Talk:List of Starship launches/Archive 1

Archive 1

one more page with redundant and superfluous information

so we got one more page with redundant and superfluous information, that makes users a hard time to find relevant information scattered around on dozens of starship related wp articles that are neither sufficiently interlinked, nor clearly differentiated, nor properly maintained and updated by the community 47.64.135.127 (talk) 09:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

If it was "superfluous", it wouldn't have been raised from Draft to Article, much less to a B-Class article. Redacted II (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Content Copied

I don't know how to add the "content copied from articles x y and z", so I've copied content from SpaceX Starship and SpaceX Starship flight tests. I've also used List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches as a template. Redacted II (talk) 11:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

If you don't know "how", why not ask for help? You should have copied the whole page including history and talk. Now, with deleting much of the original page (and renaming it), most of the work of others gets diluted and neglected as their changes and efforts are no longer repesented in the history of this page, although their texts and contributions are now here. I see that as severe violation of WP rules. You once more disregarded the work of others. 47.64.136.116 (talk) 07:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Once more, stop with the personal attacks.

Two: You can't copy the history of an article. Maybe I could if I was an admin, but I'm not.

Three: How is splitting an article disregarding their changes? Redacted II (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not attacking, merely stating facts. You should learn to distinguish.

Obviously, you need to edudate yourself a little:

Help:Page_history#Moved_and_deleted_pages

WP:MM

WP:SPLIT

As you failed to split the page and to migrate the page contents including history (or if not able, ask for), but simply copied content:

Now, the history of this page does not show anymore who wrote which parts.

This violates rules:

WP:C

WP:COPYWITHIN

I think you should clean up your mess:

WP:RIA 47.64.137.61 (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Added template

(Thanks for providing the exact policies. It made finding the template possible) Redacted II (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Statistics Issue

The "Flight characteristics" graph may cause substantial issues in the future.

For example, here is a circumstance that is both expected to occur and will cause contradictions:

A number of tanker launches, in the high teens, send a total of 1500 tons of Methane and Oxygen to a waiting depot. A HLS is docked to the depot, and the fuel is transferred. The HLS then reignites its engines, and travels to the moon.

In this scenario, HLS qualifies for both "Earth Orbit" (this should be divided) and "Lunar".

How will we list this flight in the graph? LEO? TLI? Something else entirely? Redacted II (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I've always thought that particular graph is a bit dumb. Almost all of them will be earth orbit flights. I hadn't even considered the problem you mentioned. I'm in favor of removing the thing entirely. Narnianknight (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't exist on the Falcon 9 article, so removing it is probably a good idea. Redacted II (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Removed. Narnianknight (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Flight 1 and 2 were a success

The reason those flights were a success is because they successfully lifted off and got further than the time before each time. SpaceX was able to collect the data and make improvements so the next flight could go even further yet again; so all those launches were a success. To say that any of them were failures is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.250.2 (talk) 10:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed oder and over, and if some people had not split the starship topics into manyfold small articles without proper interlinking and (re-)import of old discussions, you would have found it. E g see here: Talk:SpaceX_Starship

It is also discussed and explained in the artikel itself in the table. In my opinion, a start that destroys most of the pads infrastructure, cannot be seen as success :) 47.64.136.116 (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

There has been extensive discussion of this.

They were failures, as they didn't deliver the vehicle into the desired orbit. Redacted II (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, that is false. As the test flights never wanted to reach any orbit and were clearly marked as suborbital on purpose, this argument fails. 47.64.137.61 (talk) 07:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect: transatmospheric is technically orbital. Redacted II (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense again. Suborbital is by definition not orbital. You don't understand the difference between transatmospheric and TEO. Not everything someone gets into transatmospheric heights will get orbital. Flight tests 3+4 were on purpose not fast enought by a few percentages, to avoid space junk if something went wrong, thus 3+4 did not enter an orbit at all. Either you know that and want to distract on purpose again, or you need to re-read some facts and educate yourself.

