Talk:List of Starship launches

Gulf vs. Ocean

@Redacted II It's an unnecessary distinction and it's inconsistently applied. Unnecessary because the Gulf of Mexico is part of the Atlantic Ocean. Inconsistently applied because we currently have flights 4 and 6 listed as ocean, when they landed in the gulf. In my opinion, it's fine to just say ocean. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Its not really unnecessary: a landing in the atlantic ocean would imply a very different trajectory than a landing in the gulf.

For not being applied to 4/6, I completely forgot those. I'll make them consistent with 2 and 3 immediately. Redacted II (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Not really. Again, the Gulf is the Atlantic Ocean. RickyCourtney (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The gulf is a specific region of the Atlantic ocean.

And Super Heavy aiming for the gulf is very different than Super Heavy aiming for anywhere else in the ocean (as in, one is possible and the other would require some truly absurd changes to the flight profile) Redacted II (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

WP:CRYSTALBALL: Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. [...] Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point of view.

In light of this, comments like this are not be acceptable: If Flight 9 goes well, it may feature a catch of the Ship, but SpaceX may also choose to attempt another soft splashdown to verify the reliability of Block 2 ships.

This is speculation, rumor, and presumption. It's sourced to a members-only "fireside chat" on YouTube where presumably people are discussing what may happen, offering predictions and analysis. There's no way to verify if the people participating in the discussion are "reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field" -- and even if they were, it's a different ball game... it's one thing to cite a video from a NASASpaceflight contributor, that is presumably scripted and subject to some sort of editorial approval... and contributor who is participating in a free-flowing chat session where they are more likely to offer their opinions (however informed) with no editorial oversight.

This is why I removed this statement previously. In light of its reversion and the 3RR, I have instead marked it as failed verification. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

NASASpaceflight is a WP:RS. This has been discussed to death. Additionally, the individuals in a "raptorside chat" (having listened in to several) are "reliable, expert sources".

Please self revert. Redacted II (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, NASASpaceflight itself is a RS, but like with all news sources, the editorial and opinion commentary, of the kind that would occur in a free-flowing chat without editorial oversight, are not reliable sources for statements of fact. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll also point out that in the last RS/N discussion, while the consensus was that NASASpaceflight's written articles are generally reliable (while noting that the site seemed to avoid discussing the controversies or criticisms of SpaceX) -- there was no consensus that NASASpaceflight's YouTube channel was reliable, with comments noting that the videos tend to feel unstructured, unscripted and generally much more speculative than their written articles. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:RSYT:

"Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability"

Also, for the RS/N discussion, the OP has in the past gone...very aggressively towards the very idea of NSF as a WP:RS, and came close to WP:PA violations (in all honesty, I 100% could have responded better to them), and the other poster does list something completely incorrect.

To be specific: "much of it appears unscripted and I haven't seen them make corrections after the fact"

They often state who writes the scripts (on scripted videos), and I've seen them make corrections multiple times. Redacted II (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, the latest discussion on NSF's reliability was here, in which the OP of the discussion you linked was told that the current community consensus was that NSF (including the videos) was a WP:RS, but were invited to discuss at RSN by multiple editors.

They never bothered to discuss it at RSN. Redacted II (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Regardless, it’s policy that, even with reliable sources, commentary is not a reliable source for statements of fact. RickyCourtney (talk) 03:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I believe you here. But what policy states this? (I really, really don't want to search every policy until I find it) Redacted II (talk) 04:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:RSOPINION RickyCourtney (talk) 04:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Based on the text, a qualifier "According to NASASpaceflight" should resolve the issue Redacted II (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

No, the author of the opinion needs to be cited, they must individually be recognized as a reliable, expert source, and it must be made clear in prose that it’s an opinion. With the most recent change, you’re still treating it as if it’s a statement of fact.

Furthermore, IMO, opinions on future events shouldn’t be in a table like this where every other entry is a brief summary of the facts. RickyCourtney (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I still need to go through the source, but I'm not sure its an opinion. Redacted II (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Speculation and presumption is opinion. The statement is basically “X may happen, or Y may happen”. That’s clearly speculation or presumption.

This also goes back to some of the very core of the concepts of WP:RS. Sources are expected to have a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction. That typically takes the form of a strong editorial team. Even if NSF has all that in place, I highly doubt that same editorial rigor is being applied in a live chat session.

Look, I can keep going on continuing to cite Wikipedia policies chapter and verse, but a more effective use of our time would be to either remove this statement or find additional high quality sources, preferably written ones. RickyCourtney (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

If you find a better source, please replace it. Redacted II (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think this statement should be in the table, therefore the onus is not on me to find a better source. RickyCourtney (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

You literally just said:

"more effective use of our time would be to either remove this statement or find additional high quality sources, preferably written ones."

Just because you don't have to search doesn't mean you shouldn't.

(And BTW, I've been searching for a better source for awhile now, and will continue to search. I just want some help) Redacted II (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I concur with the NSF Youtube channel often not being WP:RS and with the Flight 10 note being WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:RSOPINION. I'm not sure why you're trying to get others to help you verify a claim that shouldn't even be in the table. Is it too difficult to just wait to make claims of events until they're announced?

