Talk:List of Starship launches

Recent Edits

@Narnianknight, why did you remove Flights 7 and 8? Their existence is sourced, as is the vehicle assignment.

Additionally, the payload section does not list the mission name, except when there is a large number of payloads. See List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches. Flight FH 6 (May 1, 2023) is a good demo of this: it lists ViaSat-3, "Aurora 4A (Arcturus), and "GS-1" as payloads. Not "ViaSat-3" or "Falcon Heavy Flight 6". Redacted II (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The Ringwatchers article does not mention Flight 7. As has been said before, youtube is not a good source. If there is no other source for something, there's a good chance it should not be mentioned. Besides, I could not find in the NSF video the mention of S33, B14, Block 2, or Flight 7.

As it has also been said, twitter references should be minimized. The mention of Flight 8 is simply an assumption on the part of Chris Bergin and Starship Gazer. This is only reasoning, not a launch announcement.

This is not a list of vehicles; it is a list of launches. Your sources are talking about vehicles, not launches. The payload or mission name is the primary point of information; all else is secondary. For something to be included here, the original source of the information has to come from an insider such as a launch provider or payload customer (whether or not there is an information "middle man," e.g. journalist, leaker). Anything else is speculation. We have yet no official indication that there will ever be such a thing as "Flight 7" and "Flight 8." Also, if we keep adding flights based on the vehicles that exist (which just doesn't even make sense in the first place, especially since they scrap ships sometimes), eventually one will overlap with an actual announced mission.

The "mission name" is almost always just the payload, but it doesn't have to be. Of course if there are multiple primary payloads we list all of them. You seem to claim the "mission name" would be "Falcon Heavy Flight 6," but you just made that up. The difference is that "Starship Flight Test 4" is the closest thing we have. Not a single entry in the Falcon list has a the payload entry blank. On the contrary, there are payloads listed such as "SpaceX COTS Demo Flight 1" and "SpaceX COTS Demo Flight 2." Clearly, the point is to describe what the mission is doing, not the physical object in the fairing (it just happens to almost always be that). Having the payload entry blank is just confusing. Look at List of Space Launch System launches. The mission names are listed there, whether there is a co-manifested payload or not. Narnianknight (talk) 12:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

"The Ringwatchers article does not mention Flight 7. As has been said before, youtube is not a good source. If there is no other source for something, there's a good chance it should not be mentioned. Besides, I could not find in the NSF video the mention of S33, B14, Block 2, or Flight 7."

Read the FAQ. NSF is a WP:RS.

"This is not a list of vehicles; it is a list of launches. Your sources are talking about vehicles, not launches. The payload or mission name is the primary point of information; all else is secondary. For something to be included here, the original source of the information has to come from an insider such as a launch provider or payload customer (whether or not there is an information "middle man," e.g. journalist, leaker). Anything else is speculation. We have yet no official indication that there will ever be such a thing as "Flight 7" and "Flight 8." Also, if we keep adding flights based on the vehicles that exist (which just doesn't even make sense in the first place, especially since they scrap ships sometimes), eventually one will overlap with an actual announced mission."

The sources list "Flight 7" and "Flight 8". The existence of said flights are mentioned in these sources. (Also, the source for S33 was originally in support of the V1.5 config. I'll go find a different source)

"The "mission name" is almost always just the payload, but it doesn't have to be. Of course if there are multiple primary payloads we list all of them. You seem to claim the "mission name" would be "Falcon Heavy Flight 6," but you just made that up. The difference is that "Starship Flight Test 4" is the closest thing we have. Not a single entry in the Falcon list has a the payload entry blank. On the contrary, there are payloads listed such as "SpaceX COTS Demo Flight 1" and "SpaceX COTS Demo Flight 2.""

Because those are the payloads. Look at List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy Launches. Every flight has had a payload. So there isn't a reason to list "N/a" Redacted II (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Flight 7: The only mentions the article gives to Flight 7 are "which hints that the first Block 2 Starship will fly on the seventh flight" and a tweet from Alex saying things like "likely refers to Ship 30 and Ship 31" and "perhaps the confirmation that Ship 32 may not fly and that Flight 7 will feature the next version of the ship." "Hints," "likely," "perhaps," and "may" are not words of official announcements; they are words of speculation (not unreasonable speculation, but speculation none the less). This list is not supposed to include speculative entries.

Flight 8: Your second rebuttal addresses nothing in my second paragraph.

