been any polls or surveys of the sort to measure consensus. And, again, when there's evidence going as far as the flight plan this isn't up for discussion it's well sourced. JudaPoor (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Adding to the appeal to authority claim: an appeal to authority would mean that I was stating it was true simply because AN authority figure said so despite contradictory evidence.

However, this simply is not the case since not only is SpaceX not an authority but rather the people who conducted and set the goal of each flight but there is ZERO contradictory evidence that refutes the role and objectives of each iterative flight test.

Again I reiterate. No matter what discussions have been conducted there is evidence that directly supports the removal of a success/failure counter for developmental test flights. JudaPoor (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

You aren't wrong. But the "consensus" of the editors above chose to disregard SpaceX and other well-sourced criteria of "failure" and "success" and enforce their own preferred criteria. As a result, dissenting editors now face potential accusations of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing for further stating their case. Foonix0 (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, this definetly would help remowe conflict, and wouldnt be “treating starship differently”. This is a good solution to a glaring disagrement, also, the infobox, as i belive said readacted II, is a place for factoids, but if that factiod is highly debated, that would remowe its status as factoid, therefore shouldnt be there Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I am against doing this now, because we just had an RFC on this. And multiple (I think 7) discussions before then.

Let's drop the stick, okay? Redacted II (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Im not trying to upkeep a the tensions, but this will have to be solved, and id say rather sooner then later Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Those discussions were meaningless. It was a back and forth between uninformed people arguing over something that is already well sourced

SpaceX had put out releases before every flight confirming mission success criteria which were met. But as this is developmental success or failure don't really apply as these are iterative.

It's the equivalent of arguing over whether SLS core stage pressure tests were failures despite the objectives and obvious goals being well laid out ahead of time.

JudaPoor (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

"Those discussions were meaningless. It was a back and forth between uninformed people arguing over something that is already well sourced"

Your bordering on personal attack here. You can say someone is wrong, but don't call them uninformed.

"SpaceX had put out releases before every flight confirming mission success criteria which were met. But as this is developmental success or failure don't really apply as these are iterative."

That's not how success/failure is judged.

"It's the equivalent of arguing over whether SLS core stage pressure tests were failures despite the objectives and obvious goals being well laid out ahead of time."

While I think IFT-1 and IFT-2 shouldn't count as flights, there is a VAST difference between a test tank (which SLS's tanks passed, by the way), and a flight test of a prototype.

So please, stop. By doing this, you are preventing the changes you seem to want to see happen. Redacted II (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Not a personal attack. This wasn't an attack directed at anyone nor was it intended as such.

That is how success and failure are judged. Success and failure are based on the meeting of specific criteria that are required for success. In this case insights into the vehicle and information that helps improve later designs. This wasn't a normal launch or even a standard demonstration test flight. It's an iterative flight test as part of a different development process and should be treated as such.

As for the SLS core example. I believe my point was missed.

My point was that although in other scenarios a break up like it would be considered a failure in the SPECIFIC circumstances of that test it was a resounding success. Same as how these test flight with a different success criteria than others is still counted as a success as it met the goals it was required to meet

I fail to see how stating the simple realities of the situation honestly is going to inhibit change. JudaPoor (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

"Success and failure are based on the meeting of specific criteria that are required for success."

Agreed.

"In this case insights into the vehicle and information that helps improve later designs."

Wrong. Success v.s partial failure v.s failure is based on how close it got to the desired 250x50 TEO it was aiming for. Redacted II (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Not the case as stated numerous times by SpaceX on both their website, the flight plan and on the webcasts.

Milestones were ideal not required for a successful test.

By the very nature of iterative development this makes sense. It's simply a replacement of ground testing with flight testing in which all vehicles were expected to not make it all the way and won't do for some time. But that's expected.

JudaPoor (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

"Not the case as stated numerous times by SpaceX on both their website, the flight plan and on the webcasts."

Success for SpaceX and success are two very different things. Redacted II (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Certainly are, but if they dont consider it a failure, is it really a failure? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Adding to this. Who is wiki to decide what it calls a failure or not? We are not in a position to call something a failure that the people who have organised the test call a success just because of some orbital criteria that they never expected.

But my point has never been to call it a success. It's to distinguish between developmental test flights (which really shouldn't be counted as either) and actual operational missions where a failure is a failure to meet a SET requirement.

It's misleading to call these flight failures as it implies they set out with intent to achieve something and didn't which is simply not the case. JudaPoor (talk) 10:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

As i too have said before, easiest thing to do right now would just be to remowe it, but people who called it a failure, at least how i see it, never really considered it, and i have no idea why. I hope this will happen, since the next test flight is nearing too, and this will surely come up again Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, even if they don't consider it a failure, it can still be a failure. This is established precedent. Redacted II (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Care to elaborate?

I mean given that it's THEIR mission and the method of iterative design is well documented and wouldn't consider this a failure. Why is it you insist on using irrelevant and already addressed criteria instead of what is more accurate? JudaPoor (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

"Care to elaborate?

I mean given that it's THEIR mission and the method of iterative design is well documented and wouldn't consider this a failure."

This is established precedent. A company does not decide how Wikipedia classifies a launch.

See List of Astra launches.

"Why is it you insist on using irrelevant and already addressed criteria instead of what is more accurate"

Because it's not irrelevant. Redacted II (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Who is Wikipedia to determine success for failure on their own criteria? This isn't some retrospective over it. It was clearly stated beforehand and any stubbornness to change this is doing iterative testing a disservice. If this is seriously an issue with how wiki judges things then wiki needs to change.

It also is irrelevant. As was stated numerous times for the first few flights ideal orbits are ideal NOT required for a successful test. It doesn't matter how you personally feel about it we cannot assume that SpaceX makes its criteria in bad faith.

If also argue that this would constitute an interpretation of sources or original research as it's taking a criteria not stated and inferring a conclusion.

Whereas listening to the actual criteria that has been stated does not. Although, funnily, I was accused of interpreting a source for simply pointing out what the source explicitly states.

So either wiki has a serious lack of integrity when it comes to following its own rules or they're simply not being followed here JudaPoor (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

"Who is Wikipedia to determine success for failure on their own criteria?"

Wikipedia can set failure v.s success as listed on Wikipedia.

"It was clearly stated beforehand and any stubbornness to change this is doing iterative testing a disservice"

Mission goal: reentry testing. Not Hot staging. Reentry testing. Read all the filings for IFT-1 and IFT-2.

"It also is irrelevant. As was stated numerous times for the first few flights ideal orbits are ideal NOT required for a successful test"

Actually, they are. For Partial Failure, you can get away with suborbital (it only needed to be going fast enough to test the tiles), but not success.

"It doesn't matter how you personally feel about it we cannot assume that SpaceX makes its criteria in bad faith"

Where is that assumption being made?

"If also argue that this would constitute an interpretation of sources or original research as it's taking a criteria not stated and inferring a conclusion."

So, using a source that says "Starship failed" to say "Starship failed" is original research?

"Whereas listening to the actual criteria that has been stated does not."

You are getting the criteria wrong. If the flight was "make it to hot staging, then FTS", then hot staging would be the requirement for success. But it wasn't. Redacted II (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The test was orchestrated by SpaceX. Its aims were set by SpaceX. This was an iterative developmental test that was expected and stated that they expected it to not make all milestones

By the very nature of iterative development this was a success.

Calling it otherwise for some made up criteria is a disservice to the readers frankly JudaPoor (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

And continuing to try to change that now would be doing a disservice to the editors in the long-term. Redacted II (talk) 12:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

How? I feel that having misinformation and using a flawed criteria and tally is doing more of a disservice than them being honest.

I'd also ask you which is more important. being accurate to the realities of these particular flights and treating them accordingly or this alleged "disservice to the editors" which actually would come from the false impression the current tally presents? JudaPoor (talk) 12:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

"How? I feel that having misinformation and using a flawed criteria and tally is doing more of a disservice than them being honest."

If you want it to not be counted as a failure, WAIT (at least) A FEW MONTHS. Maybe even a year. Right now, you have a 0% chance of getting what you want. The longer you try now, the longer it will be until it's actually possible. Redacted II (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

How will that change literally anything? Time isn't the issue here. Stubbornness and denial is JudaPoor (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

This just sounds to me like a "sorry try again I a year" when we both know that's just a dodge. We both know nothing will have changed and the argument of "it's been a year now. Let's just keep it how it is" will creep around

Why is it time dependent to be honest? Why is it time dependent to be accurate? JudaPoor (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

"Why is it time dependent to be honest"

A host of factors.

V2 should be flying by then, making the current prototype look more like they actually are. Tensions from this debate will be gone. And most importantly, several of the individuals who opposed it now have said they'd be open to it once starship is flying operationally.

So wait until then. It's not the solution you (or I. Remember: I fought for IFT-2 to not even count in the infobox) want, but it's the only one that's possible. Redacted II (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. There have been three completely unnecessary RfC and the consensus is that the launches are failures. Arguing shades of grey does NOTHING to change the reality of what happened in any way.

Hell, at this point I'd support fully protecting both the article AND this talk page. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 21:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

So censorship? is the voice of people who actually know the industry less important than your fellow editors? If there's already been 7 maybe take the hint that it's something that still isn't being properly addressed

JudaPoor (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe if we've had 3 RFC's all with the same outcome certain editors need to take that as a hint that their position is not justifiable. Chuckstablers (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

This is not something that has any room for grey whatsoever. Locking something down because people (like you) are legitimately being disruptive does not constitute censorship.

See also: False balance. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 13:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

This isn't arguing shades of grey. I'd suggest you be a bit more professional too.

This is directly following how iterative testing works.

Maybe take the hint that if there's been 7 different ones that it's an unresolved issue instead of getting annoyed over people who have knowledge and understanding of the topic you might not have JudaPoor (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

It's time to move on Juda. We've had an RFC. It's concluded. You had an opportunity to make your arguments there. We overwhelmingly rejected your view. Please respect that and stop.