I support removing it. Narnianknight (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, please remove the entire Flight 10 entry, as it has no source. Narnianknight (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, it having no sources is clearly incorrect Redacted II (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

There is no source for anything in the Flight 10 entry. The only citation links to an article that does not even mention Flight 10. Narnianknight (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

At the time of writing, there was a source for Flight 10. Redacted II (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

What source are you referring to? Narnianknight (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM0rL0DqORY

timestamp 4:13 Redacted II (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm hearing a lot of "might"s. That is clearly WP:CRYSTALBALL as RickyCourtney has repeatedly pointed out. Including Flight 10 violates points 1 and 2 there. Narnianknight (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I would also support removing the entire Flight 10 entry due to a lack of sourcing and again, WP:TOOSOON. RickyCourtney (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Funny to see that after months and years it is still the same problems with Redacted using some videos with some opinions and speculations uttered there to include that as facts into articles. And despite a steady flow of other editors complaining about it still stubbornly insisting on his misuse of wp:or and WP:RSYT. And hiding the old discussions in the archives despite unsolved problems. 47.69.107.48 (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

So... just a few days after your block expiring because of this behaviour, you immediately decide to repeat it. Redacted II (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I came here to start a discussion about the same thing. A lot of this appears to WP:CRYSTAL, often based on what those involved say which are primary sources. For example, we should not be using Vast's website or articles that are just regurgitating what they say. S0091 (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches article:

Axiom 4's source is Axiom.

Bandwagon 4's source is SpaceX.

Transporter 14 is SpaceX.

Tracer's is NASA.

That isn't WP:CRYSTAL. Redacted II (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Secondary sources are the gold standard. Primary sources require extra care. They can become problematic when used to describe things such as launch dates, especially for a startup company, which tend to be overly optimistic about their capabilities. In those cases it’s best to replace or bolster the primary source with a secondary one. RickyCourtney (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how established a company in the spaceflight industry: NET dates are basically always pushed back.

There's a reason "Berger's Law" and "Elon Time" are a thing.

(Also, where would we draw the line between "established" and "startup"?) Redacted II (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

To me, rather it is start-up or established doesn't much matter. It is independent secondary reliable sources stating in their own words, based on their own research, analysis, etc., that matters. S0091 (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Its best to follow in the precedent for List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches Redacted II (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

You say this... yet you oppose showing relaunches using the decimal point ".2" format, following long standing precedent on the List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches page. Should we follow precedent or not? -- RickyCourtney (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

If using that precedent was possible, I'd be fine with it.

But it's not.

Because by that precedent, B14.1 would refer to not only B14 on its first flight, but also B14.1, which was a test article used to validate the booster's ability to be caught. Redacted II (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Can you provide any reliable sources other than NSF using the B14-2 launch attempt format? Can you provide any reliable sources other than NSF that both use the B14.1 format for this "test article" and also establish the notability of this test article? RickyCourtney (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

NSF is a WP:RS, so another source isn't needed.

14.1 is listed in List of Super Heavy boosters.

Can you find a single source that uses the format 14.2? Redacted II (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing. Perhaps neither 14-2 or 14.2 should be included as it's too soon to establish there is an accepted format. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

How is it an exceptional claim?!

14-2 has a source backing it. 15-2 has a source.

14.2 does not. Nor does 15.2.

And 14.1 would create a conflict with another article.

B##-# is the clear format. Redacted II (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

If that's true, you'll have no problem presenting reliable sources other than NSF using that format. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Again, your trying to add a format that isn't backed by a source.

That's WP:OR.

Other sources haven't really picked up on any format. And if a bunch of other sources use another format, then it'll be easy to switch to that format.

It's better to use a format backed by one reliable source, than a format backed by none, or no format at all. Redacted II (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

To be clear: I'm not set on any format at all. I pointed out that there is prior precedent for using another format. I'm asking for reliable sources other than NSF using this new format, before we switch. Also, using no format at all is absolutely an acceptable solution. For example, we could say B14 (flight 2). -- RickyCourtney (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

The 14-2 format is the status quo on this article.

Until there are sources using a different format, we should keep using that.

Using B14 (flight 2) is better than B14.2, but its best to keep using 14-2 until then.

(Also, I haven't seen anywhere other than here use the .# format for Falcon, so that should probably be looked into) Redacted II (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Please self revert. Reliable sources list the naming convention as B#-#.

Seriously, this is absurd, and honestly getting disruptive. Redacted II (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

There is an image floating around with "B12-1" written on an engine bell. I agree with using the B##-# convention. Narnianknight (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Mainly unrelated to the discussion, and if you want to take this elsewhere, just let me know:

Where was this seen?

(I know there's a leaked image of R314-1 as well, but its from a source thats so unreliable some spaceflight discussion areas have banned their username) Redacted II (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

One and the same. Narnianknight (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Any idea where on B12 it was?