Since every Falcon flight had a payload, it gives no precedence either way in the case of a launch with an empty payload bay. The payload column is the "defining" data point of each launch. It's the most important part of each entry, and if left blank, it's not immediately obvious what the launch was for. You said, "the payload section does not list the mission name, except when there is a large number of payloads." In other words, when we can't use the name of the physical payload, we use the mission name. It makes the most sense to put in the payload section the payload(s) name(s) or mission name, whichever suits, and if there is none, describe the launch as best as possible, e.g. "Crew Dragon In-Flight Abort Test" or "Starlink: Launch 28 (60 satellites)." Narnianknight (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The point is, sources primarily talking about vehicles linking them to flights are useless if the flight is not actually confirmed. I suppose this exhibit could maybe be considered a valid source for flights 6 and 7 (in which case your other refs would be fine). There's still no source for Flight 8 though. Narnianknight (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

"Flight 8: Your second rebuttal addresses nothing in my second paragraph."

My apologies there, I hit publish early by accident, started correcting with source, and had to get to classes.

Twitter sources are minimized (and trust me, I hate using twitter). But if that's the source available (coming from a WP:RS), then its still a WP:RS. You also claim that the Flight 8 status for S34 is "is simply an assumption". Its a claim made by a WP:RS. That means its a reliable enough source to say "S34 is currently expected to be used on Starship Flight 8".

"Since every Falcon flight had a payload, it gives no precedence either way in the case of a launch with an empty payload bay."

Your claiming that the payload section lists the name of the mission, which the launch of Viasat 1 disproves.

"The payload column is the "defining" data point of each launch. It's the most important part of each entry, and if left blank, it's not immediately obvious what the launch was for."

That's what the text under each launch is for: to explain the reason behind the launch, and any additional information (such as cause of failure).

"You said, "the payload section does not list the mission name, except when there is a large number of payloads." In other words, when we can't use the name of the physical payload, we use the mission name."

There is precedent to leave it blank. Literally blank. See List of Atlas launches (1957–1959).

"The point is, sources primarily talking about vehicles linking them to flights are useless if the flight is not actually confirmed"

How are they useless. They list the vehicle, (S34, in this case), and the flight (Flight 8). That's a source listing the vehicle that will fly a certain flight. Thus, the flight can be listed.

"There's still no source for Flight 8"

NASASpaceflight is considered a WP:RS (again, read the FAQ. Its the very first section). So S34 is sourced. I'll try to find one for B15. Redacted II (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Understandable.

By the FAQ (sorry, previously didn't realize what that was), Starship Gazer wouldn't seem to be a notable source. Also, Chris Bergin tweeting is absolutely not the same as a NASASpaceflight.com article (the FAQ specifically mentions the website). Even if it was in an article, it's still speculation based on nothing but the vehicles. Outsider speculation is speculation no matter the notability.

I didn't claim the payload section lists the name of the mission. I said that the mission name is used if the payload name can't be.

The list is much easier to parse if there's something in the payload section. The description is just there to supplement it. What is actually wrong with having it there?

That's irrelevant:

1. Those flights didn't have widely accepted names like these do
2. The Function and Orbit columns explains why they didn't (they were all suborbital ICBM tests, not exactly a one to one comparison)
3. This list has greater public interest (by orders of magnitude) and should thus meet a higher standard of readability (the Starship list is the one less readable with a black blank payload section, not the Atlas list)

Like I said above, they do not meet the standard to list a flight. If there were an official source like the fcc.gov exhibit (by the way, do you think we should ref that for flights 6 & 7 or not?) that confirms the flight, the tweets would arguably be good enough sources for which vehicles fly on said flight, but not for the flight itself.

Again, speculation is speculation, no matter the likelihood of the outcome. Narnianknight (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

"By the FAQ (sorry, previously didn't realize what that was), Starship Gazer wouldn't seem to be a notable source"

It provides redundant sourcing. On their own, Starship Gazer does not count as WP:RS. But it seems wrong to not include a source that can easily be listed/

"Also, Chris Bergin tweeting is absolutely not the same as a NASASpaceflight.com"

Go check the NASASpaceflight website. There is a section called "Tweets by NASASpaceflight"/"Posts from @NASASpaceflight" (If this is an actual account, sorry for @ ing you). Guess which account that links too? So, those tweets are endorsed by NSF.

And the FAQ is mainly regarding videos. So NASASpaceflight is in reference to NASASpaceflight.com, their youtube videos, and likely their tweets as well.

"The Function and Orbit columns explains why they didn't (they were all suborbital ICBM tests, not exactly a one to one comparison)"

Both are launches of a (somewhat) orbital-grade vehicle.

"This list has greater public interest (by orders of magnitude) and should thus meet a higher standard of readability (the Starship list is the one less readable with black payload section, not the Atlas list)"

I'm confused: the N/a template is a light grey. Are you using Dark mode?"

by the way, do you think we should ref that for flights 6 & 7 or not?"

100% yes.

