Talk:Starship flight test 8/Archive 1

Archive 1

"expected to be both Block 2 vehicles"

I am removing this line from the article stating that both vehicles to be used for flight 8 will be Block 2 vehicles. First, this claim is unsourced, and as far as I know, no reliable sources claim this. The vehicles expected to be flown on Flight 8 are currently B15/S34, and booster 15 is still a block 1 booster.

In addition, the draft environmental assessment for an increased launch cadence from Starbase up to 25 launches per year, (up from the current 5 launches per year), also states that the hot staging ring is expected to be jettisoned for the first 20 flights. Although I believe this number is probably a overestimate, it doesn't help to any extent whatsoever in suggesting that the block 2 booster is going to debut any soon as flight 8.

If anyone has a reliable source that supports this claim, they can feel free to re-add this claim. User3749 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Right, thanks. For the same reasons, I removed the recent addition of claiming Ship 34 + Booster 15; no source given. "If anyone has a reliable source that supports this claim, they can feel free to re-add this claim" 47.69.162.76 (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Citations added for B15/S34 Redacted II (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

ship catch site

are they catching both the ship AND booster on olp-a? surely one of them will be caught with tower b? Canadien1867 (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Every indication is OLP-A Redacted II (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I thought I found a decently trustworthy source stating otherwise (also didn't seem likely that they could get the booster caught and away from the pad before ship arrived with what we know about the flight plan) Canadien1867 (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

What source was it? Redacted II (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

It was a while ago, Im not sure. I think it was from space.com Canadien1867 (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Couldn't find it. Oh well. I'll keep an eye out in the future

(Space.com isn't regarded as a reliable anyways, so it'd likely be irrelevant) Redacted II (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I found the source. https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2025/01/following-flight-7-starship-flight-8/

(At the start of the Flight 9 and beyond section, it states that a ship catch will likely occur on pad b) Canadien1867 (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd seen it before, and updated the Flight 9 draft to match.

(Also, that source didn't exist when the prior discussion started, but it's irrelevant) Redacted II (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

catch or no catch?

The first paragraph states that given the result of flight 7, a ship catch on flight 8 is unlikely. But I cant find any sources saying this? Most SpaceX announcements seem to hint that they will still attempt a catch. Has anyone found a reliable source claiming otherwise? Or should we remove this statement because it wasn't properly referenced anyways? Canadien1867 (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Leave the statement. Status is unknown yet. Artpoz5 (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

"All those objectives will now have to wait until Flight 8. Going into this launch, Musk hoped to attempt to catch the Starship upper stage, similar to the way SpaceX recovered the Super Heavy booster, as soon as the next test flight. Now, that will likely have to wait until a later mission."

"After Ship 34, we have Ship 35, which is only one section shy of being fully stacked. Assuming it gets fully stacked within the next two weeks, Ship 35 may not be ready until April or May. Regarding objectives, Ship 35 could be the first Ship to orbit with a potential catch attempt on Pad B at Starbase, not Pad A." Redacted II (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Launch Date

Multiple people are claiming that it's Feb 24, and multiple others are saying Mar 5? Do we have legitimate sources for either of these? Canadien1867 (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Feb 24 comes from FCC. Who has since updated to Mar 5.

It should be noted that the FCC is not the best indicator: its usually incrediably optimistic. Redacted II (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Umm... you updated it to Mar 5???

And after it was changed back to Feb 24, you once again changed it back to March?

I'm slightly confused? I can't even find a source claiming March at all, not to mention March 5, like that's a very specific date, how'd you get that? Could you share the source you found? Thanks. Canadien1867 (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

FCC: "Requested Period of Operation Operation Start Date: 03/05/2024"

(The 2024 is almost certainly a typo, given that these permits last ~six months, not eighteen) Redacted II (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

So........... that would mean it meant to say 2025? Or 2023? If it were to say 2025, then wouldn't the 9/1/25 be 2026 instead? (And wouldn't that contradict the other source claiming 2/24/25)? Canadien1867 (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

The 9/1/25 is correct. Its the 24 in 3/5/24 thats the typo (it should be 2025).

And yes, it contradicts February 24 2025, and since the originating source is the same, it completly disproves it.

