Talk:Starship flight test 6

{{WPBS|class=C|1=

}}

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis

| age =240

| archiveprefix =Talk:Starship flight test 6/Archive

| numberstart =1

| maxarchsize =50000

| header ={{Automatic archive navigator}}

| minkeepthreads =1

| format = %%i

}}{{Archives|bot=ClueBot III|age=30}}

{{banner holder|text=Page history|1=

{{Old AfD multi |date=24 July 2024 |result=keep |page=SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 6}}

{{old move|date=30 July 2024|from=SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 6|destination=Starship flight test 6|result=moved|link=Special:Permalink/1239781646#Requested move 30 July 2024}}

}}

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)

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

::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)

:::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)

::::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)

:::::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)

::::::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)