That's bad on all sorts of fronts

https://x.com/CNSAWatcher/status/1807499131960672459

@JoshuaWilkes This can resolve Yes now.

Please read the description

Either you can engage respectfully, or, respectfully, I'm going to block you

This question defined Starship near-orbits as not reaching orbit. It's fine if you disagree with that, but it's not going to impact how this question resolves.

For other readers:

the near-orbit definition has been in the description since December 2023

This same definition of reaching orbit is used over almost every single Starship/Space market on the site. You are the vast minority here.

Starship IFT-3 and IFT-4 both did not reach an orbital trajectory. Ift-3 planned a reignition-burn-test but ultimately didn't use it, and the trajectory they were in still went straight into the Indian Ocean. The plan was that if they did test the reignition burn then they'd end up a bit further West in the Indian Ocean.

So it's not about requiring a full revolution or not. Starship has simply never been on any path or trajectory where it could theoretically make that full revolution.

To be absolutely clear:

They literally had to burn for reentry so as not to stay up there.

This is false, and I think that's the miscommunication going on here.

They literally had to burn for reentry so as not to stay up there.

This is false, and I think that's the miscommunication going on here.

Exactly. Perigee was negative altitude:

This article states that the CASC XLV is actually the Long March 12 (which would explain why we haven't heard anything about the XLV and why they were both set to launch start of June when the new launchpad opened), though I can't find any other sources explicitly stating that so I'm not a 100% sure.

Also not sure if that would mean that the XLV was another name for it, or maybe they wanted to keep the fact that it was the LM 12 a secret, or maybe it was even a mistranslation?

Either way though, if it does turn out to be the same rocket, how would you resolve the two answers?

@Nat can you link to the article?

@JoshuaWilkes Oops yeah I linked it in the first word of my comment but I hadn't realised how non-visible that is lol, here you go: https://spacenews.com/long-march-6a-launches-second-yunhai-3-satellite/

It's right at the bottom of the article

@Nat my sense is that the best thing to do right now is to leave both open. If it turns out they are not the same rocket, then it's all good.

If they are, then in principle I can't see anything wrong with both resolving YES or NO simultaneously. Not ideal obviously but on balance seems fairer than resolving XLV (I believe the second one to be added) to NO now

Angara A5 has successfully put a payload into orbit

I believe this can resolve

What counts as 'reaching orbit'? Does it have to be an Earth orbit or would a Mars orbit count, or is it based on reaching orbital velocities? And does it count based on when the launch occurs or when the orbit is achieved? (Particularly thinking in regards to EscaPADE which I believe is supposed to be launched directly into an interplanetary trajectory - but also would just be useful to know in general)

@Nat Earth orbit

If any vehicle is launch directly onto an interplanetary trajectory that would count too.

In the unlikely case of a launch close to midnight of December 31st as long as the launch started prior to midnight local time it would count if it subsequently reached orbit

Appears to have occurred: https://www.cnsa.gov.cn/n6758823/n6758838/c10488507/content.html

Launching now!

@JoshuaWilkes that didn't go too well!

Is this enough to resolve yes?

@Nat it looks like it. Will just wait a little for more reports to come in, but assume a YES resolution