Jump to content

Talk:D-Orbit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Successfully cracked Fusion ?

[edit]

"RocketStar Announces Successful Demonstration of Fusion-Enhanced Pulsed Plasma Electric Propulsion"

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/rocketstar-announces-successful-demonstration-of-fusion-enhanced-pulsed-plasma-electric-propulsion-1033181588

Why isn't this all over the news ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.114.174 (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's cool, but it's not fusion power... it's plasma thrusters with boron added to the exhaust stream that produce additional nuclear reactions with the ions in the plasma. Adding 50% is pretty cool, costs almost nothing and makes plasma thrusters practical in more mission profiles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IronOak (talk • contribs) 04:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old Discussion re notability / Trade publications are generally weak sources because they often exist to promote an industry and are for a limited audience.

[edit]

I accept this sentence as sensible. If the articles contained were all from non independent or from a single trade association, this might appear valid, However I would characterise several of the articles as space news media rather than something from a trade organisation. The ref list includes publishers like satmagazine.com, Geospatialworld.net, Space News, militaryaerospace.com, Satellite today, Spacewatch Global, Satnews, Space Daily, Spaceflightnow (added since rejection) and a few in Italian. To me this seems like wide ranging coverage in the space news media making the company notable enough to have an article. I am inclined to submit it again. Any comments, explanation or reply @S0091: or others? C-randles (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@C-randles no issue with you resubmitting as you may have a fair argument but I strongly suggest listing here the three best sources that meet all the WP:NCORP criteria to help the next reviewer. Either way, ping me if you resubmit and I will add an AfC comment letting the next reviewer know to look at the talk page. S0091 (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. The article refs sorted into order of my assessment of Significant, Independent, Reliable, Secondary requirements (perhaps largely based on my recognition of space news media which may not be ideal) are:

  • [1] Well recognised Space news media. In depth article all about D-Orbit. Definitely yes from me to all of Significant, Independent, Reliable, Secondary
  • [2] Space news media, In depth article all about D-Orbit. Definitely yes from me to all of Significant, Independent, Reliable, Secondary
  • [3] Well recognised Space news media. Three sentence paragraph. I would say yes to all of Significant, Independent, Reliable, Secondary though I admit 3 sentences is not a lot.
  • [4] Well recognised Space news media. Three sentences relate to D-orbit. I would say yes to all of Significant, Independent, Reliable, Secondary though I admit 3 sentences is not a lot.
  • [5] Shows EU funding gained which might suggest notability, if it continues to actual products which D-orbit has. Is outside Space News media, EU is Significant, Independent, Reliable, Secondary
  • [6] I don't recognise Italian space news media but looks reasonable on a quick glance. Similarly for [7]
  • [8] Recognised Space Media. Article reads like a lot of it could come from regurgitated press release, but as I recognise the SpaceDaily.com name I am leaning towards saying yes to Significant, Independent, Reliable, Secondary.

Likely fails:

  • [9] Interview - that an interview has been done suggests some interest in the company. However, only a blog so likely fails reliability and independence may be questionable.

@S0091: Thank you for your suggestion above, I hope the above is adequate for what you suggested. Also re "ping me if you resubmit and I will add an AfC comment letting the next reviewer know to look at the talk page". Please do so, I shall click to resubmit it shortly. C-randles (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should also add further background notes: Space tugs (aka OTVs) are a fairly new emerging market. Having launched 8, D-Orbit is a significant player in this market albeit a small and specialised market), I don't know of anyone who has launched more than 8 though it is quite possible that someone else has. C-randles (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @C-randles well it was re-reviewed before I had a chance to post a note but will give you an assessment of the first three sources you listed. #1,Space News, I agree this is a reliable source but it is an announcement by D-Orbit so not independent (i.e. what they say they plan to do). #2, SatNews, it is unclear if this is a reliable source as their is no "About" page and I could not find anything about their editorial policy (or much of anything) but even moreso, this is another announcement by D-Orbit so not independent (and note there is no by-line). #3, Space Flight Now, another source that has no information about itself to determine its editorial policy. Their Join the team page says they are looking for "Ideal candidates should have experience or interest in news writing, video production and presenting, website design, or graphic design. A familiarity and passion for the space industry is a plus.", not professional journalists or even experts so I don't think this is a reliable source and the coverage is not significant. S0091 (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi S0091, thanks for the comment. I guess that gives me good reason to look for sources for statements after it has happened to replace announcements of what they are going to do. I will try to suitable sources. C-randles (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible additional sources that meet Significant, Independent, Reliable, Secondary tests: CNBC Coverage of company outside space news media Forbes Coverage of company outside space news media [11] Space news - well recognised space news media European Space Agency Boost funding [12] $1.4bn valuation - doesn't strike me as a small insignificant company. Just some of many google hits for D-Orbit. C-randles (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @C-randles I know the other reviewer commented it needed more sources but really what it needs is better sources that meet WP:ORGCRIT. Their announcements, funding, etc. fail the criteria. Also see WP:FORBESCON, as the Forbes article above is not a reliable source. The size of the company matters not for notability. S0091 (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Notability and reference quality discussion

[edit]

Ok, following help received (see old discussion above and thank you for help @@S0091: @@Mattdaviesfsic:), I have tried to improve the quality of references by using established space news media article more and where possible using articles from after events have happened rather than before event articles saying what D-orbit says it is going to do. The article now has

  • 5 articles from SpaceNews.com. S0091 has said "I agree this is a reliable source" but question articles saying what D-orbit is going to do. The first D-Orbit charts ambitious course for space logistics business does have quite a bit saying what D-Orbit is going to do, but I am using it to verify past tense things like "operating commercial ION missions since September 2020". Another is about plans to go public being cancelled but the others are after event articles.
  • 2 articles from NASASpaceFlight.com not run by NASA but well recognised news media for space news.
  • Via Satellite article from after the launch
  • 2 Askanews after event articles (in Italian).
  • Space Daily after event article
  • Cloud-computing.tmcnet article.

I am hoping this now looks like fairly widespread coverage in space news media with reliable refs from after events rather than a lot of the refs being talk of what D-orbit is going to do, and the article is better prepared to be resubmitted. I shall wait for comments before resubmitting it again, and thanks for any help or suggestions. C-randles (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, great work! I'll accept it now - well done! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore that. I can't until it's been resubmitted, but I'm happy that it meets the notability criteria now. Again, good work, and congratulations! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC) Just resubmitted myself to accept it, C-randles: now at D-Orbit. Congratulations! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Mattdaviesfsic! Good job, @C-randles! S0091 (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:D-Orbit&oldid=1215281880"