Once that's known, maybe other photographers have caught it. Redacted II (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

It's on the artwork on Raptor π. Narnianknight (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

(Apologies to those not in the Ringwatchers Discord)

Are you referring to the image that raptor tracker shows? Redacted II (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney Reminder to follow WP:BRD. Redacted II (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Reminder to follow WP:CHALLENGE. Your opinion vs my opinion does count as reaching consensus. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Please self revert. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not the only one supporting B##-#.

Read a few posts above this one.

And according to WP:BRD, after the bold edit (changing ##-# to ##.1) was reverted, it should not be added until a consensus for it has formed.

Additionally, the formats you've recommended are WP:OR, so by WP:Challenge, it should be removed. Redacted II (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, I missed the reply from Narnianknight amid all of the off-topic forum talk about engine pictures. I accepted your revert on the formatting, took the discussion here and have already expressed that I don’t have strong feelings on formatting, just on verifiability. I brought the verification challenge for two reasons:

1. By your own admission, there is only a single source using that formatting. However, since a third opinion has said that it’s not an issue for now, we can call it resolved for the moment.
2. The citation provided does not establish the B14-2 format. This must still be resolved.

RickyCourtney (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

This may be a bit off-topic, but regarding the List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches precedent, I'm rather confused as to why "." is used rather than "-" in the first place. What's with that? Narnianknight (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

There are citations for the B##-# format, so resolving it shouldn't be an issue.

For example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM0rL0DqORY timestamp 4:15

"Booster 15-2"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGv9olwpXx8 timestamp 5:57 through around eight minutes. This one also covers F9, and has a quote that sums up the current situation:

"Perhaps this is another situation like that where maybe we'll have to assume that they keep the same nomenclature and if something comes out that definitively contradicts it, then we'll have to change our ways. If all goes well though, there will be many years of Starship flying ahead of us to figure it out"

As for why F9 uses the #.# format, I have no idea. I've never seen it elsewhere before. But discussing that should probably be on either the List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches article or List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters. Redacted II (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@Redacted II You missed the point: Secondary sources are the gold standard. Primary sources require extra care. The point of my example was to give a saliant example of why primary sources require extra care, not to debate the timelines of spaceflight companies. RickyCourtney (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but in keeping with the precedent for List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches, the sources are acceptable Redacted II (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Even if there is consensus at that article about the inclusion criteria for that article, it cannot be imported here per WP:CONLEVEL so that's a poor argument. If there was an RfC, please link it as it might still be helpful to see the various arguments. S0091 (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Searching the archives of that page is a pain, as there seem to be missing archives (#10, for example, is blank).

I'm not seeing any RfC there regarding this, but I also don't see how WP:CONLEVEL is stating what you say it does. Redacted II (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

How is 15-2/16-1 WP:TOOSOON?

Its sourced, its not speculation, and its not an opinion presented. Redacted II (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

The statement is basically “X may happen, or Y may happen”. That’s clearly speculation or presumption. RickyCourtney (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

If you present both of the two possible options because you have no source for which is correct, the inclusion of that information is clearly not warranted. Narnianknight (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2025/05/ship-35-sf-spacex-has-fleet-vehicles-flight/

"It is noteworthy that Ship 36 took slightly longer to get to cryogenic proof testing than previous ships... As the next Ship after Ship 35, it is currently slated to fly on Flight 10.

The objectives for Flight 10 are entirely dependent on how Flight 9 performs, so there is much speculation about what it will try to accomplish." Redacted II (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

What are you saying that this proves? RickyCourtney (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Its a source for Flight 10.

Meaning it should be readded. Redacted II (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Source for what? There’s no information here. There’s little doubt that a tenth flight will happen, but it’s too soon without a launch date or objectives. RickyCourtney (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Flight 9

@Jrcraft Yt Flight 9 was a Flight 3 repeat.

Flight 3 was a success.

Thus, by prior precedent, Flight 9 is a success. Redacted II (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jrcraft Yt I'd rather not have this discussion over difs.

Also, please follow WP:AGF. Redacted II (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Look, you've claimed every single Starship flight ever has been a perfect success so IDK what your intentions are anymore. Theres a limit until it because intentional misrepresentation. I'll assume good faith, but remember that perspective. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely not, you and me both know well that payload deployment in target orbit is required for success as per those discussions. These payloads didnt even separate. The recent Falcon 9 failure with the 2nd stage leak was labled as full failure for such an event, and it managed to deploy those. Stop pretending everything is always perfect. Effectively, youre claiming Starship could never suffer a deployed failure. Ever. Giving it partial is exceptionally generous as is. And look at other launch lists like NSF, its partial. You better source a "full success" source for your claim. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

1: If Flight 1/2 debates happened right now, I'd be on team Failure. And I'd love to see difs of me saying Flight 7/8 weren't failures.