WP:Sub-orbital spaceflight clearly explains that and lists e.g. all Blue Origin flights for exaclty that reason. All Starship flight tests so far did tecnically the same. 47.64.136.117 (talk) 09:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Your confusing several terms.

IFT-1 and IFT-2 were aiming for a Transatmospheric orbit, with a perigee above the surface of the earth, but below the Kármán line.

Suborbital is what IFT-3 and IFT-4 targeted: with a perigee below the surface of the earth. Redacted II (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

If that was true, why does the IFT-1 page state "The projected flight path would have been suborbital" ?? It is referenced by one of you reveered secondary sources... 47.64.136.117 (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

It also lists "Regime Transatmospheric Earth orbit (planned)" in the infobox, and in the sentence before the one you cited (which is the only mention of the word "suborbital" in the article)

Its was transatmospheric. Redacted II (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Still it is crontradicting and confusing. Stay consistent, use reliable sources and no guessing. 47.64.136.117 (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Suborbital claim removed. Redacted II (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for Future launches

We need some sort of established inclusion criteria for putting planned missions in the Future launches section. The list is currently an eyesore due to the large number of refueling missions listed. These have no source (other than that ambiguous spacenews.com one) and no useful information. This does not adhere to WP:Verifiability. Future Starlink missions could end up in this predicament as well.

Therefore, I propose:

1. Every individual launch require a reference (Flight 6, as of today, would not be included).
2. Every refueling flight require a scheduled date (these missions are so uninteresting with regards to statistics that there's no point having them listed far before launch anyway).
3. No speculative mission be included, even if it has a source claiming it will happen.

Of course these guidelines are not carved in stone and could be changed in the future if necessary. Narnianknight (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Strong agreement.

Right, I noted that directly after this unfortunate page was created.

Furthermore, all this comes from a single source where someone not related to SpaceX speculated(!) about how many refuelling flights might(!) be necessary. To include that in the tables, and making it the most striking feature of this pages is completely ridiculous.

The problem is that Redacted II likes to include speculative data, dubious sources and original resarch, and never ever apprehends the problem of doing so, as you can see above and in many other discussions regarding Starship, e.g. Talk:List_of_Starship_upper_stage_flight_tests#Dubious_statements_with_even_more_dubious_sources 47.64.136.116 (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, 47.64.136.116, stop with the personal attacks and baseless accusations.

The # of refueling missions is sourced (and if the # of refueling missions is an eyesore, then Starlink is going to be much worse). Given that they have a NET, if not an exact date, they should remain.

Primary sources are worse than secondary sources: as proven by this quote: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.".

The IFT-6 sourcing issue is being worked on. As of September 10, 2024, it has one source.

There aren't any speculatory missions listed. Speculation would require it to not have a source. Redacted II (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Here is my rationale. I would like to hear exactly which points you disagree with and why.

1. This is a list of launches, not a list of missions ("missions" here including any launches to support one primary launch, e.g. refueling).

   A. Launches should be listed individually; missions should not group constituent launches.

   B. Launches are listed in chronological order, unsortable. When independent launches occur between constituent launches of a mission, that mission's launches indeed cannot be grouped together.

   C. If a launch is specifically purposed for a mission, that mission should be listed in the launch description.

2. Each supporting launch should have a reference to it specifically.

   A. A supporting launch should not be inferred from a primary launch announcement just because we know it must happen.

   i. If we were to include launches "because we know they must happen," we could enter dozens of unnamed Starlink launches because they have to complete the constellation sometime, right?

   ii. A source saying a mission will have refueling flights is no more an official announcement for a launch than one saying there will be a bunch of Starlink launches in the future.

   B. The thing I said about requiring a scheduled date may not be reasonable. It just depends on how they announce refueling missions.

   C. An editors' note from the source of List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches#Future launches: "Only officially announced missions should be listed, no rumors or speculation." I think you'll agree that Musk saying something does not describe being "officially announced."

