Talk:SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 3

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.spacex.com/updates. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Redraiderengineer (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Altitude
According to the flight video, it reached an altitude of 233 km. Not sure if that's good enough to cite though. Nosferattus (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Fake news...
00:11:56 Payload door open Success -> has NOT opened correctly! Scott Manley auf X: „The space shuttle had problems with its payload bay doors too t.co/79OJBid0fN“ / X (twitter.com)

00:24:31 Propellant transfer demo Success -> was not even tried!

By whom and why is this fake news published? Poor WP! 47.64.174.215 (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi. At the top of the article it says "Initial news reports may be unreliable". We wrote that while the flight was taking place. Of course it's going to be unreliable initially. Stoplookin9 :) Send me a message! 00:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Even during the test this was never true. And I wrote that 4 hrs after the test, when all facts were clear. Plenty of time to adjust the article! If you put in questionable facts, you should check them as soon as possible and not let them sit for half a day. 47.64.174.215 (talk) 07:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * BTW, it's still wrong in the article! 47.64.174.215 (talk) 07:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to update the article. Uwappa (talk) 08:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Typical arrogant WP reply: do it yourself, we won't...
 * I am not doing anything, not because of these unfriendly and unregenerate replies, and not because someone will delete it anyway as always. WP is not my hobby, I just don't want it to broadcast fakenews. 47.64.174.215 (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries. Your comments from the sideline are welcome too.
 * I do think you have a point, there seems to be some problem with the doors.
 * Scott Manley tells a bit more about the doors at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8htMpR7mnaM&t=501s from T+14:22 onwards
 * What would you like the status to be? Partial success? Partial failure? Failure? Uwappa (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've decided to be WP:BOLD and updated this with the best information I can find currently. Teapotpie (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Per the stream, both demos succeeded, as prominent sources have agreed. Scott Manley, as much as I respect him, is not as reliable of a source as CNN or SpaceX themselves. 98.117.217.88 (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Three additions requested
1. Photo of launch 2. Booster final velocity 3. Starship final velocity Abdullah Ali 4z5 (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I already added a "photo requested" template at the top of the talk page. If you have WP:RS for the 2. and 3., please add it in the article !  Coco bb8  (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Payload Door Test
There appears to be a dispute on the status of the payload door test. The current timeline states that the test was a partial failure based on a YouTube video and Tweet from Scott Manley. However, multiple RS either describe the test as a success (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/14/spacex-starship-rocket-third-test-flight-launch.html, https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/14/world/starship-launch-spacex-scn/index.html) or say that the result is pending further review of flight data (https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/spacex-starship-third-test-launch-thursday-rcna143286).