(Also, February 24 is in just six days. The aren't launching in six days from now) Redacted II (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Canadien1867 (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if its reliable source but we have new NET: February 26, 23:30 UTC. https://www.cadenaois.org/vpublic_anspdetail.jsp?view=15

Its being reported by Eric Berger. Its reliable. Redacted II (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Yay! Canadien1867 (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please stop changing the Gulf of Mexico to the 'Gulf of America'. We have discussed this numerous times, and you need to WP:LISTEN. Other articles still refer to it as the Gulf of Mexico. Until the time in which the name of the Gulf of Mexico article is changed by consensus (which is unlikely to happen anytime soon), we will not change it in this article either.

Wikipedia is not the place for you to express your political opinions. Wikipedia is the place where people collect factual information from reliable sources and share it for other people to use. Wikipedia doesn't observe the name change, just like most countries and other websites don't, either. WP:GETOVERIT.

Changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico does not make you cool. It does not make you popular. It does not make you smart or funny. It makes you a vandal. It's that simple.

These kinds of edits do not belong on Wikipedia, especially on a friendly spaceflight article that has basically nothing to do with the Gulf. See WP:CIR and Talk:Gulf of Mexico#RfC about Gulf of America change. Canadien1867 (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Admins have so far refused to do anything about at ANI.

Maybe you could put a word in? Redacted II (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I have posted a report here. Feel free to reply or add extra information if you'd like. I saw your complaint as well. We should definitely try to get this page (and maybe other starship pages, if necessary) semi-protected. Canadien1867 (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Attempt 1

What we know:

• undisclosed issue with booster
• ground spin up pressure 20 bar too low (maybe check those raptor QDs)

Not sure how to write the low pressure part Stoplookin9 Hey there! Send me a message! 02:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• there was also an issue with the ship

Just a rough draft.

"On March 3, SpaceX attempted to launch Starship, targetting a launch at 5:30 CST. The launch was delayed to 5:45 CST before propellant load began. An unknown issue with the booster forced a hold at T-40 seconds, with another issue with the ship occurred shortly after. After briefly exiting the hold, the raptor spin-up gas on the GSE was underpressured by 20 Bar. Due to exceeding the available time for the vehicle to hold, the launch attempt was scrubbed. As of March 3, 2025, the next launch attempt is unknown" Redacted II (talk) 02:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

March 3, 2025 attempt

Should add Elon's explanation for why this attempt was scrubbed. Elon posted on X "Too many question marks about this flight and then we were 20 bar low on ground spin start pressure. Best to destack, inspect both stages and try again in a day or two."

Ground spin pressure is the pressure inside the Super Heavy booster and its system that begins the 33 Raptor engines working. The rocket engines are started through spin pumps that pump propellants from tanks and ignite them at optimal conditions for liftoff.

https://www.teslaoracle.com/2025/03/03/elon-musk-explains-reasons-behind-the-starship-flight-8-scrub-today-gives-new-schedule/#google_vignette

https://news.satnews.com/2025/03/04/spacex-after-last-second-scrub-reschedules-starship-flight-8-launch/ 204.48.37.239 (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

(tesla oracle is not a reliable source).

This is being discussed in the topic directly above this one.

Titled "Attempt 1" Redacted II (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

"Partial failure" vs "Partial success" for steps with engine failures

Currently, all Starship flight test timelines on Wikipedia show the boostback and landing burns as partial failures when some engines fail, but the burn achieved its intended outcome. I think these should be labeled "Partial success" if the burn achieved its intended outcome despite engine failures. 『π』BalaM314〘talk〙 05:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

No other page does this on wiki spaceflight. See Atlas V; ctrl f for "partial failure"; they count a time when it got its payload into its nominal orbit as a partial failure due to I believe an early loss of thrust on the core stage. So the precedent here is pretty clear and I'd be strongly opposed to changing it just for starship. We don't want to use the proverbial "kiddie gloves". A success is when all the engines turn on. A partial failure is when some engines don't turn on. A failure is when enough don't turn on that the rocket does not go to space. Seems pretty straightforward. Chuckstablers (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks 『π』BalaM314〘talk〙 11:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)