We have reliable sources saying it's a failure. Actually the majority of them. We don't use primary sources and we don't allow companies to define success of their ventures. Chuckstablers (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

We? Who's we? Did you poll the opinion of editors of those who have seen the threads? All I've seen so far is you guys not even bothered to entertain the idea that a flight based iterative development program is different from an operational mission or demonstration.

We have reliable source saying it's a success. The sources you quote are also not using the correct measurement for success for iterative development. You may be surprised to hear this but many news organisations are profit driven and will put clickbait titles and articles that bring in views not what's most accurate. When you follow the official flight plan and its listed objectives this was a success.

There are also plenty of industry professionals and other media sources affirming a success.

But that's not what I was asking for. I'm simply asking for a distinction between these developmental flights (which shouldn't real be counted as either a failure or success) and operational flights as to not mislead people reading the article on what the actual intentions are. JudaPoor (talk) 14:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I haven't seen a single policy based argument from you Juda. I've read through all of your comments here. We have a clear consensus that emerged in the RFC in favor of failure. If you want to override that consensus, you need a policy based reason to do so.

You're being extremely arrogant by assuming that your opinion is just more valuable than every other editors because you think you have "more knowledge and understanding of the topic" (your words). You're accusing everyone else of being "stubborn" and "in denial" (your words) simply because they don't hold your opinion, demanding that everyone ELSE change theirs without providing any new arguments that haven't already been addressed and overwhelmingly rejected in multiple RFC's. It's just not how Wikipedia works and is incredibly unhelpful.

If this doesn't stop it's going to dispute resolution. That's the next step. Notice how almost everybody has essentially moved on and accepted the very obvious consensus that developed shortly after the last RFC was started. Chuckstablers (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to the industry professionals and leaders who have given secondary confirmation to this.

I've also yet to see an actual consensus poll or something of the nature to confirm that. I don't know how you're simply claiming it.

JudaPoor (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

This is called sealioning. Stop it. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 16:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm really surprised this is coming up again already.

Unfortunately, the only "truth" in the matter is that there is no objective "truth" over what constitutes success vs failure in this case. What may be a "success" by your or SpaceX's criteria is not going to be a "success" by someone else's criteria (Such as, say, a prospective launch customer who wants to see a reliable rocket). And that's essentially what all of the lengthy discussions have boiled down to.

While we do agree that the launch outcome counters should give an accurate impression to readers of the outcome of the vehicle's flights, that in itself is also problematic. Fun fact: I first learned that IFT-2 flew when I saw that the Starship page was updated to say "Launches: 2, Success: 0, Partial failure: 1, Failure: 1". When I read that "Partial failure", my first impression was that it reached orbit, but failed on orbit or reentry. It was only upon further reading I learned that the initial impression I got from the infobox was not accurate. And while I'm only a single anecdote, it's reasonable to assume that other people will have taken different assumptions on what those infobox numbers meant.

Calling the current flights failures certainly isn't "factually untrue". In my case for example, 'failure' would've given me the most accurate impression of the flight's outcome. But I acknowledge that others would make different assumptions. It certainly isn't "a disservice to truth and fact" that some disagree with you. Nor are we in "collective denial" about it. We all want to accurately inform readers, and for Starship's infobox to be consistent with other launch vehicles. Please remember to assume good faith. Gojet-64 (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

There is objective truth. EVERYONE FROM THE INDUSTRY WITH ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE AFFIRMS ITS WAS A SUCCESS

Maybe take their opinion as more reliable than those of random journalists making clickbait JudaPoor (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you realise how immature you're being right now? DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 14:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I've contacted an administrator about the issue to resolve the dispute. Yasslaywikia (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 14:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Redacted II (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(not part of the close statement) I'd recommend JudaPoor to drop the stick instead of causing disruption through personal attacks and bludgeoning. Any future disruption may cause a partial block from this page to be imposed. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

RfC on infobox flight status

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the SpaceX Starship IFT-2 launch be categorized as "failure" or "partial failure" in the infobox? – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Remove

• Remove: This discussion has been an endless source of bikeshedding. The actual usefulness of the field is minor compared to the level of effort on this talk page. There is non-trivial diagreement amoung WP:RS sources. There is little consensus among editors. The two other options presented by this RFC cannot and will not "settle" the issue because it cannot and will not reflect a consensus amoung sources. Trying to call it a failure flies in the face of statements from SMEs like Chris Hadfield and the actual stakeholders of the Starship development program. If people insist that the defintion of the field is so inflexible that it can't be anying but "failure", then it's time to remove it because it is a drastic oversimplification that obfuscates important nuance of the program and neglects what it means to the actual stakeholders. If IFT-3 doesn't either explode on the pad or complete %100 flawlessly, then we're all going to be right back here bikeshedding about this again. Foonix0 (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)— Foonix0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • REMOVE: Prototypes (not a production vehicle) have never been counted in the Infobox. With one exception: Starship. Putting IFT-1 or IFT-2 in the infobox is like putting Grasshopper in the Falcon V1.0 infobox. Same goes for IFT-3, regardless of the outcome. So long as SpaceX is launching Integrated Flight Tests, then they shouldn't be counted in the infobox (though, S29-S32 may be similar enough to be a production version).

  Redacted II (talk) 12:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  In light of the (surprisingly excessive) discussion on this subject, there seems to be no consensus on how these Starship flight outcomes should be classified. You're absolutely right that, if IFT-3 does anything between "explode on the pad" and "execute every mission objective flawlessly", a long-winded discussion like this is just going to drag on again. Without a consensus on how these flights should be counted, the only thing we can really do (at least for now) is just not count them at all. Thus, I'm inclined to again agree with the earlier suggestion to remove the listings (Success, Partial Failure, Failure) from the Starship infobox, at least until it starts flying payloads.

  It's not the solution I would prefer (mainly on the basis that no other launch vehicle on Wikipedia has been treated as such) but I do feel it's the best compromise we can come to at the moment. Gojet-64 (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  A potential compromise would be a system similar to Atlas.

  It would show 0 failures, and "show", with two prototype launches shown under that.

  This avoids misleading users, as both launches can be shown to have failed, but readers won't see those flights as flights of the actual rocket? Redacted II (talk) 12:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  Iam fully on board with this idea👍

  I belive it represents what happened well, AND isnt treating starship differently Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree with this suggestion, because the whole point of this compromise is due to a lack of consensus/agreement on what counts as success or failure for these launches. Counting these launches instead with "prototype success" or "prototype failure" would just have the exact same issue (and has been suggested before in earlier talks). This is especially a problem if the judgment of success/failure depends on company objectives, which makes it inherently inconsistent, and thus impossible to use just a simple contextless number to accurately inform readers of how such launches actually went.

  Essentially, the core premise of the "remove" position is Wikipedia shall make no judgment on whether the Starship IFTs are "successful" or "failure" (There shall be no judgment of "prototype success" or "prototype failure" either, because that has the same issue which is trying to be avoided; namely the lack of consensus on what those classifications should be defined as)

  To be clear however, this isn't a suggestion for permanency going forward. My intention with this compromise is that this would be temporary until, in separate discussion, a consensus is reached on defining success/partial failure/failure (Or until Starship becomes operational). Gojet-64 (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  I belive we would only say prototype launch, this way further conflict can be avoided, and it doesnt represent what happened any worse then saying failure or succes Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 06:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Failure

• Failure: The infobox documentation has defined "partial failure" to allow for a consistent meaning across Wikipedia as per MoS guidelines. Unless the definition changes, the policy-based action is to determine if IFT-2 meets the current partial failure criteria predicated on reaching orbit.

IFT-2 failed to reach orbit, so it doesn't meet the "partial failure" definition or standard used across other launch vehicle articles. Redraiderengineer (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• Failure: A couple of things. Firstly: listing some form of "flight successful" or obscurism through removal of the box would be at odds with a supermajority of published independent media reports, which variously describe a test flight failure. And a test failure needn't be of any shame: don't they call this a fail-fast program, anyway? Apart from that, the test did not meet the objectives set for it and for which substantial preparation was made. I see a lot of increasingly specific definitions of success/failure being made here so that this recent test flight just barely falls on the "win" side. I'd also like to clarify that the infobox is not some kind of scoreboard. It's just a way to show flight outcomes. Sub31k (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I've made my statements before, but will summarize here. Every rocket gets treated the same acrossed all of Wikipedia, with perfect consistency & consensus except for Starship. I'm not going to pretend the issue isn't a small group of loud people who feel attacked if SpaceX is criticized with industry norms in any way. I;ve been here long enough to know that. Test flights aren't given special treatment anywhere else, for any other company and I know most of you arguing for "partials" would all classify the first Vulcan launch as a failure if Centaur's FTS activated during it's first burn. Don't pretend you wouldn't. A quick test flight recap for you guys:

H3, second stage did not ignite. Vehicle later terminated by range, did not reach orbit. Failure

Electron, telemetry was lost and the RSO destroyed the rocket during second stage burn. Failure

Rocket 3, Failed during first stage burn, deviated from trajectory and destroyed by RSO. Failure

Terran-1, second stage failed to start. Failure

Launcher One, LOX line rupture, starving engine of oxidizer. Failure.

