Talk:Starship flight test 6

Spaceflight Mid‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rocketry Mid‑importance

	Rocketry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Table Text

There is no reason to write in "Successful but damaged catch hardware on tower, preventing catch attempt later on". Any info on the abort catch attempt in the table goes on the boostback/landing burn areas.

Additional, the source added was not properly cited, lacking any data on publisher, access date, or even date of publication. Redacted II (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. This is fully factual. RickyCourtney (talk) 03:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But not severe enough to be mentioned.

Compare the damage after Flight 6 (bent communication antenna) to after (IIRC) Flight 3 (destroyed BQD lines). Redacted II (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Severity is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the damage sustained would later cause the landing to be called off. RickyCourtney (talk) 07:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Severity is not irrelevant. There's a reason that Flight 1 lists that the vehicle damaged the launch site on takeoff, and Flight 3 doesn't. Redacted II (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a question of notability, not severity.

The damage sustained during Flight 1 was notable because SpaceX was required to repair damage, add a suppression system, and prepare reports for government agencies, all which received significant coverage by secondary sources.
The damage sustained during Flight 3 was so un-notable that this is literally the first time I'm hearing about it.
The damage sustained during Flight 6 was notable because it caused the catch to be called off, which received significant coverage by secondary sources, and was also causal to later events in the table.

RickyCourtney (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen more coverage of Flight 3's BQD toasting than Flight 6's antenna being bent. We don't even though if the antenna bending was the cause of the booster abort. It may have been a completly different system!

The Flight 6 damage isn't notable. Neither is the damage to Flight 3, or 2, or 4. That "honor" goes only to Flight 1. Redacted II (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]