2: If there are no sources saying it was a success, then it wasn't a success. (EDIT: Support for PARTIAL FAILURE, strong Oppose on failure)

3: If the payload was something other than a set of glorified mass simulators, then I wouldn't be saying sucess. Redacted II (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I would just classify the test flight as a failure while noting that SpaceX declares it a success like in Test Flights 1 and 2. It would not be the first time SpaceX declares a success despite multiple reliable sources deeming a SpaceX test flight as a catastrophic failure. - Hu753 (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

As soon as the Ship started spinning I knew Wikipedia would have this discussion again. In my opinion classifying flight 3 as a success was a mistake. But even if we accept that, today's flight 9 was much less successful than that, because flight 3 still moved the program forward. Today's flight was again unable to complete a controlled reentry, which according to Elon Musk himself would be the "most important thing" in this mission. And if we go back to the classical Wikipedia definition where success equals payload deployment, then today's launch was also obviously a failure as that did not occur as planned. Flight 3 at least still had the "iterative design" excuse to list it as successful, but now there is zero reason to list flight 9 as success. Agile Jello (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

For a traditional flight to be successful, I think payload depolyment is a good indicator. However, the dummy payloads weren't really the purspoe of the flight. And frankly, the fuel leaks and rcs problems will be a pretty quick fix. I'd lean on the side of flight 9 being a partial success. LemonZebra3 (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Flight 9 had a payload that failed to deploy. Unlike Flight 3, none of the objectives after SECO were achieved.

At best, this is a partial failure. However, with the loss of payload and ship, this would be a failure for any other rocket. Redraiderengineer (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this. The fact that there was a payload to deploy and it was not deployed is enough to call it a failure, no matter how useful the payload was. Narnianknight (talk) 01:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I recommend keeping it as a success until a consensus is formed, since that was the status quo. Redacted II (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

There are no editors in this discussion that are supporting success. Based on that aspect of the current consensus, I have changed the outcome to the most broadly supported partial failure and added the inline under discussion template to direct other editors here. Redraiderengineer (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

(Not trying to post too much)

https://abcnews.go.com/US/spacex-launch-9th-flight-test-starship-spacecraft-after/story?id=122204009 Seems like it says Success, but could also mean Partial Failure.

https://www.cnn.com/science/live-news/spacex-starship-flight-9-launch-05-27-25 Seems like Partial Failure

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2025/05/starship-flight-9/

Doesn't say

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-super-heavy-starship-launch-ninth-test-flight/

Seemingly success, but might be wrong.

Overall, sources are either neutral or tilted towards Partial Failure. So far, I haven't seen any sources (reliable or not) say Failure. Redacted II (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

here they come:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/starship-fumbled-its-3rd-flight-in-a-row-its-another-setback-for-elon-musk/ar-AA1FBgW9

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/spacex-starship-rocket-breaks-up-again-after-last-2-attempts-ended-in-explosions/ar-AA1FBl2I

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2025/05/28/elon-musks-spacex-starship-explodes-again-but-orbits-for-46-minutes/

https://www.theverge.com/news/675379/spacexs-ninth-starship-flight-test-ends-in-another-explosion 2A02:A03F:622D:9800:686F:32DA:8D4B:7F27 (talk) 11:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

It's still going The Page Maker 2.1 (talk) 05:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/05/spacex-may-have-solved-one-problem-only-to-find-more-on-latest-starship-flight/

Specifically says it wasn't a launch failure. Redacted II (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

We can't just rely on a single source claiming one thing or the other, because sources disagree:

SpaceX's Starship Flight 9 ends in failure after booster loss: 'Success comes from what we learn'

SpaceX Starship Launch Failed Again. More Tests Are Coming Soon.

SpaceX's Starship explodes over Indian Ocean after 9th test flight failure

That's why we have success criteria. Narnianknight (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed that we can't rely on one source, but listing what certain sources state does matter. Redacted II (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

On the same topic, do we really need a whole new "Experimental" category for the landing outcome? As long as Starship isn't operational, every launch and landing is "experimental", so I feel that the distinction is unnecessary. Just call it a failure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IlyaHolt (talk • contribs) 11:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

List as failure The only real difference between Missions 7/8 and Mission 9 is the timing of the propellant leak—whether it occurred within the atmosphere, where a tumbling vehicle is quickly destroyed, or outside it, where destruction just takes a bit longer. Wikipedia editors need to move past the idea that labeling something a failure is a black mark. In iterative development, failure is an essential part of the process. We shouldn’t hesitate to call it what it is. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

1: The Flight 7/8 failures also happened outside of the atmosphere.

2: The failure modes are likely very different.

3: Calling a partial failure a failure is misleading. As you said, "We shouldn't hesitate to call it what it is". Redacted II (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

What criteria are you using for partial failure? That's used when a payload is deployed to a usable orbit other than the intended orbit. The payload wasn't deployed at all. I don't see how this could be considered a partial failure without making up arbitrary judgements. Narnianknight (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

The ship made it to SECO, but onboard experiments could not be completed. IMO, that consitutes partial failure. Redacted II (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

A launch doesn't get partial credit for simply not blowing up. It has to actually deploy the payload. No one would call this Minotaur launch a partial failure. Narnianknight (talk) 01:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

There's a massive difference between an experiment and deploying an actual payload. Redacted II (talk) 02:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