3. If an entry has no meaningful information about the launch, it is perhaps an indication that there are not strong enough sources to warrant its existence.

Narnianknight (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

1A: Agree

1B: Agree

1C: Somewhat Agree (IMO, detailing Artemis 3 for every refueling mission, for example, is needlessly redundant)

2Ai: Agree, listing all the future Starlinks would be stupid

2Aii: Disagree We have the exact number of refueling flights, and a general time for when they occur. That is supported by sources. The same cannot be said for Starlink.

2B: Agree

2C: Strong Agree Musk is not a reliable source.

3: Define meaningful Redacted II (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

2Aii: Where are you getting an exact number? Every estimate has a different idea. It's misleading to put a number on it when SpaceX hasn't announced an official launch schedule.

3: The refueling entries add nothing to the article. For example, look at the data in each column for Artemis III.

• Generic mission name. We don't know the actual refueling naming scheme.
• Technically correct, to put it generously
• The ref doesn't seem to support it being Block 2
• No info
• No info
• Obvious
• No info
• No info
• Same as primary launch (and they're not really fuel customers)

This seems a lot like "being inferred from a primary launch announcement just because we know it must happen." Basically what I'm getting at is that no one is going to get any useful information about a given launch from this. You strongly agreed to entering "only officially announced missions," which refueling launches are certainly not (obvious exception for Prop Transfer Demo). Narnianknight (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

We know it must happen, we know the number of flights (Source: https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/at-least-15-starship-launches-to-execute-artemis-iii-lunar-landing/), and when. The existence of these missions have been announced.

Listing each launch individually, like on List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches, addresses the mission name issue.

The date listed is the official NET. Yes its unlikely, but its the official date.

The ref was put in the wrong spot. That has been fixed. (Also, yes, saying it is going to be version 2 is speculation. But we do know that its not Starship 1, and that Artemis 4 is going to use an upgraded HLS, so its very likely to be Starship 2).

We don't know ship or booster numbers past flights 7 and 8, respectively. No argument there.

Payload is, as you said, obvious. Mass is unknown, and may forever be unknown.

Orbit can actually be filled in as low earth orbit (Source: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/04/nasa-starship-first-landings-on-ramp/)

NASA is the contractor (they aren't just paying for the launch of HLS, they're paying for the launches to fuel HLS as well). Redacted II (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

First, as above: I am not attacking, merely stating facts. You should learn to distinguish. You were cought several times with original research. So, now stop accusing me!

Second, you have been instructed about primary and secondary sources and when to use them several times as well. As you now once more insist that secondary sources are the best and cherrypicking quotes, I have to assume you do this on purpose and to distract.

"There aren't any speculatory missions listed. Speculation would require it to not have a source." This is just laughable. If you use a speculative source, it stays speculative. Your only(!) source "spacenews.com/starship-lunar-lander-missions-to-require-nearly-20-launches-nasa-says/" says "NASA says", so why don't find he original NASA statement? Because there is none! If you read the extremely inprecice arcticle more carefully, it's not NASA but a single "official", a "assistant deputy associate administrator"(!!) is speculating.

Even worse, what about "Exactly how many launches will be required has been a point of debate (..) Neither NASA nor SpaceX have given firm numbers recently." ?

The numbers "16" (NASA) or "8" (SpaceX) are not only disputed and given as "max", these are quotes themselves from much older articles. Why not quote those originals? Too lazy or distracting again? Or because they do not support your assumtions??

Out of this, you make some 50(!!) spaceship fuel missions and state that in a table as fact. Apart from one more "original research" by you, as you interprete this lousy article to a very wide stretch: This is extremely untrue and one more violation of WP rules.

@Narnianknight, I support your efforts and general criteria, but in this case such arguments are superfluous, as all those refuelling starts are just speculation and "original reasearch" out of a single highy speculative article with a clickbait headline. Just go on and delete it. 47.64.137.61 (talk) 07:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

"Second, you have been instructed about primary and secondary sources and when to use them several times as well. As you now once more insist that secondary sources are the best and cherrypicking quotes, I have to assume you do this on purpose and to distract."