Firefly Alpha F1: Engine failure 15 seconds after launch, lost control authority at ~T+2:30, activating FTS and destroying the vehicle (remind you of anything?). Failure

Ariane 5 V88/501, first launch of Ariane 5, decided it was 90 degrees off course, deviating from trajectory and subsequently destroyed by RSO. Failure

Zhuque-2, Vernier engines failed, precluding any chance of reaching orbit. Failure

Zhuque-1, Attitude control failure on stage 3, failed to reach orbit. Failure

Soviet N1, started to drop engines shortly after liftoff, causing a fire in the first stage, all engines shut off at T+68 seconds. Failure

Falcon 1, Engine failure at T+33 seconds, vehicle destroyed. Failure

Proton-K, flew off course and exploded shortly after launch. Failure

Long March 7A, lost pressure in a side booster just before MECO. Failure

Zenit-3SL, failed to reach orbit due to a guidance problem. Failure

ABL RS1, all engines shut down shortly after liftoff. Failure

Notice how there wasn't raging discussions about those (Are some of you going to push for N1's test flight to be counted as partials) because they failed to reach orbit on test flights. Why is Starship different? Why does it and only it get to be special and not allowed to fail? An orbital (Transatmospheric orbit) flight that is destroyed before reaching even an initial orbit is a failure. Don't sight SpaceX's definitions of success because that's a first party source. Wikipedia must retain it's unbiased and neutral POV, and giving only ONE rocket a pass on everything is clear and consistent bias. If this gets classed as a "partial" I may push for some N1 flight to be reclassed alongside a chunk of those above. And I'd expect every one of those in favor of partials to do the same. --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

This rocket is evidently different from all of the ones indicated above. This is an incomplete prototype. The design has even radically changed from one launch to the other (hot staging). The approach is totally different from what has been attempted by the industry so far. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

And its gonna change even more with v2 Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Can we then count it as failure but, when it's significantly upgraded, count it as a different vehicle or at least a different version and separate the stats? That seems like the most honest/responsible way to do this. It is almost indisputably a full failure, but it's an *expected* failure, so it would be a shame if it taints future reliability numbers once it's more polished up. TheSpaceGoat (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

(this belongs in discussion, but with that out of the way):

"Can we then count it as failure but, when it's significantly upgraded, count it as a different vehicle or at least a different version and separate the stats?"

I think Partial Failure is the right classification (see Partial Failure for my reasoning), but I agree, it it's counted in the infobox, it needs to be separate from "actual"/production/v2 vehicles. Redacted II (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Failure is my end state, as said above in regards to IFT-2. --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• Failure. This was a failed launch (it did not complete objectives), while being a successful test. This isn't even controversial; there's a statement to the effect that when NASA has a launch failure, you get congressional hearings, when SpaceX has a launch failure, you add something to the blooper reel. IFT2 provided lots of test data, and is an addition to the blooper reel. Tarl N. (discuss) 18:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Moved. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• Failure. It was successful as a test but unsuccessful as an attempt to reach orbit. Our infoboxes and launch lists all use the latter. --mfb (talk) 05:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• Failure - Other similar flights, speficially the Electron 1 launch, were all classed as failures and we shouldn't be treating Starship differently by moving the goalposts around to squeeze it into partial failure. It doesn't matter how much test data they successfully collect, the launch was still a failure.

CtrlDPredator (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• Failure: All other orbital launch attempts that do not reach orbit have been classified as "failures" on Wikipedia; it doesn't matter how close it got, or whether it had a payload, or what was the expectation of the company/organization launching it. If it was attempting to reach orbit, but failed to reach orbit, that's a clear-cut failure (note that "attempting" and "expecting" are different things). Classifying IFT-2 as a "partial failure" would be grossly inconsistent with how any other launch outcome is classified on Wikipedia, and would likely mislead readers into believing IFT-2 reached orbit when it did not, as reaching orbit is the minimum requirement for "Partial failure" for any other orbital launch attempt. We have to classify these launches clearly and consistently, and not give any special treatment to Starship just because "it's a prototype" or "it got close". Gojet-64 (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  we once again, do not treat starship differently, and many similar flights that were classified as failure, should have been the same partial failure. Spacex new way of testing isnt the same as for any other company, therefore should be differently classified then other ways of testing. Would you classify an overpressure tank test as failure? Likely not Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not really sure what your argument is. In the very same post, you said "we ... do not treat starship differently" and "[Starship] should be differently classified". You can pick one, but not both. Regarding your example of a tank test; no that would not be considered a launch failure because it wasn't a launch attempt. And that's what the infobox entries are based on: launch outcomes, not test outcomes. If SpaceX considers the test to be successful, then good for them, but the launch is still a failure. And as mentioned previously, whether it's a prototype or developmental vehicle is irrelevant. The N1 launches were also iterative vehicles which had substantial changes between launches, yet there is no controversy in calling all of those launches failures. Plenty of other examples are also given in the discussion section below. What matters is clearly communicating to the reader what the outcome of an orbital launch attempt was, and if an attempt to reach orbit failed to do so, then the clearest way to communicate that is by classifying it a "failure". Gojet-64 (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  I meant that we dont treat starship specifically differently, but rather similar scenarios too. The N1 is a REALLY poor example, because the lack of quality engines made it so they had no choice but fly it. Starship isnt as similar to the n1. Some barely lifted off, some exploded during first stage burn, not accomplishing much. This is different from ift1, where the only goal was to not destroy the pad, wich it very much didnt fully do. Communicating failure would miss the development that happened to the second launch, and not reflect what starship had achieved. As i said, this isnt a working non-prototype rocket, therefore it doesnt have the same goals. At the very least we could separate these two, to better reflect what flew, and what it achieved. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 13:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  You are talking about the milestones that Starship has passed as measures of success, not the launch itself. You are advocating for Starship to be treated differently when it isn't any different to other test launches that have occurred before. CtrlDPredator (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think it is, other “test” launched arent expected to fail, many carry payloads, and arent changing with every launch Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Failure. It was a failed launch and it should be described as such. — Sadko (words are wind) 00:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Failure. The rocket did not do what it was supposed to do. It didn't complete any of the stated objectives; therefore, using the same criteria used to judge other rocket launches, we can safely classify it as what it objectively is: a failure. This is not something that has absolutely ANY room for any shade of grey whatsoever, and trying to move the goalposts around to sugarcoat the outcome is not how reality works. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 12:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  How did it not complete anything exactly? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 08:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• Failure. The spacecraft and booster terminated mid-flight and were unable to achieve their goals, that is to return to the launch pad or reach orbit, re-enter the Earth's atmosphere and splashdown in the ocean. It's misleading to say that the launch was a partial failure or success as the launch vehicle was unable to achieve the aforementioned main objectives set out by SpaceX. Yasslaywikia (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Partial failure

• Partial failure. We do have a general criteria, which means partial failure would only be applicable if a payload is placed in an incorrect orbit. This is for actual production launches. We don't have such a criteria for test flights. As per my comments in the above section, I believe this should be a partial failure as it made it past the Karman line before the Starship vehicle was lost. I believe test flights should be separated from actual launches.

However, it now also seems that the general convention is that test flights like the IFTs aren't included in the count. No other launch vehicle has test flights included in the success/failure count. Starship is still in its prototype stages and we can start using the count once Starship is in full production, and then we treat Starship with the usual criteria. Therefore, as an alternative, remove the IFTs from the counts entirely. 87.200.147.139 (talk) 06:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

In regards to some other comments I've seen with articles including test flights into the count. These test flights uses the actual production launch vehicle, not a prototype. Starship is still a prototype and not the final vehicle. A lot has already changed between IFT-1 and IFT-2, and probably again for IFT-3. But no other article has prototype test flights in the count. 87.200.147.139 (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

There are test launches that use boilerplate or mass simulator payloads, and test launches that don't use any payloads at all.

For the first Electron launch it was literally called "It's a Test" and still included in the launch infobox. It too had no payload, same as Starship, and it too was destroyed after first stage separation, just like Starship. CtrlDPredator (talk) 08:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, but please read the comment above. What I'm saying is that prototypes like this (rapidly evolving, trial by flying) aren't usually considered. The Electron launch you mentioned is a test flight but not the same nature. 87.200.147.139 (talk) 11:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Please take this argument to the discussion section. Redacted II (talk) 12:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Given that removing the prototype flights seems unlikely, I'm switching to Partial Failure, as IFT-2 satisfies all of the requirements (payload/crew not lost, vehicle entered usable, but not the intended trajectory). EDIT: PLEASE IGNORE THIS STATEMENT, NOW THAT MORE PEOPLE ARE JOINED "REMOVE" Redacted II (talk) 12:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of RfC

Pinging editors that have previously participated in the discussion: Arch dude, Bugsiesegal, C9po, CtrlDPredator, Ergzay, Finlaymorrison0, Fnlayson, Full Shunyata, Fyunck(click), Galactic Penguin SST, Gtoffoletto, Idontno2, Jrcraft Yt, LordDainIronfoot, North8000, Redacted II, Sub31k, Tarl N., and mfb. Please list your position above in addition to any discussion you make in this subsection. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Why is Partial Success a category? There is no difference between Partial Success and Partial Failure. Redacted II (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Both point to a failure in the end, so there should only be partial failure Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment: We can't waste all this time for every launch. We should decide a rule to apply to all launches. Not decide on a case by case basis. I think given SpaceX's unique modus operandi in which they test partially incomplete prototypes as part of their development program we should distinguish between test launches and launches with an operational payload. With a clear method of understanding what a "success" is that is consistent across all vehicle types. Otherwise the infobox won't make any sense. This is probably a more centralised discussion rather than something we should decide in the article talk page of a single rocket. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, prototypes should be separate from fully capable vehichles Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Due to SpaceX's unique testing practice marking these test launches as failures for Starship would cause a lot of confusion if Starship enters common use. Bugsiesegal (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I also agree that prototypes/test flights should have separate criteria from full production launches, but again there should be a general criteria for each, instead of a case by case basis. 87.200.147.139 (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

There is a general criteria:

Is the crew killed/payload destroyed: if yes, failure, if no...

Is the final trajectory usable, if no, failure, if yes...

Is the final trajectory the intended one, if yes, success, if no, partial failure. Redacted II (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

You are ignoring that the vehicle was lost before achieving orbit. You are trying to hand-wave that since there was no "payload" that it doesn't matter that it blew up, but that was never applied before now. As well as using "trajectory" instead of orbit to try and get around that it didn't physically get there because it blew up. We shouldn't be trying to twist and change these statuses to fit Starship into partial failure. CtrlDPredator (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Launch vehicles that exploded have been counted as successes before, such as the Crew Dragon In-Flight Abort Test. Redacted II (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

That is completely disingenuous, was not an orbital flight and was destroyed to successfully test the in-flight abort system of the dragon capsule. CtrlDPredator (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

It was not destroyed to test the in-flight abort system. It's destruction was expected, however.