There is not, as far as the launch vehicle is concerned. There is a smooth spectrum between a mass simulator and an operational payload, so any distinction must have an arbitrary cutoff. How is failing to deploy a useless payload more successful than failing to deploy a useful payload? Narnianknight (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

No actual payload was lost. Redacted II (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm sensing that maybe there's a reluctance to call this launch a failure since that would mean Starship has failed three times in a row, and people will draw various conclusions from that. But objectively speaking, I think this was a failure by any reasonable definition. They lost the booster, they lost control of Starship, and it failed to deploy the payload. I think there's a bit of a reality distortion field around Starship where people are willing to write off any number of failures as "move fast and break things" or something. So we need an objective definition of what is a "failure" and what is a "partial failure." Maybe it depends on what the stated mission objectives are. You could argue that the main goal of this launch was to see if the issues on the prior two launches were addressed, but I don't think they were, so it was a failure by that standard as well. rdl381 (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Loss of booster is irrelevant.

(Also, it seems like the issues from the last two flights were addressed. Since if they weren't, we wouldn't be having this conversation: it'd have been marked as failure immediately). Redacted II (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

It seems there’s no opposition to calling something a failure when the outcome is unequivocal. But introduce even a hint of gray area—like the timing or location of the vehicle's destruction—and some editors will fight tooth and nail to avoid the word “failure.”

Part of the problem stems from the fact that the Spaceflight WikiProject has no clearly defined parameters for what constitutes a failure.

A vehicle was lost due to a propellant leak. Whether that happened at T+8 or T+47 minutes doesn’t change the reality, it’s a failure. RickyCourtney (talk) 05:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

As long as the payload was deployed successfully before that issue, it would be a launch success, and the leak would contribute to a landing failure. However, not even that succeeded.

I agree with the assessment in your first paragraph though. Narnianknight (talk) 11:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll briefly join this discussion, because why not.

The thing we are arguing about clearly says "Launch outcome", not "mission outcome", not "flight outcome", but "Launch outcome". Therefore, the Ship breaking up on reentry is irrelevant to this discussion, as that information would go in the "Ship landing" box. Additionally, the Booster breaking up on landing is irrelevant to this discussion, as that information would go in the "Booster landing" box. Neither the Booster landing outcome nor the Ship landing outcome affects the launch outcome. Anything the Booster does after hot-staging will not affect the Ship's ability to reach its planned SECO. Anything the Ship does after SECO will not undo the fact that it has already reached its planned SECO. Starship isn't equipped with time-traveling capability... yet.

However, I do agree that payload deployment is an important criteria for deciding launch outcomes. Ship 35 failed to deploy its payload. If it didn't have a payload, that would be considered a successful launch nonetheless, because the Ship has already reached SECO and is on its intended trajectory. Even if it loses attitude control while coasting, that is still after the launch, and that does not affect the launch outcome. That affects the landing outcome. Since it had a payload and it didn't deploy, but reached its planned SECO, I support naming Flight 9's launch outcome a Partial failure. Flight 3 did not have a payload. When it lost roll control while in space, that didn't matter for deciding launch outcome, as it had already reached SECO. So, I support naming Flight 3's launch outcome a Success.

Lastly, I agree with the previous statements of "Flight 9 does not change the consensus about Flight 3."

Flight 3 was successful. There was nothing significantly wrong with its launch. It failed on reentry, but that doesn't change the fact that it had already reached SECO. Once again, the thing we are arguing about clearly says "Launch outcome", not "mission outcome", not "flight outcome", but "Launch outcome". Canadien1867 (talk) 12:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, Next Spaceflight, owned and operated by NSF, which we know is a reliable source, clearly states that Flight 9's launch was a partial failure and Flight 3's launch was a success. Canadien1867 (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, they also called Flight 2 a partial failure, so don't put too much stock in that. Narnianknight (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

How does SECO make it a partial failure? It doesn't matter if it's on the correct trajectory if it can't deploy the payload and immediately spins out of control. This would not be controversial on any other rocket. Why the double standard? Narnianknight (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

The stages don't really matter in the outcome; what does is orbit and payload deployment. Flights 7 and 8 are considered failures because orbit and payload deployment were not reached. Yet, the booster was caught. During flight 9, orbit was reached but payload deployement failed. So flight 9 was a partial failure. Starship V2 (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree that Flight 9 was a partial failure. but Flight 3 was a success. It reached its intended trajectory, and while it didn't deploy a payload, it wasn't trying to in the first place. Canadien1867 (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes flight 3 was a success. Starship V2 (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

How was Flight 9 a partial failure? The payload was not deployed at all, which constitutes a failure. Narnianknight (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Planned orbit was reached Starship V2 (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Launch success is qualified by payload deployment trajectory, not upper stage trajectory. It doesn't matter what orbit the rocket reaches if it doesn't deploy the payload. If you are a launch customer, do you care what trajectory the rocket has if your satellite is stuck in the fairing? Narnianknight (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

South Korea’s first domestically built rocket reached its intended altitude in its maiden flight Oct. 21, but its third-stage engine shut down 46 seconds early, releasing its 1,500-kilogram dummy payload at less than orbital speed.[1]

The first launch of Nuri reached the intended orbit (apogee of 700 km), and its payload (mass simulators) successfully separated. The launch outcome is a failure even with those conditions due to the orbital speed of the payload. Redraiderengineer (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

It didn't reach the desired speed then...