You mean when you continue to say I'm misusing them despite direct quotations that say otherwise.

"If you use a speculative source, it stays speculative"

And the source for the number of flights, https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/at-least-15-starship-launches-to-execute-artemis-iii-lunar-landing/, is not speculative. I did search, by the way, for the original NASA statement. Redacted II (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• "at least 15 Starships"
• "high teens"
• "quite a number of tankers" - Lakiesha Hawkins
• "in the high teens"
• "NASA and SpaceX have demurred on specifying how many launches would be required"

It is clear we do not know how many it will be. You agreed to list launches individually rather than in a mission group; that means waiting for an announcement for a specific launch. If a ref does not mention a specific launch, it is not a source for a specific launch.

(By the way, I am truly sorry you're being dog piled by someone comfortable in the bottom half of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.) Narnianknight (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

In that case, I'd be okay with removing those flights, so long as it is listed under every mission that there will be a number of refueling flights in the high teens.

For the bottom half of the hierarchy of disagreement: tt's been going on for a while. Tried to get admins to resolve it. That failed. Redacted II (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I've redone the tables to a better format (ok, I pretty much copied the Falcon list format). I'll also go through and look at refs when I have time. Narnianknight (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Failed for good reason, as everybody can re-read: You was the one who provoked me first, then invented a lot of nonsense to distract from the main issues, and then wanted to silence me with false accusations like beeing a socketpuppet. This all failed grandiously and you were told to stick to facts and nstop your own original resarch. Now, you do that again. 47.64.136.117 (talk) 09:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

So, provoking someone means "Rejecting an edit request". And inventing nonsense is directly quoting Wikipedia policy.

And if you look at the report that I filed, I say "sock puppetry section, though that isn't the main issue". You were using multiple IPs, though not intentionally.

And where in that discussion was I given any warning about WP:OR? Redacted II (talk) 11:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

First, the provoking was not rejecting but accusing, threatening and personal attacks.

Second, you should know your own failed attempt to silence me better.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1161#Repeated_personal_attacks_by_IP_47.69.67.250_(as_well_as_by_potential_sock_IPs)

"sock IP" even in the header. Your citation above you picked out of the "possible move" comment, distracting and cherrypicking again. The main accusation was "an attempt to make others believe that they are not all the same person". Also accusing of several severe personal attacks and many more. There was a clear vote of all 4 commenters against you, clearly stating "I don't see any of those diffs as personal attacks", "This thread is a waste of time." and " I don't see anything actionable here.". Your replys there showed you were totally unregenerate, contradicting all admins and others.

I never said the "OR" dispute happened there, one more allegation by you. Just a few examples:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Starship_flight_test_4#Requested_move_30_July_2024

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SpaceX_Starship_(spacecraft)#improvements

There is only on reason I bring this up here in detail: You started to pick on it (for revenge?), misleading others, and I just had to correct these half-truths. While you keep on doing original resarch and interpreting already dubious sources to your liking. 47.64.136.117 (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

"First, the provoking was not rejecting but accusing, threatening and personal attacks"

Examples of threatening?

"The main accusation was "an attempt to make others believe that they are not all the same person""

If that was the case, it would have been titled "Repeated use of Sock IPs", and not "Repeated personal attacks"

"Your replys there showed you were totally unregenerate, contradicting all admins and others."

Unregenerate implies that filing a report at ANI, if it doesn't result in actions being taken, is somehow "wrong". As for contradicting admins, they said your actions weren't actionable. All I did was voice my disagreement.

"never said the "OR" dispute happened there, one more allegation by you."

Your wording heavily implies otherwise: "This all failed grandiously and you were told to stick to facts and nstop your own original resarch".