And a launch is a launch, orbital, suborbital, or atmospheric. Redacted II (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Its also different scenario then other test flights, since the design process, iteration is different, and isnt expected to survive. So is it not surviving really a failure? Wouldnt say so. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 12:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto take discussion to this section of the RFC.

Also, that user has indicated that they aren't going to be convinced, no matter what you or anyone else says. Trust me, I tried. Redacted II (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Yasslaywikia

"The spacecraft and booster terminated mid-flight and were unable to achieve their goals, that is to return to the launch pad or reach orbit"

First, in a 100% nominal flight, the booster would not have returned to the launch pad. Second, failure to land doesn't count for failure v.s success, as has been established on the Falcon 9 article.

"re-enter the Earth's atmosphere and splashdown in the ocean."

Same as with the booster. That is part of the mission, not the launch. Redacted II (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Despite what the rest of the mission entailed, both Super Heavy and Starship were terminated mid-flight, so I wouldn't call this a successful launch. I stand by what I said in my original comment as I think that it's applicable in regards to the launch. Not meaning to look into a crystal ball here, but I don't think that we should categorise the success of each launch until Starship exits its prototype phase, that is if it starts launching payloads into orbit, however, this is beyond the scope of the RFC. Regards, Yasslaywikia (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

"Despite what the rest of the mission entailed, both Super Heavy and Starship were terminated mid-flight, so I wouldn't call this a successful launch."

That is a good point, however, vehicle explosion doesn't actually mean failure. Crew Dragon In-Flight Abort Test is an excellent example of this.

"I stand by what I said in my original comment as I think that it's applicable in regards to the launch"

For the booster, everything past MECO doesn't matter when defining success v failure. And once the ship has completed it's ascent phase (and payload deployment), then it is also irrelevant for success v failure.

"Not meaning to look into a crystal ball here, but I don't think that we should categorise the success of each launch until Starship exits its prototype phase, that is if it starts launching payloads into orbit, however, this is beyond the scope of the RFC."

There is a category for that: "REMOVE" Redacted II (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I should've rephrased that slightly. What I meant is that we should classify the prototypes under a different category if Starship starts to launch payloads into space, as commercial launches will be different in how we determine that they're successful compared to the prototype flights.

For the Crew Dragon test, that was meant to explode as the objectives of the launch were different. For the reasons I've stated, I think that failure is the best way to describe how successful IFT-2 was, however, I am somewhat open to describing the launch as a partial failure, but I stand firmly on describing it as a failure. Regards, Yasslaywikia (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

"What I meant is that we should classify the prototypes under a different category if Starship starts to launch payloads into space"

I agree, I just think we should start doing that now, instead of later.

"For the Crew Dragon test, that was meant to explode as the objectives of the launch were different"

Well, actually, it was expected to explode post-abort, but it's destruction (and please, correct me if I'm wrong) was not intentional. FTS didn't explode it, aerodynamic forces did. Redacted II (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Remove that assessment from the infobox Infoboxes are only useful for slam-dumk certain factoids. The are problematic for everything else; the don't have the space for the necessary nuanceing, explanations, attributions etc. for cases like this the oversimplified "answer" is inherently WP:OR and controversial. In this case it leads to the many quandaries of subjectively deciding which of the many meanings of the words "success" and "failure" to use. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

An amendment to this: remove it for the Integrated Flight Test's only. Once Starship is flying operationally, and not as a test vehicle, failure v success v partial failure should be much clearer and included in the infobox. Redacted II (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Just like Grasshopper wasn't a Falcon 9, IFT-1 and IFT-2 shouldn't even be considered Starships. Different second stage design, different gimbling mechanism (booster on IFT-1, both ships), no payload bay door (they were sealed around a year or so ago) and probably a host of other factors that none of us know about.

By including them at all in the infobox, we are misleading everyone who reads this article. Redacted II (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you serious? Sub31k (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

yes, and this belongs in the discussion section. I'll be moving my comments in failure down there shortly Redacted II (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Practically everyone, including SpaceX themselves, call these vehicles Super Heavy and Starship. That is not your determination to make. Frosty126 (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

And? Prototypes aren't included in the infobox for every vehicle except Starship. Redacted II (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see prototypes in the info box, where exactly is this? Frosty126 (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It took me a bit of time to realize what you meant, the only similar scenario I know of is with Enterprise and the ALT tests, the main difference is that IFTs are testing the entire system, not just Starship or Super Heavy. Frosty126 (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"the main difference is that IFTs are testing the entire system, not just Starship or Super Heavy."

I think that's irrelevant. Both stages were prototypes, so the only difference is that it was two prototypes instead of one that flew.

If you want, I could probably get a dozen sources that call the IFT-1 and IFT-2 stacks prototypes. Redacted II (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Could you provide examples of entire system prototypes being excluded from the launch count? I acknowledge that they are prototypes, but they should still be included in the count as they are still flights of the Starship stack. Frosty126 (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

As a counter-example, I'll point to the page for SM-65 Atlas, which lists the prototype SM-65A Atlas in its count. Sub31k (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

There really haven't been a lot of entire system prototypes, so no.

Would you include the S8-Sn15 flights on the SpaceX Starship (spacecraft) article?

@Sub31k excellent example, however, the SM-65A wasn't constantly changing (unlike the Starship prototypes), it was a full up version, with each missile being essentially identical. If you have a source that says otherwise, please share it. Redacted II (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Can't find Atlas books in my library, so cannot ascertain, but this post https://www.drewexmachina.com/2015/06/11/first-atlas-tests/ is pretty clear on there being substantial article-to-article changes between SM-65As.

That aside, it really seems like you search for any way in which historical flights are at all different to SpaceX Starship to justify a different treatment, starting from a position (Starship is different!) and working backwards from there. I don't think this is going to result in any meaningful resolution. Sub31k (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I've read the article you linked, and I don't think the changes were as substantial as the ones between B7/S24 and B9/S25 (removed engine skirt and additional engine shielding, compared to the previously mentioned changes for starship), but I'll read it a few more times to make sure.

"That aside, it really seems like you search for any way in which historical flights are at all different to SpaceX Starship to justify a different treatment."

I do go through every example failure listed to see what differences there are, and if they are enough to justify IFT-2 being a partial failure, and not a failure. So that might be what's causing it.

"I don't think this is going to result in any meaningful resolution."

I do have some compromise ideas that may satisfy both sides, but some of these were denied during the IFT-1 debate, so I'm not sure how it will go. If you want me to list them, I can do that.

Finally, let's take this to the discussion section instead. Redacted II (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

SpaceX's development approach is "different" for the space industry. See for example this Oxford case study examining those differences: [1]. The "platform" approach described in this paper is not "compatible" with our current success/failure infobox. I think @North8000's idea is probably the best solution for the moment until we can find something better. We can't have this discussion for every launch. This is clearly controversial and a huge time waste. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 01:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The Ansar and Flyvbjerg study was published in the Oxford Review of Economic Policy, and public policy is the focus of the study's theory.

A timeless question arises whether public policy responses to big societal problems should occur in big bold leaps or in small repeatable steps.
— Ansar, A., & Flyvbjerg, B., How to Solve Big Problems: Bespoke Versus Platform Strategies

It's not a technical examination of SpaceX, and if this exception is applied, SpaceX's competitors will also qualify.

We’ll focus here on just one company, SpaceX, but its competitors are sharing the same experience.
— Ansar, A., & Flyvbjerg, B., A platform approach to space exploration, Harvard Business Review

Redraiderengineer (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Support as second option to partial failure. Remove the classifications for the IFTs only, and add those once Starship is in full production and is no longer in its prototype stages. Or, we should list these prototypes separately, but that was discussed before. 87.200.147.139 (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

please move this to Partial Failure Redacted II (talk) 13:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jadebenn Success is my vote. You're missing the option of "Success". This launch and even IFT-1 were "Successes" because they were test flights with end goals of eventual vehicle destruction. Once this is all done we're going to have to have another RFC to relabel all the test flights as successes and then have a separate category for operational launches. What we're talking about is the equivalent of Grasshopper test flights right now, of which only the last one was a failure because they were not intending to test the vehicle to destruction. For Starship test flights all vehicles are intended to be tested to failure. Ergzay (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

IFT-1 lost control and broke up, IFT-2 was terminated. The final objectives of both flights were successful re-entry of Starship. When did SpaceX ever state these were destructive tests? Frosty126 (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Launch and mission are separate, as has been established by Falcon 9. Failure/Partial Failure/Success distinctions end for the booster at Stage Separation and SECO for the ship.

(Though, in the mission plan, SpaceX clearly indicates both vehicles would be destroyed in a nominal scenario) Redacted II (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Frosty126 SpaceX stated during the live stream and before both tests that the goal of IFT-1 was to "not destroy the pad" by blowing up the vehicle on the pad and the goal in IFT-2 was "to get through staging". Ergzay (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Success for SpaceX and Success by Wikipedia standard are very different things. Redacted II (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Well maybe we can work on changing Wikipedia's definition to allow for SpaceX's industry standard violating definitions that involve iterative development, something not performed elsewhere in the industry. Ergzay (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

That discussion is for Project Spaceflight (or Rocketry), not here Redacted II (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Exactly Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone other than SpaceX would ever consider an unintentional loss of vehicle a success. While getting through hot-staging was the main objective for IFT-2, it was not the final nor only objective. A successful test would be expected to verify all components of the system for operational flight. Frosty126 (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Please remember to ignore anything past SECO for the ship and anything past stage separation of the booster when referring to launch success.

Anything past those two milestones for the respective vehicles is referring to the mission, not the launch. Redacted II (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm referring to the test as a whole, which I'm pretty sure means the whole mission. Frosty126 (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

This RFC is referring to the Launch, and not the mission. So using parts of the mission to determine success of the launch is misleading. Redacted II (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Considering the launch only, the vehicle was lost before orbital insertion, meaning the launch was still a failure. Frosty126 (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but how fast did Starship need to go in order to test reentry? That would be the definition of the "usable orbit" required for partial failure.