I propose to describe the test result as pending, although it could also be marked as a success per RS. I was unable to find RS that describe the test as a partial or complete failure. Rainclaw7 (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * It could be possible they tried closing the door again off camera, and it worked. We will have to wait for official confirmation. Stoplookin9 :) Send me a message! 13:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, we'll have to wait for confirmation from SpaceX on that one: they're the only ones with access to the data and can reliably say what happened.  Coco bb8  (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * SpaceX's site says they were completed and were able to close the door. Who knows if they had some kind of issue that was corrected on the fly?  But, the lack of seeing the door close is not really proof of lack of closing, especially since the video feed kept cutting out intermittently on the live stream.
 * CNBC does not seem to state if the door test specifically had issues or not.
 * CNN says that "The Starship’s payload door — a hatch that must open for the spacecraft to deploy satellites into space after reaching orbit — also swung open before resealing in a crucial test of that mechanism." So that sounds like CNN saying it closed. But CNN also says that "The team will “need to do some data review” of both the payload door opening and the propellant transfer demonstration to determine how successful each test was, according to the live broadcast." To address this contradiction, I believe the statement during the stream was probably off-the-cuff, but the statement on the website had a bit more time for hindsight, so probably the website statement is more reliable.
 * The text from NBC is kind of lumping in the door test with the fuel transfer demo, possibly referring to the live stream situation mentioned by CNN. The fuel transfer demo is definitely pending review from SpaceX and NASA. Source. So I don't think it strongly supports an actual issue with the door.
 * So it seems the door did close, or at least there is not a strong RS statement that it didn't and there are stronger statements that it did. That seems to favor leaving as "Success" for now, revising if and when something is later released that backtracks on current statements. Foonix0 (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I added some info concerning the dispute in the aftermath section. Is that okay? I couldn't decide on which source exactly to reference for "unofficial interpretations" of the payload door test Robotikon (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @2402:800:62d0:1826:bc4f:dd32:3d56:69fb consensus is to keep result of Payload Door Test as success, as that is what sources indicate. Redacted II (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The door visibly failed and elon himself stated that it failed. 2001:EE0:222:D657:7442:E361:8C76:A4A4 (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "The door visibly failed"
 * WP:OR
 * "elon himself stated that it failed"
 * Incorrect: he said "it had issues" That doesn't mean it failed. Redacted II (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Debris
As the Starship disintegrated during reentry, what about debris that must have fallen into the Indian Ocean? The Starship certainly didn't burn fully up (as tiny meteors do) but many parts must have survived the reentry (like those of shuttle Columbia). Isn't it likely a ship or airliner nearby saw falling debris or that some light debris float on the ocean surface now? 2001:4BC9:1F98:39B9:449E:AD2:75EE:6D7F (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Educated guess: The main structure / stainless steel will have completely desintegrated and burned up, as all other small parts and technical equipment. It is unlikely that larger stuctures will have survived, as there are very few massive structures in an (empty) starship. It's mainly tanks. What will have survived are all the heat shield tiles, as this is what they have been made for. And maybe a few raptor nozzles. Thus a rain of small debris, but nevertheless nothing I want to hit my ship. 47.64.174.215 (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It should be possible the tiles would float around and reach coastlines. Because the in-space relight did not occur, the debris should be pretty far away from the land, so it should take a while for things like tiles to wash ashore. I don't think things like the nozzles would survive though. The regenerative cooling channels would have probably melted together, and the density of the copper and inconel would make it sink. Don't worry, the tps are made of aluminum silicate, and should float. Stoplookin9 :) Send me a message! 20:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't think so. The tiles have to be open-porous (otherwise they will burst in vacuum due to trapped air), thus will eventually soak full water and sink. And all metals that melt during re-entry will disperse into small droplets and burn up. Only metal and other substances that stay somehow solid have a chance to survive till spashdown. 47.64.174.215 (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Tiles have been proven to float long distance.
 * But, Wikipedia isn't a forum. Please take this discussion elsewhere. Redacted II (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * To find out what happend to the ship and/or it's debris, to add this later to the article, is part of editorial work. Stop pushing others around, or you will find yourself alone to maintain all these articles. 47.64.174.215 (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * How is informing you of official Wikipedia policy "pushing others around"?
 * Adding information on the debris is fine, but only until we have a source (most likely someone finding washed up tiles, like what happened for IFT-1 and 2). Until then, it's speculation. Redacted II (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * https://twitter.com/esherifftv/status/1768759104997138655
 * Some tiles have been found Redacted II (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Propelant Transfer Demo
Acording to NASA, it was succesful Yukielgato (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please provide a source. Nosferattus (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Check X Yukielgato (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * X/Twitter is not WP:RS, see WP:TWITTER. Use a more reliable source. 187.46.134.26 (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2024/03/starship-3rd-time/
 * "SpaceX were able to complete the Payload door test and the cryogenic transfer test" Redacted II (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Completing a test doesn't mean it's successful. This source doesn't support an outcome because the data is being reviewed. This is exactly what NASA says: "The propellant transfer demonstration operations were completed, and the NASA-SpaceX team is currently reviewing the flight data that was received." Redraiderengineer (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but with the information available, the correct label is success. Redacted II (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * SpaceX isn't calling it a success yet. They say the same thing as the other sources.
 * Starship "initiat[ed] a propellant transfer demonstration" and "results from these demonstrations will come after postflight data review is complete." Redraiderengineer (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Several RS are calling it a success, though. Redacted II (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please stop editing the propellent transfer demo to say successful. Unless there is an official source/statement, the outcome of the event should be considered as unknown as any unofficial sources can be speculation. Davidv15123 (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There are reliable sources that say it was a success. In fact, IIRC, secondary sources (such as the one being used) are preferred over primary sources. Redacted II (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "Completed, result pending data review" until more information becomes available? this NASA source uses the word "completed" specifically:
 * "One objective closely tied to future Artemis operations is the transfer of thousands of pounds of cryogenic propellant between internal tanks during the spacecraft’s coast phase as part of NASA’s Space Technology Missions Directorate 2020 Tipping Point awards. The propellant transfer demonstration operations were completed, and the NASA-SpaceX team is currently reviewing the flight data that was received. This Tipping Point technology demonstration is one of more than 20 development activities NASA is undertaking to solve the challenges of using cryogenic fluids during future missions."
 * Just to be a smidge pedantic though, a well executed experiment is technically a good experiment even if it doesn't give you the answer you were hoping for. :D From this statement, they seem care more about studying the general problem than between these two specific tanks. Foonix0 (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This seems like a good balance, and I've changed the wording to match. Redraiderengineer (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)