And finally, please, stop with the personal attacks. The bottom two levels of the Hierarchy of Disagreement should never be used. Redacted II (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

First Mars flight: "about five uncrewed Starships"

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1837908705683059166

I'm not sure this qualifies (especially given the IMO bigoted political claims made within) Redacted II (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

That is not a specific launch announcement at all. Narnianknight (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, but I did want to make sure before not adding it at all. Redacted II (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Again "facts" that are guesses

The 5th flight test is NOT confirmed! This is just an IDEA from this infamous nextspaceflight website, and there they state clearly "Launch date is provisional based on marine and airspace safety notices and it is pending confirmation by SpaceX." But here, it is given as a fact! Once more, Redacted II makes "original research" and exaggerates vague facts to factuals. It had been removed a few days ago, and now it is back with a not much better source that itself does not claim that it is a fact. In short: Fakenews by Redacted II. Again. 47.69.102.202 (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

"this infamous nextspaceflight website"

Defamatory statement towards NextSpaceflight.com

"Once more, Redacted II makes "original research" and exaggerates vague facts to factuals"

The definition of Original Research has been explained to you countless times before. You know a sourced statement is the exact opposite of original research.

"In short: Fakenews by Redacted II. Again"

And a defamatory statement directed toward me. Again. Redacted II (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Can't you read or do you distract once more from the real arguments? For you, once more: The 5th flight test is NOT confirmed! This is just an IDEA from this infamous nextspaceflight website, and there they state clearly "Launch date is provisional based on marine and airspace safety notices and it is pending confirmation by SpaceX."

Find a real source (one that does not say itself that "confirmation is pending"!), and stop adding rumors to WP articles pretending they are facts! 47.69.102.202 (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Added to wp:3o, as aguing here with you usually gets nowhere. 47.69.102.202 (talk) 09:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

BTW, FAA proved that nothing changes from the Sept 11 statement: x.com/BCCarCounters/status/1841565160210575816. I am reverting your misinformation. 47.69.102.202 (talk) 10:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Reverting again. Source is valid (secondary > primary. Read WP:OR).

Do not continue to edit war. Redacted II (talk) 11:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, I recommend reading this: WP:STATUSQUO. Redacted II (talk) 11:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

You were the one reverting first and starting another edit war. The Status Quo before the discussion was my edit. And you still either don't understand or try to mislead once more by insisting on "valid sourse", because it is not about the source and not about secondary or primary (something you still have not anderstood anyway), but about what you make out of it. The source just does not state what you try to put into the article -> fake news by incapacity or intent or what? I have no other explanation about your disruptive and uncooperative way of working on articles. You just think you are right always, ignore any other opinions, ignore provided facts (like my source I have given twice that FAA will not clear until Nov), and act like you own the article. I will not accept this behaviour and not let it pass you trying to silence me when I point out your bogus fake-news you constantly put into these articles (like the 50+ fuel missions lately spamming the future starts table, which was once more OR). 47.69.102.202 (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The "status quo version" is "the situation as it existed before the war".

That would be the October 13th date, which is backed by the source: "Launch Time

Sun Oct 13, 2024 8:00 AM EDT"

How does that not support the claim of "October 13, 2024"? Redacted II (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I made some changes. I hope they align with most of the current thread. 181.10.118.210 (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I recommend fully self-reverting both edits, as it removes sourced material.

I can write up a statement on the FAA, such as "While there are NOTAMs and NOTMARs for the IFT-5 launch, the FAA has stated that Flight 5 will not fly until November" Redacted II (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

3O Response: Redacted II, can you explain your reasoning for why nextspaceflight.com is a reliable source? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

NextSpaceflight is owned by NASASpaceflight. Which has been deemed a reliable source. Redacted II (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you please point me to the discussion where NASASpaceflight was deemed a reliable source Redacted II? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

You don't need to always @ me.