And previous flights have shown suborbital trajectories (similar to the final trajectory of IFT-2) are sufficient for testing the heat shield of orbital reentry vehicles. Gemini 2 and Atmospheric Reentry Demonstrator demonstrate this very well. Redacted II (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if the orbit was usable, however loss of vehicle is what made this a failure. Frosty126 (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

If it inserted the payload (in this case, itself. Does starship count as a payload?) into a usable orbit, then it's a partial failure. Redacted II (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Ift1 wanted to lift off, ift 2 wanted to test staging. Spacex never stated this would survive, wich is similar to it Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Alternatively, completely remove the section as @Redacted II presented above, which is also for some reason not an option in your poll.Ergzay (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

RfC Statement: @Jadebenn, based on the existing discussion and for greater clarity, it's preferrable to modify the statement. The current wording of the question results in voting on multiple options, which is discouraged.

I recommend: "Should the SpaceX Starship IFT-2 launch be categorized as "failure" or "partial failure" in the infobox?" This question is specific, neutral, and brief. If this RfC doesn't resolve additional points of contention, we can create further RfCs to address these points. Redraiderengineer (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, the current RFC description is neutral and is specific enough for the current debate. Redacted II (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Modified accordingly. Can someone separate the discussions out of the position listings? They're supposed to make it clear which editors hold what position. The actual discussion of said positions should be confined to the section here. I'd do it myself but it's very difficult to do the edits from a phone. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 18:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll start moving mine out. Redacted II (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jrcraft Yt

Read the previous discussion. There are reasons for almost all (but not all, like the Electron launch. I'd support reclassification of that to "Other Outcome") of the example launches to be a failure.

H3 first flight: Desired orbit: LEO. Final "orbit": Very suborbital. Failure

Rocket 3: LEO attempt, failed to get past staging. Failure

Terran 1: No second stage ignition. Failure

Launcher One: First stage engine failure, didn't reach staging. Failure

Ariane 5: Didn't even make it to staging. Failure

Zhuque-2: Wasn't a prototype vehicle, and was almost twice as far from the desired orbit as IFT-2 was at the end of their respective flights.

Zhuque-1: Desired orbit: LEO. Was slower than IFT-2 near staging. Failure

N1: Not prototype vehicles, never made it through first stage burn. Failure

Falcon 1: Failed to make it through stage 1 burn/stage 2 issues much farther from desired trajectory than IFT-2/engine destroyed by first stage residual thrust. Failure

Proton K: It flew off course very early on in the flight (although we might be referring to different flights). Failure

Long March 7a: didn't make it to staging. Failure.

Zenit-3sl: didn't reach orbit on what seems like a GEO launch. Failure

ABL RS1: Engines failed right after liftoff. Failure

And, for the two Starship launches:

IFT-1: didn't make it near the karman line, much less TAO. Failure

IFT-2: made it past staging, less than 1 km/s from desired orbit. Was going fast enough to test reentry (Atmospheric Reentry Demonstrator, Gemini 2). Partial Failure Redacted II (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Notice how you structure each one of those around Starship. You're making Starship the baseline. In effect, saying getting close but not as close as Starship IFT-2 is failure. "Too slow" "not as far downrange." Incredibly flawed analysis. The baseline for an orbital launch is orbit, not "as close or closer than Starship got." Let's be serious. --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

(amended descript)

H3 first flight: Desired orbit: LEO. Final "orbit": Very suborbital. Failure

Rocket 3: LEO attempt, failed to get past staging. Failure

Terran 1: No second stage ignition. Failure

Launcher One: First stage engine failure, didn't reach staging. Failure

Ariane 5: Didn't even make it to staging. Failure

Zhuque-2: Wasn't a prototype vehicle, stage 2 (3? Zhuque-2 does switch engines) issues with over 2km/s left.

Zhuque-1: Desired orbit: LEO. Stage 3 issues with over 2km/s left. Failure

N1: Not prototype vehicles, never made it through first stage burn. Failure

Falcon 1: Failed to make it through stage 1 burn/stage 2 issues with over 2km/s./engine destroyed by first stage residual thrust. Failure

Proton K: It flew off course very early on in the flight (although we might be referring to different flights). Failure

Long March 7a: didn't make it to staging. Failure.

Zenit-3sl: didn't reach orbit on what seems like a GEO launch. Failure

ABL RS1: Engines failed right after liftoff. Failure

And, for the two Starship launches:

IFT-1: didn't make it near the karman line, much less TAO. Failure

IFT-2: made it past staging, less than 1 km/s from desired orbit. Was going fast enough to test reentry (Atmospheric Reentry Demonstrator, Gemini 2). Partial Failure Redacted II (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

You are ignoring the first Electron launch which was also a failure, despite having no payload, being a test and completing 1st stage separation. And just stating a list of other failed launches doesn't make IFT-2 a partial success. CtrlDPredator (talk) 06:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

That's because I objected to the first Electron Launch being a failure. The failure was of the ground system, not the vehicle itself.

But, if you insist:

I don't have it's final velocity anywhere, but it seems like it was at least 2-3 km/s from the desired final trajectory (and over 270 km from the desired altitude). And for a 500 km orbit, that's more than enough to make it a failure. Redacted II (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

It could be argued the terran 1 launch is succes because they wanted to test the strenght of the printing Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

(moved from failure discussion):

Reaching orbit gives a 15 m/s window, while the velocity needed to test the heat shield is probably in the 5.5-6 km/s range (see Gemini 2). Redacted II (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Rocket 3.0 on 15 December 2020 got, by your own definition, closer to orbit (short by 0.5 km/s). The only failure that could be realistically sent to partial on the merits of reaching orbit was the June 21 1985 Zenit launch. 2nd stage engine blew up near end of burn, sending some fragments of the vehicle into orbit. Back to "discrediting everything else but Starship" as I said before, demonstrating my argument. 18:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)) --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

So, using logic to explain why your examples weren't partial failures, while using the same logic to say IFT-2 was a partial failure, is "discrediting everything else but Starship"?

Rocket 3 (again): failed to reach orbit, desired orbit was 390 km circular (if I am wrong, please correct me and List of Astra rocket launches). Failure, as orbit wasn't stable.

I don't think your being serious with the June 21 1985 Zenit Launch, but in case you were,

Zenit-2: Failed to reach orbit, lost payload.

IFT-2 did not lose the payload (only because there was no payload), and the final trajectory was usable for testing reentry.

Edit: Having saw your "Failure is my end state" message, I'll stop trying to convince you otherwise.Redacted II (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tarl N. Completing all mission objectives is not required for a successful launch. The only launch milestone not met was SECO (Anything with the Booster after stage separation isn't required, as has been established by Falcon), which it missed by a minute while going fast enough to test the tiles. Redacted II (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Redacted II Where is it written down that this is the definition of launch success? Personally I don't even consider IFT-2 a "launch" but a "mission". The IFT-2 mission was to test multiple aspects of the vehicle with success of that mission set at the point the of staging. The point of success for IFT-1 mission was leaving the pad (it could be argued the mission for IFT-1 was a partial failure because of the unintended damage to the pad). Ergzay (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thats partially your way of seeing things, but it certainly makes sense Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The definition is from established precedent on every single rocket's infobox. Redacted II (talk) 12:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mfb In order for the "orbit" to be usable, it needed to be going fast enough to test the tiles (on this launch). Gemini 2 and the Atmospheric Reentry Demonstrator both tested orbital reentry vehicles on suborbital trajectories. So, it was going fast enough.

And if the "orbit" is usable, it counts as a partial failure. Redacted II (talk) 12:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't loss of vehicle make this a failure, regardless of whether the orbit was usable? Frosty126 (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so, as the Dragon 2 In-Flight Abort vehicle was destroyed (though this was expected, and after payload "deployment") before the FTS went off. Redacted II (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The difference is that Starship is part of the launch vehicle and payload, as it puts itself into orbit. Loss of Starship would be comparable to the loss of Dragon 2 or the Space Shuttle orbiter, not the loss of the booster. Frosty126 (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

"Loss of Starship would be comparable to the loss of Dragon 2 or the Space Shuttle orbiter, not the loss of the booster."

Is it? Starship is a second stage, which deploys a payload into the desired orbit. Just because it returns from orbit doesn't make it the payload. Redacted II (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is, they are all spacecraft, and the orbiter and Starship just happen to be part of the launch vehicle.

"Just because it returns form orbit doesn't make it the payload." My point was that it being put into orbit does. Frosty126 (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

"Yes, it is, they are all spacecraft, and the orbiter and Starship just happen to be part of the launch vehicle."

"My point was that it being put into orbit does"

Centaur upper stages are put into orbit. Are they spacecraft? No, they aren't. So why is Starship a spacecraft? It deploys the payload, and (with the exception of crewed starships and HLS, but neither have flown) doesn't carry a crew. Redacted II (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Spacecraft considers Starship as such.

"Centaur upper stages are put into orbit. Are they spacecraft? No, they aren't." My point was being put into orbit made them payload. Frosty126 (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

So, the Centaur is part of the payload of the Atlas V? I don't think it i.

The S-IVB isn't counted as part of the TLI payload of the Saturn V, as another example. Redacted II (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The "them" was referring to was Starship and the Space Shuttle orbiter, they can be considered payload because they are operational spacecraft. Frosty126 (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think Starship counts as a payload, but I can confirm that shuttle doesn't. Look at the payload capacity listed on it's article: 27550 kg (204 km LEO). The dry mass of the lightest orbiter is 78000 kg. As 78000 is more than 27550, the space shuttle is not counted as a payload on it's article.

So why should Starship be any different? Redacted II (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

It depends on the context, when talking about what the system puts into orbit, the orbiter and Starship can be included. However, in most cases it refers to cargo of the spacecraft to be payload. Dragon carries cargo and Starship carries cargo, while both are spacecraft, Starship is part of the launch vehicle. The only reason I made that distinction is because Starship isn't just a stage, but a spacecraft with a very large (projected) cargo capacity. Frosty126 (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I see your argument, but I have to disagree with you.