Flight 9 did. Redacted II (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the orbital speed of the payload due to the third-stage performance. However, this is a moot point because Flight 9 failed to deploy its payload. Redraiderengineer (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

It's not a valid comparison.

It failed because the rocket didn't reach the desired velocity.

That isn't the case for Flight 9. Redacted II (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Correct, this one got a bit farther before exploding. Chuckstablers (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Which is very important.

Yeah, if it had blown up before SECO, this would be obvious failure.

But it didn't. Redacted II (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

However, it didn't successfully complete any of its objectives either, so it was a failure. Narnianknight (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The objectives are, honestly, irrelevant to launch success Redacted II (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Reaching SECO is absolutely an objective. It completed that.

... Canadien1867 (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The engines turning off is not an object. It is a precursor to objectives. SECO can only be seen as a launch objective if our standards are tainted by the failures of the previous flights. To be objective, consider that if SECO was the furthest a launch of any other rocket successfully got, it would be considered a launch failure. Narnianknight (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear I agree with everything you're saying (User:Starship V2), but Starship is not orbital. They confirmed it was suborbital. "Intended trajectory" would be a better term :) Canadien1867 (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

ehh yes sorry I meant trajectory. Starship V2 (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

The Federal Aviation Administration now explicitly states that Starship "did not complete its launch or reentry as planned". Agile Jello (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Obviously a failure. The upper stage lost control, failed to deploy its payload, and exploded. Compare this to the Atlas V's partial failure where it deployed it's payload to an orbit that required it to use some of its fuel to get to its intended orbit. It's not even close. Chuckstablers (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

List as failure for consistency. It looks like the criteria we are using across Wikipedia is successful payload deployment. It had payloads and failed to deploy them. 『π』BalaM314〘talk〙 12:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah this is pretty clear. I'm not sure how one can state it's a 'partial failure' when it failed to deploy its payload and exploded. Chuckstablers (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Chuckstablers It did not explode. Being destroyed on reentry is in no way related to the launch outcome. Canadien1867 (talk) 01:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

"losing attitude control and being terminated" = exploding in my parlance. This isn't complicated. Chuckstablers (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Chuckstablers The definition of exploding is something like "being destroyed due to high internal pressure" which is not at all what happened. It burned up. From the outside.

It did not explode.

It broke apart. Canadien1867 (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't care. This isn't complicated. The rocket, the thing that is supposed to get to space, and deliver a payload, failed to do so and was destroyed. Not sure how that can be spun to being a partial failure, not while being consistent with wiki space flights use of the term in every other context. Chuckstablers (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

It did get to space. It didn't deploy the payload. Those were the main objectives.

It completed some of the objectives. Not all of them, but not none of them.

Completing all objectives would be Success, but that didn't happen. Completing no objectives would be Failure, but that didn't happen.

Therefore, Partial Failure. Canadien1867 (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

It's goal was to get to space and deploy a payload. They had a payload demonstrator. It failed to do so. It got to space this time, which is nice at least, but it didn't do what a rocket is supposed to do, let alone what Starship is 'supposed' to do. It did not demonstrate attitude control. It didn't deploy a payload. The booster exploded. The upper stage 'broke apart'. There is nothing partial there. On no other page would we be having this discussion. Again. For like the 9th time. But alas. Here we are. Again. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh, praise the Lord, I've been hoping and praying for another chance to repeat myself again!!! :)

Neither booster landing nor ship landing affects the "launch outcome". Once hot-staging occurs, nothing the booster does will affect the ship's ascent. Once the ship reaches SECO, nothing the ship does will affect the fact that it has already reached SECO. You're right about the payload not deploying being a failure, but since it achieved SECO, that's a partial failure. Canadien1867 (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm thrilled your bar for partial failure/success is so low as to be "it didn't literally explode during launch". Mine isn't. Wiki spaceflights isn't. Idk what else to say other than “Not looking great with a lot of our on-orbit objectives for today”. That was actually SpaceX flight commentator Dan Huot. *insert shrug emoji here* Chuckstablers (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Correct; Wikipedia criteria for launch outcomes is as follows (ignoring weird edge cases), if I understand correctly:

• Success: All payload(s) are deployed to the correct orbit
• Partial failure: Payload(s) are deployed to an incorrect, but usable orbit; or some payloads are successfully deployed and some are not
• Failure: Everything else

Flight 9 is the latter. SECO does not matter if nothing else works. Narnianknight (talk) 02:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Then there's now a massive inconsistency between your comments. You mentioned a few posts ago that Flight 3 was a success.

Flight 3 didn't have a payload. According to your "criteria", that means Flight 3 was a failure.