Talk:SpaceX Starship/FAQ declares NSF a reliable source: "The few that are reliable are NASASpaceFlight.com..." Redacted II (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

That seems to be the opinion of one user only. In any case, just being owned by another company, even a reliable one, does not make a source reliable in itself. For example, Collective, a magazine run by the BBC, is not in itself reliable while the BBC is.

As nextspaceflight.com doesn't have a visible editorial policy or give any indication of fact-checking, I think it would be best if we waited until other, more reliable sources published information on sources and citing them when adding information to articles. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with how interconnected Collective and the BBC are, but NextSpaceflight and NASASpaceflight are very interconnected (The NSF launch schedule, if one clicks on more details for a particular launch, redirects to NextSpaceflight. And NextSpaceflight's livestream section of a launch descript lists the "24/7 Livesteam" (In the case of IFT-5, Starbase Live), the "NSF livestream", and the "Official Livesteam"), to the point that they are, IMO, basically the same.

The NextSpaceflight source was the second source I added: there are the NOTAMs that support an October 13 date (trying to find direct links). Redacted II (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

But this entire discussion is now 100% irrelevant.

https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-5 Redacted II (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @AirshipJungleman29, for getting deeper into this. I had arguments about that "reliable ressource" NASASpaceFlight with R. for months, as (as you said) the discussion about it is a 1-person-opinion and self-serving. It is not only about this incident, he puts in lot of "facts" fron this source.

Second, no, the discussion is not irrelevant now. It is a general problem with R. constantly putting pseudo-facts into several SpaceX related articles. The old source stated "Launch date is provisional based on marine and airspace safety notices and it is pending confirmation by SpaceX.", but R. put the launche date in as a fact. Even if NASAspaceflight was reliable, this information still was an assumption, but stated as fact in this WP article. It was a severe violation of WP rules, and even with the SpaceX confirmation now (two days later): SpaceX says "pending regulatory approval", and FAA said repeatedly (see my sources) that the status is not going to be changed until November. Thus, the date is NOT confirmed and needs to be given als provisional in the article's table, but R. insists on putting it as a fixed fact. Again, against the rules for reputable article writing.

Thus, please have a deeper look into these occurences. It is not just about this single source incident, it is about constantly diminishing articles by adding unsourced or badly sourced material, assumptions, original research, or falsely citing provisional announcements as reliable facts. 47.69.102.202 (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I can't see the problem with waiting until an indisputably reliable source publishes the details of a launch. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Which has now occurred. Redacted II (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you really think all your misdoing to this and other articles are washed away just because you found another source days later?

BTW, you once more ignore arguments that you don't like: Even SpaxeX admits the date is not fixed, and you only added that (without a source, again!) in an afterthought 9 hours after you misleadingly boasted the launch date by SpaceX as a fixed fact, and only you had been told...

Hope you will be more careful in future, stop reverting each and every edit that is not to your personal liking, stop using unreliable sources and don't state things to be facts that are given in the source as assumptions... 47.69.102.202 (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Indisputable has NEVER been a requirement for sourcing (though, the fact that the reliability of SpaceX and NASASpaceflight is being called into question is, IMO, absurd. The FAQ points to NASASpaceflight being reliable, the Talk Page of the SpaceX Starship article declares NASASpaceflight reliable. Its notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article)

But if indisputability was a requirement, then listing IFT-1 and IFT-2 as failures (which is the correct label) would be impossible, as there were countless sources calling those a success.

But, I'll go write in "pending regulatory approval" Redacted II (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and https://www.cnbc.com/2024/10/08/spacex-starship-faa-license-sunday-launch.html removes the FAA November claim. Redacted II (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

First, you found this much afterwards. Nothing to defend you.

Second, you still are not able to find the most inportant line in your new "source": "SpaceX may receive FAA license" - again speculation stated as fact by you.