This debate has occurred before: here is one example. I

The final decision was that the Shuttle is part of the launch vehicle, and not part of the payload. During every flight, it was the orbital insertion stage, so (technically), the shuttle was a two stage launch vehicle.

Given that Starship is much closer to being a full launch vehicle than the shuttle was, then it shouldn't be considered a payload. Redacted II (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

It didn't test the tiles, and it never had a chance to test them without reaching its target orbit (which it failed to do). --mfb (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

There are multiple examples of suborbital trajectories being used to test heat shields of orbital vehicles (Gemini 2, Atmospheric Reentry Demonstrator). So it was in a usable "orbit" for the end goals of the mission. (though it's debris didn't reenter in the exclusion zone).

Reaching the target orbit is a success (such as Starship reaching orbit but burning up)

Reaching a usable trajectory is a partial failure (IFT-2)

Not reaching a usable trajectory is a failure (IFT-1). Redacted II (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The heat shield wasn't tested because communications were lost and the thing exploded. That should be important to note if you use heat shield testing as a criterion for a viable orbit. Again it seems like you're going with the minimal viable definition that includes IFT2. Sub31k (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

"The heat shield wasn't tested because communications were lost and the thing exploded."

Is it confirmed that it exploded because comms were lost? I thought comms were lost because it exploded. If you have a source that says otherwise, please share it.

"That should be important to note if you use heat shield testing as a criterion for a viable orbit."

A viable orbit is one that allows for heat shield testing, but testing the heat shield is part of the mission, and not the launch (the divider is really weird for vehicles like Starship and the Space Shuttle).

"Again it seems like you're going with the minimal viable definition that includes IFT2."

For me, it seems like you (not just you) are going with the opposite, throwing in requirements to exclude IFT-2.

But the definition I used is identical to the definition used for every other vehicle: it must enter a (somewhat) usable trajectory, and not cause the death/destruction of the crew/payload.

IFT-2 had no payload, so the second part does not apply. And it did enter a usable trajectory, thus satisfying the first part. Redacted II (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Personally I've been of the opinion that since independent reporting is saying test failure, then the infobox would do fine mirroring that. Everything else is just throwing in opinions to arguments that others have brought up.

It's nice to have physical criteria, but given how subjective under interpretation they clearly have been, it's not something I'm very interested in. And anyway, two different events will always have differences in the details. But one has to avoid "splitting hairs". Everything is an exception to the norm in its own way. Sub31k (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

"Personally I've been of the opinion that since independent reporting is saying test failure, then the infobox would do fine mirroring that"

Well, for IFT-1, the majority of sources called it a success or partial failure (If I remember correctly), and not failure. I am not saying IFT-1 needs reclassification, and will oppose any push to label it as a partial failure.

"It's nice to have physical criteria, but given how subjective under interpretation they clearly have been, it's not something I'm very interested in."

If something meets the criteria to be a partial failure, then why shouldn't it be a partial failure?

"And anyway, two different events will always have differences in the details. But one has to avoid "splitting hairs"."

Yes, different events will always have differences. And those differences, if major enough, can result in different classification. I don't think pointing them out constitutes "splitting hairs", but, as you have said many times, "Interpretations vary".

"Everything is an exception to the norm in its own way."

Agreed. Redacted II (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

It did not reach a usable trajectory for a heat shield test. It was programmed to blow up if it doesn't reach its target orbit. A test at lower velocities was never an option. --mfb (talk) 07:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because safety margins, if it werent for that, it very well could have done it. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

We don't know if it was safety margins that destroyed the vehicle. Redacted II (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Im not saying we do, im saying that its a likely reason for the activation of the explosives Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 13:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

"Im not saying we do, im saying that its a likely reason for the activation of the explosives"

Here's a quote from you that contradicts this:

"Yes, because safety margins, if it werent for that, it very well could have done it."

Don't say it was safety margins as a fact when the actual cause is still unknown to everyone (with the exception of everyone who actually works for SpaceX, and even then, they still might not have figured it out yet, cause it's only been 12 days). Redacted II (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

There are examples of suborbital trajectories being used to test Orbital Reentry Vehicles (Gemini 2, Atmospheric Reentry Demonstrator). So "A test at lower velocities was never an option" is completely wrong. Redacted II (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

We are discussing Starship, not these other vehicles. Starship was programmed to blow up if it can't get fast enough to deorbit near Hawaii. It couldn't get fast enough, so it blew up. Testing the heat shield at lower velocities was never an option for this flight of this vehicle. The general ability to get data about a heat shield at 6.5 km/s in a flight is irrelevant. --mfb (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

"Starship was programmed to blow up if it can't get fast enough to deorbit near Hawaii."

It wouldn't deorbit during a nominal flight. If it had to, that would be a complete failure (accidentally reaching a stable orbit)

"The general ability to get data about a heat shield at 6.5 km/s in a flight is irrelevant."

The mission was to test entry. It was going fast enough to test entry. However, it was not fast enough to reenter in the designated area, so it exploded. So, the ability to get data at that velocity is very relevant. Redacted II (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

There are roughly five arguments the small but vocal group of editors opposing the classification of IFT-2 as a "failure" are making.

• Argument 1: Starship is a prototype with an iterative development process.

First, numerous launch vehicles include non-operational launches (e.g., prototypes and test vehicles/flights) in the infobox launch count. Angara, Antares (rocket), Electron, Epsilon, GSLV, LVM3, Saturn I, Saturn IB, SSLV, Zhuque-2, Falcon Heavy, and notably Falcon 1, which had a commercial launch, all include non-operational launches in their infobox launch count.

Second, the iterative development process isn’t unique to Starship or SpaceX. It's at the core of the engineering design process. SpaceX has adopted a rapid iteration approach (i.e., “move fast, break things”) known as iterative and incremental development. The accepted tradeoff of this process is “failure in the development phase.”

• Argument 2: List the prototypes separately.

Once a new version of Starship has flown, consensus may change. Future versions will likely be listed in a similar format to the Falcon 9 infobox. However, that discussion is beyond the scope of this RfC.

• Argument 3: IFT-2 satisfies the “partial failure” criteria.

For an orbital launch, the “partial failure” criteria are predicated on reaching orbit. Orbit is used synonymously with the term trajectory in some replies.

There is a general criteria:
Is the crew killed/payload destroyed: if yes, failure, if no...
Is the final trajectory usable, if no, failure, if yes...
Is the final trajectory the intended one, if yes, success, if no, partial failure.
— User:Redacted II 13:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

While an orbit is a trajectory, the term specifically refers to a trajectory (in this case) around Earth. IFT-2 failed to reach orbit and doesn’t meet this criteria as applied on other launch vehicle articles.

• Argument 4: Ignore anything past SECO.

CRS-1 is listed as a partial failure in Falcon 9 infobox. Dragon, the primary payload, successfully reached its orbit. However, the secondary payload couldn’t reach its intended orbit after SECO, and the launch was declared a partial failure.

• Argument 5: IFT-2’s mission was to test re-entry.

The IFT-2 article states the mission’s primary objectives. Further, during the SpaceX stream, the objectives (as viewed by SpaceX) were discussed. Re-entry wasn’t the standard set by SpaceX.

So, let’s talk about some objectives for today. The primary goal for flight one was to clear the pad. We did that, and we got amazing data that helped us to improve the vehicle and pad that you see right there. Today, this time on flight two, we’re hoping to get all the way through stage separation where we will try to perform this hot staging maneuver. In the bigger picture, ascent is the most critical objective today, and everything else is learning.

Redraiderengineer (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

"First, numerous launch vehicles include non-operational launches (e.g., prototypes and test vehicles/flights) in the infobox launch count"

All the examples you listed flew production vehicles. Test launch does not equal prototype launch.

"Once a new version of Starship has flown, consensus may change. Future versions will likely be listed in a similar format to the Falcon 9 infobox. However, that discussion is beyond the scope of this RfC."

How is it outside of the scope of this RFC? It's titled: "RFC on Infobox Flight status".

"While an orbit is a trajectory, the term specifically refers to a trajectory (in this case) around Earth. IFT-2 failed to reach orbit and doesn’t meet this criteria as applied on other launch vehicle articles."

So, your back to the 15 m/s range. Which is ridiculously small, given that other flights (with payloads and even crew) have much larger ranges for success, much less partial failure.

"CRS-1 is listed as a partial failure in Falcon 9 infobox. Dragon, the primary payload, successfully reached its orbit. However, the secondary payload couldn’t reach its intended orbit after SECO, and the launch was declared a partial failure."

It wasn't inserted into the intended trajectory. This doesn't violate "IFT-2’s mission was to test re-entry."

"So, let’s talk about some objectives for today. The primary goal for flight one was to clear the pad. We did that, and we got amazing data that helped us to improve the vehicle and pad that you see right there. Today, this time on flight two, we’re hoping to get all the way through stage separation where we will try to perform this hot staging maneuver. In the bigger picture, ascent is the most critical objective today, and everything else is learning."

So, primary objective was hot staging (though this logic has been rejected (by people who want failure, not partial failure). Which was successful. So this argument falls apart. Redacted II (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Argument 1: Starship is a prototype with an iterative development process.

All the examples you listed flew production vehicles. Test launch does not equal prototype launch.
— User:Redacted II 22:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The list includes numerous launch vehicles with non-production/operational launches. Falcon 1, the first launch vehicle developed and built by SpaceX, is on that list. You would be hard-pressed to call it a production launch vehicle (at least for the first four vehicles). SpaceX considers it a prototype, and all five Falcon 1 launches are included in the infobox launch count.

Falcon 1, SpaceX’s prototype rocket, is the first privately developed liquid-fueled rocket to orbit Earth
— SpaceX Press Kit

• Argument 2: List the prototypes separately.

How is it outside of the scope of this RFC? It's titled: "RFC on Infobox Flight status".
— User:Redacted II 22:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The RfC statement/question is the focus of the discussion. Separating the prototypes is a valid topic of discussion, but the goal of this RfC isn’t to reach a consensus on that point.