It wasn't. Canadien1867 (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

If it didn't have a payload we were treating it differently. There were long RFC's, lots of arguments, lots of anger, very spicy, very entertaining, but ultimately it was basically a vote. But that's gotta stop at some point here. They're specifically trying to demonstrate it's capacity to launch simulated payloads to orbits. At that point it's no different then any other rocket and we shouldn't be treating it as such. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah that's pretty much it. That's how it is everywhere but here. Flight 9 had a payload. It failed to deliver it to it's intended orbit. We can't keep saying "it's a test flight so treat it with kiddie gloves" forever. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Sure, if @Narnianknight's criteria is trustworthy. He contradicted it himself, so...? Canadien1867 (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not his criteria. It's literally how it's been done on every other wiki spaceflight page lol. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh no boys, it appears we have another case of ✨ changing the topic to avoid being proven wrong ✨ Canadien1867 (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Obviously we can't judge success by payload deployment if there was no payload aboard. The complete lack of physical payload was one of the "weird edge cases" I mentioned. That's why Flight 3 only requires nominal trajectory to be successful. There is nothing inconsistent or contradictory there. Narnianknight (talk) 02:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, @Canadien1867 please take a break Redacted II (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

... This is the topic. You want me to address a non-argument about inconsistency with Flight 3? Fine. Flight 3 had no payload. So instead of applying the same criteria used (again, on every other wiki space flight page) the community engaged in an extensive and exhausting RFC that was very spicy. 11/10 on the spice meter. Also highly entertaining.

Flight 9 has a payload. So the same criteria used on every other wikispaceflight page should be used here. Not doing so is inconsistent. It's treating Starship with the kiddie gloves and judging it with a more lenient standard that certain editors here have made up.

Hence why they aren't being inconsistent. Hence why I didn't bother addressing that part of your 'argument'. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

(And to be clear, all standards are made up, but if you're gonna deviate from the standard used everywhere else, you have to have a reason. There was a reason for flight 3; it had no payload. There's not a reason for flight 9. It had a payload.) Chuckstablers (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to briefly and respectfully inquire about how we interpret the criteria of "payload being placed into orbit".

Firstly, SpaceX confirmed themselves that Flight 9 was suborbital. Therefore, they weren't attempting to place anything into orbit in the first place, therefore they didn't fail to do so.

Secondly, the definition (from a dictionary) of "payload" is "the part of a vehicle's load from which revenue is derived". Would SpaceX have actually received revenue if they had deployed the simulators, considering they were made by SpaceX themselves and aren't functional? If they were getting "paid", that would be more like transferring funds from one branch of SpaceX to the other, right? Canadien1867 (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

(This is mostly pedantic)

Actually, I have to disagree with the first part: the vehicle had a positive perigee. Not above 100 km, obviously, but above 0. Redacted II (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The monetary value of a payload is completely irrelevant. Discounting Simlinks as a payload because they don't make money is an arbitrary double standard. It seems you are trying to find data to support your conclusion rather than the other way around. Narnianknight (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Good point. I will admit I now agree with most of the previous arguments in support of declaring it a failure.

I thought partial failure would be necessary to show how much more successful it was compared to flights 7 and 8, and that reaching intended trajectory is more important than deploying payload, especially when it wasn't the main goal.

I support declaring flight 9 a failure.

Apologies for extending the discussion longer than necessary. Canadien1867 (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I thought I heard in the SpaceX webcast that a big goal of this mission was to gather data on the performance of the ship during entry. IIRC, that’s actually been the primary goal since the introduction of the 2nd gen ship. By that definition, this mission was an abject failure. RickyCourtney (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Reentry is irrelevant to launch outcome. We count all of that in the landing column, not the launch column. Narnianknight (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Qualifying launch 3 a success after launch 9 becomes untenable

Qualifying launch 3 a success was done on flimsy grounds, when we thought SpaceX Starship success was inevitable as Starship was selected by NASA for Artemis. Now that flight 9 had the same outcome than launch 3 it becomes incomprehensible that one is called successful and the other isn't and there's no context that helps make the distinction in this page. For consistency launch 3 needs to be called as it is: a failure. The need to uphold Wikipedia quality standard must prevail over a company communication 2A02:A03F:622D:9800:686F:32DA:8D4B:7F27 (talk) 11:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Also I simply can't understand that does "Experimental" means as "Booster landing outcome". All flights are experimental, it's not an answer for the question "was the flight successful or not?"... 2001:4C4C:1459:1A00:1088:5FDE:9B22:1D9A (talk) 11:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

The distinction between Flights 3 and 9 is payload. On Flight 3, a consensus was reached that because the ship reached the intended trajectory, it was a success. However, there was an additional goal on Flight 9; payloads were supposed to be deployed. The payloads were not deployed at all, so by consistency across Wikipedia, the flight was a failure. Narnianknight (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

the consensus for Flight 3 was reached when nobody was expecting for Starship to still be at the same point 2 years later (minus the catching tower). We didn't have the hindsight we have today. New information requires changing our understanding of the events back then. We can't say with hindsight it was a failure and keep it as it is. 2A02:A03F:622D:9800:686F:32DA:8D4B:7F27 (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Events that happen after Flight 3 do not change the events of Flight 3. The criteria for success have not changed since Flight 3. If you wish to review the discussion, it is at these archives. Narnianknight (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

This is: a success when orbit is reached and payload deployment is successful

a semi-success when orbit is reached

a failure when nothing is reached.