Third, nobody is against adding disputed facts (you didn't understand that either). It is just that you have to mark it as such and make clear is it not proven yet. This was my main complaint to you all over: You do not distinguish what is fact from reliable source and what is speculation, guessing and OR. 47.69.102.202 (talk) 10:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Right. No guessing, exaggerating, stretching facts and the like, please. Glad someone commented on this supporting. 47.69.102.202 (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Where to note the orbital inclination for each launch

At the moment it's not very interesting as the first 3 or 5 launches from Starbase went South into a 26.5 or 26.4 degree inclination orbit (required to avoid overflying Cuba). The orbital inclinations will be interesting for launches that release payloads. - Rod57 (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It can go in the description box. For instance (from a Falcon 9 launch entry), "Launch of 23 Starlink v2 mini satellites to a 530 km (330 mi) orbit at an inclination of 43° to expand internet constellation." Narnianknight (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Once more boasting things that are not confirmed

like "S30 exploded upon contact". The source is a video that covers the official video. Yes, there is a plume that looks like an explosion. Nobody really knows. Everyone is guessing. No official statement by now. Redacted II is once more watching a video and making his and others guessing into facts. This "source" is a video in which some people without any professional space background speculating about what they think they are seeing on a third party video... This all is, as Redacted II well knows, original resarch and not valid for WP. He does this again and again and on purpose. But he will dispute that for days until he finds another dubious source and that telling us "all is well, I found a source" - see above for several other such issues. So sad for this article to be spammed continously with false or disputed claimes.

BTW, there are still no (!) sources for the 2025 propellant transfer demonstration...! Find a source or delete that.

Even worse, Redacted II produced a "Cite error" on the page's end in his 01:39, 13 October 2024 edit. Never checking your edits? 47.69.107.97 (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

NASASpaceflight is a WP:RS. And the video shows the ship detonating. Before claiming WP:OR, please reread what it says. Its been explained before: Secondary sources are not WP:OR. They are, in fact, preferred over primary sources.

Sources for the 2025 prop transfer must have been deleted by accident. They've been readded.

Cause of the Cite Error was a note stating that the launch date is unconfirmed. The Cite Error tag isn't visible while editing, and I didn't notice after the edit. My bad. It has been removed.

I've warned you before: stop making personal attacks. And if you have accusations, first provide a (polite) warning, and then report to the correct portion of ANI. Redacted II (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

1. "NASASpaceflight is a WP:RS" - this and other sources has been disputed as a 1-person opinon. As this has been discussed several times: You try to fool me or others onces more. But, this is not the point this time. As you know.
2. "the video shows the ship detonating" - this is YOUR interpretaion. I only saw a plume that can have been anything. And even if: it is still WP:OR, as YOU interpreted it.
3. I do not make "personal attacks", I state errors and false facts in articles, and as it was you several times, you are to blame. If I state that, it is no personal attack, just stating the fact that you repeatedly got cought with these not-to-WP-rules edits. To repeat me accusing making attacks and therefore violating WP rules, when I only point to your errors, is attacking itself.
4. I myself have warned you before to stop your WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:PA edits and statements.
5. If YOU make errors and work with attention deficit not checking your edits, as you admitted, don't blame me, and the right place is here in the article's discussion, not on your talk page to hush it up.
6. So, stop your backskashing against me and work reliable, that would prevent all this discussion and save me and others a lot of work.

47.69.107.97 (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

"the video shows the ship detonating" - this is YOUR interpretaion. I only saw a plume that can have been anything. And even if: it is still WP:OR, as YOU interpreted it"

The source says otherwise, and even describes the wreckage!

If you want to say I'm commiting a WP:OR violation (which I am not), say "Hey, your source may not meet Wikipedia standards", instead of "This all is, as Redacted II well knows, original resarch and not valid for WP. He does this again and again and on purpose". The first is polite, the second violates WP:AGF.

Also, when correcting an editor, the correct place is the user's talk page. That isn't "hushing it up", its putting a discussion where it belongs. Redacted II (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

You are still ignoring arguments and trying to draw the discussion to side issues.