Should the SpaceX Starship IFT-2 launch be categorized as "failure" or "partial failure" in the infobox?
— User:Jadebenn 13:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• Argument 3: IFT-2 satisfies the “partial failure” criteria.

So, your back to the 15 m/s range. Which is ridiculously small, given that other flights (with payloads and even crew) have much larger ranges for success, much less partial failure.
— User:Redacted II 22:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a straw man argument. It's your unsubstantiated calculation of Δv based on arbitrary parameters. Your calculation isn't generalizable across orbital launches.

• Argument 4: Ignore anything past SECO.

It wasn't inserted into the intended trajectory. This doesn't violate "IFT-2’s mission was to test re-entry.".
— User:Redacted II 22:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The second stage was capable of delivering the secondary payload to the intended trajectory. It had a 95% probability of completing the second burn, but the required probability of failure was less than 1%. As a result, the burn was aborted. CRS-1 is an example, but the rebuttal is focused on the shortcomings of the anything past SECO doesn't impact success v failure standard you've stated.

• Argument 5: IFT-2’s mission was to test re-entry.

So, primary objective was hot staging (though this logic has been rejected (by people who want failure, not partial failure). Which was successful. So this argument falls apart.
— User:Redacted II 22:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a rebuttal to your claim of partial failure that is predicated on re-entry as the primary objective and factor in determining the usability of an orbit. (See your reply: ...how fast did Starship need to go in order to test reentry? That would be the definition of the "usable orbit" required for partial failure.) The arguments made in the "failure" section don't depend on re-entry.

• Reaching a consensus

So long as each side stubbornly (and everyone here is to blame for this, including you and me) insists on getting everything and refuses to make compromises, then no, I don't think anyone will switch sides.
— User:Redacted II 13:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The outcome (and therefore consensus) of this RfC isn't difficult to predict when examining the current arguments in the "failure" and "partial failure" sections, and it aligns with the outcome of previous RfCs. Eventually, there's a risk of gaming the consensus-building process and stonewalling when one or two insistent editors repeatedly push their viewpoint.

Redraiderengineer (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

"You would be hard-pressed to call it a production launch vehicle (at least for the first four vehicles)"

Except they were production vehicles

"The RfC statement/question is the focus of the discussion. Separating the prototypes is a valid topic of discussion, but the goal of this RfC isn’t to reach a consensus on that point."

Fair.

"This is a straw man argument. It's your unsubstantiated calculation of Δv based on arbitrary parameters. Your calculation isn't generalizable across orbital launches."

First, do you want me to show you the math? Cause I can do that.

Second, it's a rejection of your orbit requirement, and an explanation as to why it falls apart for TransAtmospheric.

"The second stage was capable of delivering the secondary payload to the intended trajectory. It had a 95% probability of completing the second burn, but the required probability of failure was less than 1%. As a result, the burn was aborted. CRS-1 is an example, but the rebuttal is focused on the shortcomings of the anything past SECO doesn't impact success v failure standard you've stated."

First, where did you get the 95% probability. Same for required probability of failure being less than 1%. If this is regarding CRS-1, then it still doesn't violate my "Anything past SECO doesn't impact success v failure"

"The outcome (and therefore consensus) of this RfC isn't difficult to predict when examining the current arguments in the "failure" and "partial failure" sections, and it aligns with the outcome of previous RfCs. Eventually, there's a risk of gaming the consensus-building process and stonewalling when one or two insistent editors repeatedly push their viewpoint."

Are you likely to get your way? Yes, there is a near-certain probability that the debate closer (is that the right term?) will side with you. But that doesn't negate the right of everyone who believes IFT-2 was a partial failure to try to push for it.

Finally, how did you color in your quotations of my responses? Redacted II (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a good summary of the arguments and I feel it rightly shows how there is an attempt to redefine partial failure to fit the last Starship launch, instead of evaluating the launch for what it was. CtrlDPredator (talk) 09:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the reply of Redacted II? He basically counters every argument against it. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Honestly I don't feel like they did. Inventing your own criteria around an arbitrary 15m/s and presenting it as some sort of agreed upon threshold isn't countering the argument. We have discussed this over and over and it is clear that no matter how many similar examples or precedents are presented that the goalposts keep changing to try and fit Starship into Partial Failure. No one is going to change their mind here. CtrlDPredator (talk) 13:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

"Inventing your own criteria"

The criteria I listed is what has been applied to every partial failure and failure I have found. If you can find one that violates this definition, please share it (and why it violates the criteria).

"arbitrary 15m/s"

The 15 m/s value is the difference between 100% success and 100% failure with reaching orbit being a requirement. I calculated the value using the vis-viva equation.

"no matter how many similar examples or precedents are presented that the goalposts keep changing to try and fit Starship into Partial Failure"

I've also mentioned precedents and similar examples that support partial failure, so the goalposts have not moved.

"have discussed this over and over"

Agreed. Seven talk pages is ~five-six too many. And a 17 day debate is just ridiculous.

"No one is going to change their mind here"

So long as each side stubbornly (and everyone here is to blame for this, including you and me) insists on getting everything and refuses to make compromises, then no, I don't think anyone will switch sides.

However, I have offered to make compromises. These offers were ignored. Redacted II (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The 15m/s is from your own calculations? Are you even applying it correctly? You don't even have all the variables. Others have calculated the perigee to be 1,700km below the surface of the Earth, another 15m/s won't be enough to raise to an orbit. CtrlDPredator (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

"Others have calculated the perigee to be 1,700km below the surface of the Earth, another 15m/s won't be enough to raise to an orbit"

You are misinterpreting the 15 m/s value. That is the difference at 250 km between perigee of 50 km and 0 km, which seems to be the range allowed. It is not how much faster the vehicle needed to go (I've seen values between .8 and 1.2 km/s for that) Redacted II (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

What range allowed? Starship didn't get to orbit and was a long way off getting to orbit. Starship wasn't at an altitude of 250km, it didn't have a perigee of 0km, so what is this invented range of yours meant to be? This is exactly what I am talking about with people inventing new criteria. CtrlDPredator (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

"Starship wasn't at an altitude of 250km, it didn't have a perigee of 0km, so what is this invented range of yours meant to be?"

The difference between 100% success (reaching exact desired trajectory) and 100% failure (according to your definition, not mine) is 15 m/s at desired apogee.

I never claimed that IFT-2 was 15 m/s away from the desired trajectory. I claimed that the range you have set for partial failure is about 15 m/s, and used that to state that said range is unreasonable.

"This is exactly what I am talking about with people inventing new criteria"

You have said that it had to reach orbit to be counted as a partial failure. Not me. Redacted II (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

That is absolutely ridiculous. I have never stated that or even implied any arbitrary speed range. We are talking about a launch that did not reach orbit and didn't reach orbit by a very large margin. Why should we make any special allowance for Starship when it wasn't able to get close to the bare minimum of an orbit? That we should bend the criteria because it is "too hard" for Starship to reach? CtrlDPredator (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely not, but you are using SOME criteria to say that it was too far Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

It was a long way off orbit CtrlDPredator (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

How, can you show why it was SO long away to not be counted as partial? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The perigee, the closest point in an orbit to the Earth, has been calculated at 1,700km below the surface of the Earth. It wasn't close to reaching orbit. CtrlDPredator (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

It was almost exactly 30 seconds from SECO, according to the official mission timeline.

I think that qualifies as "close" Redacted II (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

It it wasn't. Can't just keep redefining everything as "close" when it really wasn't. CtrlDPredator (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Then define close.

If you don't like the definition I've stated (fast enough to test reentry), then please, state your definition. Redacted II (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Getting to orbit is a prerequisite for achieving orbit.

Having a perigee 1700km below the surface of the Earth is clearly sub-orbital.

Have no idea why you are trying to distract the conversation about reentry, which is a mute point because it blew up preventing it from even being able to attempt that. CtrlDPredator (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

"Have no idea why you are trying to distract the conversation about reentry"

The mission was to test reentry. If the vehicle doesn't go fast enough to test reentry, it's a failure. Otherwise, it's a partial failure/success (depending on the final trajectory/orbit).

"Getting to orbit is a prerequisite for achieving orbit."

Given that the difference in velocity between a perigee of 50 km and a perigee of -.001 km is very, very small (15 m/s), I have to disagree with that requirement for Transatmospheric flights. (And yes, I know it had a perigee of -1700 km. My point is that orbit shouldn't be a requirement for partial failure)

"which is a mute point because it blew up preventing it from even being able to attempt that"

The launch didn't destroy the payload (due to there being no payload), so I think the point does matter. Redacted II (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

You want to remove the orbital requirement, because Starship completely missed it.

You want to ignore the fact that it blew up so that you can try to discuss re-entry tests that it never was able to do.

I don't feel like you are acting in good faith here, you are bludgeoning the conversation with these repeated strawman arguments that just take everyone here around in circles again and again and again and again.

I am not going to engage with you in these conversation any more, don't assume that I am abandoning my position, it's that it is not healthy. CtrlDPredator (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

"I am not going to engage with you in these conversation any more"

Okay. I recommend unsubscribing to this topic, so you don't continue to get flooded by notifications.

"don't assume that I am abandoning my position"

Why would I? Redacted II (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

"That is absolutely ridiculous. I have never stated that or even implied any arbitrary speed range. We are talking about a launch that did not reach orbit and didn't reach orbit by a very large margin"

You never stated the range, I calculated it based on your (and other editors) statements.

"Why should we make any special allowance for Starship when it wasn't able to get close to the bare minimum of an orbit? That we should bend the criteria because it is "too hard" for Starship to reach?"