So partial success Starship V2 (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Flight 3 had no payload Redacted II (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I went to the wrong section. I meant to go to the one for flight 9. Starship V2 (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Right above this one : ) Redacted II (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I think a better definition would be:

Success if orbit is reached, payload is deployed and reentry is successful

Partial success if orbit is reached but payload not deployed/reentry not successful

Failure if nothing is reached

Reentry is important, the main failure of both Flights 3 and 9 was an uncontrolled reentry causing loss of ship. Unlike Flight 9 Flight 3 did manage to "deploy a payload" (opening and closing the door) but due to the reentry failure I support naming both 9 and 3 Partial Failures U1172 (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Landing has never mattered for launch success v.s failure.

Otherwise agreed. (Flight 3 remains Success, Flight 9 Partial Failure) Redacted II (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Partial failure has always meant the payload was deployed, but to the wrong orbit, or at least one payload of multiple were deployed, but at least one failed to deploy. If no payload is deployed, it is a failure. Narnianknight (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

The nature of the flight is important to consider. Unlike operational missions, deploying payload was not the primary objective on Flight 9.

If Vulcan VC2S planned to deploy its mass simulator but failed to do so, it would still be a success or a partial failure, but definitely not a failure, because the main objective was to successfully launch the rocket to certify it. Similarly, if Starship Flight 6 planned to deploy the banana toy into space for fun, but it got tangled on the way out — does that make the whole flight a failure because of failed payload deployment? I don't think so.

I support partial failure for Flight 9 launch outcome, because leak and loss of control authority happened immediately after SECO and it was likely caused by launch dynamics. IlyaHolt (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

For it to be a partial failure, it has to complete at least one objective, such as deploying at least one of the payloads. In reality, none of the objectives were met; no payloads were deployed, the ship had no attitude control, and the in-space burn did not happen.

As far as the Vulcan example, it was not supposed to deploy its mass simulator, but if it was supposed to, and hadn't, that would absolutely be a launch failure. The objective was not just "to successfully launch the rocket"; it was to demonstrate that it can put a payload into orbit (Vulcan Cert-2 is just a bad example because there was no planned deployment). Deploying a payload is no less important than clearing the pad.

Once again, how can Flight 9 not be a failure if none of the objectives were met? Narnianknight (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Flight 9 discussion should probably be in the topic above this one. Redacted II (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

But is reentry part of landing? I would argue that it is part of the flight, and a necessary step before getting to the landing. A vehicle can successfully re-enter and then fail the landing (see the boosters on flight 3 and 9) U1172 (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

It's a part of landing. So is boostback, for that matter. Redacted II (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, under those definitions I support Flight 3 being a Success and Flight 9 being a Partial Failure U1172 (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Flight 9 discussion is above this one Redacted II (talk) 01:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The idea that the launch vehicle exploding is anything but a failure has always confused and amused me. Chuckstablers (talk) 01:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Explosion after launch has no impact on launch success.

Just how a F9 booster falling over at T+9 minutes doesn't result in launch failure. Redacted II (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

When it failed to deployed it's payload and then lost the payload it matters. Chuckstablers (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, calling a set of glorified steel slabs that can interface with the pez a "payload" seems like a stretch (don't get me started on the IFT-6 banana...).

It wasn't the primary goal of the flight. It got to the trajectory needed for conducting its "orbital" testing.

And yeah, then things started going wrong. Redacted II (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth I just had o3 scrape the web, find me 35 sources talking about flight 9's launch/read them and assess whether the article classifies it as a success or partial success or failure. I had 0 successes, 21 failures, 12 mixed. Not seeing it. Chuckstablers (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

AI is probably not the best judge of anything. Redacted II (talk) 01:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

It actually is with o3. Gotta pay to have access to it, but I went through about 10 of them. Seems pretty accurate. Will post the list above, feel free to go through it. Chuckstablers (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

You know damn well the media will do whatever is necessary for people to click on their link. We know from past experiences (in an article from the ABC news a few days ago, and other times too) that news companies will just straight up lie if it makes them money.

News companies, even those as "trustworthy" as the ABC, one of the most popular in America, will absolutely lie to you if they get you to read their article. Let that sink in.

It's that simple. Maybe don't try using the most basic news sources for important things.

Also, you need to make sure you ask o3 specifically the launch outcome rather than the flight outcome or mission outcome. Once again, the reentry outcome does not affect the launch outcome. Starship isn't capable of time-traveling yet. Once it reaches SECO, it has reached SECO and that can't be undone. We are arguing about the launch outcome box, therefore mentioning reentry as the reason why the launch was a failure is just plain stupid. Canadien1867 (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay...

I recommend taking a moment to breath before things get really heated. Redacted II (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

here

If the link works, it is a screenshot of the ABC's absolute joke of a post before they deleted it. Starship wasn't visiting Mars, it hasn't failed 8 times, and there were some more issues in the article before the original post was deleted. Canadien1867 (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)