First, YOU have no problem at all reverting and correcting anything you dislike in articles. But if someone changes your faulty edits ONCE, you see that as edit war, and want it to be discussed on your own talk page, not even on the article's talk page? How self-important can one be to put all other edits and opinions aside and claim special treatment only for own edits? Pure hybris.

As to your alleged "explosion", once more: Your source does not SHOW it, nor say it, and even if, comments by some inofficial laypersons who are interpreting themselves is not facts but guessing. Is is very easy to find other opinions to make it "disputed", like Scott Manley (maybe the most edudated neutral commenter): www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ysx4t7ICO58

"We see a mushroom cloud of propellant ascending" - not an explosion at all, and all the videos show clearly that that did not happen "on contact with the water", nobody ever said that, this is solely your own interpretation of blurred video footage. It just could have been, and most likely was, an excess propellant vent. Not a single evidence that the "ship exploded"!

Could you finally PLEASE stop putting fake news into articles that you retrieve by original research from watching some videos that you clearly don't understand because of your lack of factual expertise? Wait for true experts to interprete the footage and official statements, and not cherrypicking crude statements that are neither common consent nor based on known facts. You are constantly turning WP articles into fakenews, speculations and wild guessing! 47.69.107.97 (talk) 08:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Btw, Redacted II accused me falsely of edit warring on my (temporary, as generic IP) talk page User_talk:47.69.107.97, falsy claiming I violated the "three-revert rule" meaning "must not perform more than three reverts" which I did not. I corrected two things (which was no revert) and reverted one which was clearly wp:OR, see en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Starship_flight_test_6&action=history. That was only thee edits with one revert. Redacted II tries to silent me with false accusations. 47.69.107.97 (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

You don't have to hit "undo" to count as a revert. Also, I have been corrected before for violating 3RR while only conducting 3 reverts. I can't find the dif: it was sometime in mid 2023 (I think on ANI or a similar Administrative section of Wikipedia), and searching for one would take several hours.

But, videos?! There is only one video of S30's demise, which has been distributed across multiple different videos. Buts its all the same footage. If you have a different angle, I'd would love to be proven wrong.

The first source literally states (at around 4 hours, thirty one minutes). "Is it going to fall over and explode?" "Yeah" {a lot of excited yes's go here} "Its exploded!"

How does that not support a ship explosion?

Second source (which I did find later): "Despite this Ship 30 made it to flip and landing burn and a soft splashdown in the Indian ocean before exploding after tipping over captured by a buoy at the landing zone"

Scott Manley (though I do not believe he's considered a WP:RS, unfortunantly) also states the ship met a "violent end", and then observes that there were still chunks of the ship in the water. Propellant Vent has no sources backing it up.

Discussing reason for reversion, and saying "Hey, you conducted a WP:OR violation" are two different things. And I'm not enough of a hypocrite to say "You reverted my edit?! Your an EDIT WARRIOR!!!!", given that I often do 1-2 reverts.

Giving a warning isn't an attempt at "Silencing" someone. Its merely giving a warning (and even saying that I agreed with some of your reversion), but also letting you know that you conducted 3 reverts in a 24 hour period, which isn't permitted by Wikipedia policy.

(Also, and this bit is WP:OR, no need to remind me: look at a vent on Super Heavy or Starship. If there is any fire, there isn't much (and it would only be present if there was an ignition source). A vent doesn't result in a Mushroom cloud and result in everything but (And this is a direct quotation from source 1) "the common dome and down, only the common dome has been blown off". So, clearly not a propellant vent) Redacted II (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

You are still describing what you think you see in YT video and then putting that into articles as facts. That is both unreliable sources and original researxh, and you either still don't understand that or again want to fool me and others. 47.69.107.97 (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

What I see is irrelevant. I'm merely stating what the source says.

The final bit of my response was WP:OR, but I did label it as such. Redacted II (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Still navigating around the main issues trying to fool me. Stop OR 47.67.225.78 (talk) 10:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)