It's not a "special allowance". Same rules apply to any other rocket. Redacted II (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

What "rules"? There isn't written guidance on this topic and the "rules" being used are clearly not universally accepted. Sub31k (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up this 15 m/s range. No one arguing for 'failure' is advocating for that kind of arbitrary speed range. It is indeed a straw man and quite frustrating to have to deal with again. From the top:

What the MoS states counts for 'partial failure', and the standard applied to all other launch vehicles, is a usable orbit, not "close to a usable orbit by some reasonable margin". The exact speed range for such an orbit to be usable is not relevant, what matters is whether it's usable or not. If 15m/s is the difference between a usable vs unusable orbit on this particular flight, then so be it. That's not unfair to Starship, and is consistent with the standard all other launch vehicles are held to. Most missions heading to LEO would be considered a failure if they fell short by a similar small margin, including Astra's Rocket 3.2, which fell short of orbit by "just half a kilometer per second" (closer than Starship got) and is still uncontroversially classified as a failure. The velocity of Mars Climate Orbiter was wrong by less than 0.2 m/s, and its mission is unanimously considered a failure.

You are advocating for Starship to be given a special allowance. The rules applied to any other orbital launch attempt is that reaching orbit (and also not-blowing-up, another thing Starship failed to do) is the minimum requirement for a launch to get the 'partial failure' classification. The end, no allowances for "it's a prototype", no allowances for "it had no payload", no allowances for "it got close".

I think it's insane that a vehicle which explodes before reaching its target orbit could be classified as anything but a failure. No orbital rocket in history would be given that allowance. More importantly, it's misleading to readers. Although, we all implicitly know why Starship is being given this special treatment that no other launch vehicle would get. I've been refraining from saying it explicitly up until now, but I just have to call it what it is; the SpaceX fanboyism is really getting to me. Gojet-64 (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the long, and probably disorganized, response.

"It is indeed a straw man and quite frustrating to have to deal with again"

That is not my intent.

"What the MoS states counts for 'partial failure', and the standard applied to all other launch vehicles, is a usable orbit, not "close to a usable orbit by some reasonable margin""

The final trajectory was usable for testing the heat shield.

"If 15m/s is the difference between a usable vs unusable orbit on this particular flight, then so be it."

And that's what I'm objecting to. It could have tested the heat shield at it's final velocity, therefore, it's final trajectory was a "usable one".

"Most missions heading to LEO would be considered a failure if they fell short by a similar small margin, including Astra's Rocket 3.2, which fell short of orbit by "just half a kilometer per second" (closer than Starship got) and is still uncontroversially classified as a failure"

Astra 3.2's mission was to reach a stable orbit. There is a difference. If IFT-2 was planned to reach a stable orbit, we'd would most likely

"The velocity of Mars Climate Orbiter was wrong by less than 0.2 m/s, and its mission is unanimously considered a failure."

Launch vehicle vs. satellite. As with Astra 3.2, there is a difference.

"(and also not-blowing-up, another thing Starship failed to do)"

Crew Dragon In-Flight Abort Test's launch vehicle exploded (which was not planned, though it was expected). And it's counted as a launch success. So, an exploding launch vehicle can be counted as a success, so long as the payload isn't destroyed.

"The end, no allowances for "it's a prototype", no allowances for "it had no payload", no allowances for "it got close"."

First, I never said that it's prototype status impacts success v failure (though I probably said that during the IFT-1 debate, and other editors have stated that during this one). Second, IMO, not having a payload to lose does impact success v failure, as it expands the range allowed for the vehicle to be off the desired trajecory. And the "it got close" is simply "the final trajectory was usable for testing reentry, but not in the designated location".

"More importantly, it's misleading to readers."

I think labeling it as a failure would be misleading readers, but we can disagree.

"I've been refraining from saying it explicitly up until now, but I just have to call it what it is; the SpaceX fanboyism is really getting to me"

Please, avoid personal attacks. We are all here to build and improve this encyclopedia. Just because we disagree doesn't mean one of us is a "SpaceX Fanboy" or "SpaceX Hater".

I understand your arguments. They are very valid, and me disagreeing with them doesn't mean that I'm "ignoring them".

And finally, I'm willing to compromise here. We can come to a final decision that both sides don't actively hate. Redacted II (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I apologize, "SpaceX fanboyism" was not meant to be directed at you specifically. Rather, I meant it regarding an overall trend I had been observing across Wikipedia in recent years; namely, an apparent trend of bias towards SpaceX. (But that is beyond the scope of this particular discussion)

The arguments, however, are still going in the same circles as before. I feel I have little to add at this point, else I'll just be repeating myself again. I do hope a consensus/compromise can be reached, but I'm going to step back for a bit and let the other editors express their views. Gojet-64 (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

This gotta end soon, it just cant go on Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

It really needs to. The intergalactic nuclear wars that inevitably erupt every time the Cult Of Musk invade comment sections to try to push their agendas using "alternative objectivity" and "alternative logic" are a pain to deal with. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 12:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

"Cult Of Musk invade comment sections to try to push their agendas"

Stop the personal attacks and accusations. Redacted II (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I accept your apology. Redacted II (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment - I've been watching the talk page for a while now (I've been inactive on WP). I must be honest - I was quite disappointed when I saw this debate emerge again. It's clear that some people are against the consensus in regards to how the recent test flight should be classed in terms of their success, and I find this quite unfortunate. As editors, we should cooperate with each other, but it appears that some edits aren't doing that here.

Redacted II, I've been watching the arguments you've been making and I must caution you to not sealion in and bludgeon discussions. Sometimes, things just don't go the way we go and sometimes we just need to drop the stick and move on. I get it, it's very frustrating when things don't go the way you want them to go, but this is how things have to be on Wikipedia with how we make decisions by consensus.

I also think we need to turn down the temperature in here too. I've noticed a lot of personal attacks directed between editors of different opinions on how the successful the recent launch was. We need to remain civil even if we get frustrated by the opinions of other people. Regards, Yasslaywikia (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

"It's clear that some people are against the consensus in regards to how the recent test flight should be classed in terms of their success, and I find this quite unfortunate"

Well, we do have the right to disagree. And the right to voice our opinion on the talk page during a debate.

"As editors, we should cooperate with each other, but it appears that some edits aren't doing that here."

Which is why I have (multiple times) offered to work on a compromise option.

"Sometimes, things just don't go the way we go and sometimes we just need to drop the stick and move on. I get it, it's very frustrating when things don't go the way you want them to go, but this is how things have to be on Wikipedia with how we make decisions by consensus."

This isn't going to be a repeat of IFT-2. Once this RFC has concluded (almost certainly for the side of failure), I'm done (not with Wikipedia, but with this debate).

"I also think we need to turn down the temperature in here too. I've noticed a lot of personal attacks directed between editors of different opinions on how the successful the recent launch was. We need to remain civil even if we get frustrated by the opinions of other people"

I cannot express just how much I agree with this. Redacted II (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closure challenge: @CactiStaccingCrane: I'm not sure your closure is appropriate per WP:CLOSE. A new option "remove" has been proposed and was just added in the last few days and collecting support. Also I don't think you should be the one closing. Your closure summary isn't a very fair summary of the discussion and you just seem to be pushing your own "view" (and vote in past votes?) and accusing contrary votes of misbehaving. This is the second time this topic has ended in a disastrous RfC. Let's do this right or it will come up again in 2 weeks with the next launch. Please revert your closure and let's follow WP:CLOSE next time. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

They didn't vote in the current or previous RfC. They are also not wrong on the lack of civility and the bludgeoning and sealioning that has taken place both here and in the previous RfC.CtrlDPredator (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The closer shouldn't be someone involved in the previous debate, to avoid bias.Redacted II (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't give a damn on whether both IFTs are a failure or not. Failure, after all, is a subjective thing and based on previous discussions no one will be willing to change their mind. In the RfC is obvious to see that the consensus that IFT-2 should be categorized as a failure and this "failure/no-failure" debate has been ongoing since IFT-1 because of a few regulars here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane I don't think that answers my points above. Do you agree to revert the closure? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

"I don't give a damn on whether both IFTs are a failure or not"

Good. I still would prefer someone else as the closer (just to establish the precedent, as while you may not be biased, this could come up again).

"Failure, after all, is a subjective thing"

Agreed, especially with prototypes.

"based on previous discussions no one will be willing to change their mind"

I wish I could disagree with you on this.

"In the RfC is obvious to see that the consensus that IFT-2 should be categorized as a failure"

The majority of editors do think it is a failure. However, when a new option is added to the RFC, waiting a week before closing it seems reasonable.

""failure/no-failure" debate has been ongoing since IFT-1 because of a few regulars here."

The IFT-1 debate had been dead for several months. Redacted II (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

"Failure, after all, is a subjective thing and based on previous discussions no one will be willing to change their mind. " This is exactly the argument for removing the field. I personally support "success" but removing the field is an acknowledgment that there are valid reasons to disagree. I HAVE changed my mind.

"In the RfC is obvious to see that the consensus that IFT-2 should be categorized as a failure" If the comments are tallied as WP:VOTEs perhaps. Most of them repeat the same subjective opinions. They don't contradict the non-failure camp.

"this "failure/no-failure" debate has been ongoing since IFT-1 because of a few regulars here" It's contrary to undisputed source material to call it a failure, not just to the people stating those here. So of course people familiar with the situation are going to bring it up over and over. It's contrary to how people involved with and adjacent to the program see things. Foonix0 (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

If it is then why not circumvent having to call it anything by not calling it anything? And we cant judge something with a description that has subjective meaning, therefore just dont do it. I myself always considered what the people saying failure argue, but i cant agree. Hopefully the same with them. There is no other way around this, if we cant agree even considering what the other said. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a dead debate at this point. I recommend moving on. Redacted II (talk) 11:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying this to me or Foonix? Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 07:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm saying it to both of you. If we waste our time here, it makes other editors much less likely to work with any of us in the future. Redacted II (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright, im just sad that when we finally seemed to get closer to a consensus it was closed. This will surely come up again at some point, and it would have been good to have a way to quickly be able to deal with it… I may take a bit of a break untill then Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Disclosure: Same user as IP 87.200.147.139, but I was on a different device that I had not used in a while and forgot to log in. No OS needed.

I support the above challenge of the closure. It appears the closer of the discussion (CactiStaccingCrane) had a biased viewpoint in regards to this failure/partial failure argument and should not be the one closing this discussion. User3749 (talk) 07:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)