"the tweets would arguably be good enough sources for which vehicles fly on said flight, but not for the flight itself"

They do list a flight (and I do want to mention, Elon is not a reliable source. At all). The don't say "we believe that vehicle X will fly on flight Y" They say "Vehicle X will fly on Flight Y". That is a definitive statement. Redacted II (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I've added the ref for Flights 6 & 7.

"Black" was a typo.

I'm not sure how those tweets can be considered anything other than speculation. The editors' note (originally from the Falcon list) explicitly says "Only officially announced missions should be listed, no rumors or speculation." How are these sources official in any capacity? I have not found anything on the internet suggesting NSF or SSG have an official source for Flight 8. I want to make sure you know by "speculation," I do not mean WP:OR; I mean speculative sources. Narnianknight (talk) 03:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

"I've added the ref for Flights 6 & 7."

Thanks. I tried earlier, but gave up when the autoref generator failed.

"explicitly says "Only officially announced missions should be listed, no rumors or speculation."

Then this should be modified. Flight 8 has reliable sources, so it can be listed.

"I want to make sure you know by "speculation," I do not mean WP:OR; I mean speculative sources."

I know the difference. Redacted II (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

In a few months, there will undoubtedly be official information about Flight 8. We can simply wait for an official source. Removing the requirement to not allow speculative sources opens a huge can of worms. Judging from the sheer number of sections in the Falcon list talk page, I think they knew what they were doing when they added that requirement. Adding speculative sources does not fit the spirit of WP policy.

I've posted a request at WP:3O. We're not getting anywhere. Narnianknight (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I could try to notify Project Spaceflight and Project Rocketry Redacted II (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Narnianknight (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Done.

I mostly used your WP:3O message, but clarified that the second dispute is regarding flights with no payload. Redacted II (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Third Party Opinion- I don't think we're in the business of predicting the future, so the section title "Future launches" should be replaced by "Planned launches." Assuming that, we don't have access to information on the current plans SpaceX has, and we know SpaceX plans change over time. What we have are reports of plans, and we know the reliability of those reports. I suggest replacing the table with prose, fully indicating the dates and sources of the information about planned launches. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 18:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Partial agree:

Planned launches is better wording, but IMO, a table is much better for this task than a paragraph. Redacted II (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Tables for planned launches labeled "Future launches" is standard across many "List of {rocket} launches" lists. Your opinion does not address either controversy. Narnianknight (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Prose allows for content like, "Spaceflight journalist Marcia Berger speculated that Starship Flight 8 might take place in 2025." That's difficult to squeeze into a table entry. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 23:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Not really: just write "NET 2025", with "Spaceflight journalist Marcia Berger" as the source. Redacted II (talk) 01:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

BTW, how can a "flight test" be the "Payload", as it is in the tables?

If there is no load (and not payed for anyway), then put in nothing. 47.69.102.202 (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for not answering, but that has been changed anywaymeanwhile (if I had done that, it would have been reverted for sure, while accusing me of vandalism or edis warring...) 47.67.225.78 (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

If you had read the comments above, you'd realize that I was trying to get those labels removed. Redacted II (talk) 16:05, 17 October 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)

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)

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)

Flight test 6 date

Redacted II The tweet cited for the November 2024 date is not a valid source. It is speculation on the part of the author, not an announcement of a launch. Please wait until we have official confirmation of the date. Narnianknight (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Official confirmation of a date is not required for listing the launch date. Confirmation is only required for listing the launch itself (and Flight 6 has been confirmed).

And there are guidlines for when the launch date is more finalized

"When a more exact launch date is announced, we add a new source next to the date." - List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy Launches Redacted II (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

We don't actually have a launch date estimate at all, so we list 2024 as the most general NET date so it isn't left blank (NET 2024 cannot be incorrect; it also doesn't really make a claim like "October 2024" would).

Usually the main ref is in the payload column, and the date has no ref, assuming the date is included in the main source (the payload column is blank here; we could still put the ref there though I suppose). That sentence just means a ref to an updated date that is more accurate than the main source. However, we don't have such a source yet. The NET date should therefore be left generalized until a plan is announced. Narnianknight (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Since we don't have a "main source", then (almost) any source is more accurate. And I hope it doesn't need to be repeated, but NSF is a WP:RS. Thus, the claim of "Flight 6 in November!" is a reliable one.

If SpaceX does later say "Flight 6 NET December", then it will be updated. Until then, NET November is the best date we have. Redacted II (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

You cannot just claim "NSF is WP:RS," and suddenly everything that comes from the organization is a reliable source. You are the only one who claims this as far as I'm aware (besides, the FAQ only mentions the website; also WP:RSPTWITTER). Chris Bergin's tweet does not claim that SpaceX plan to launch in November. It merely suggests the possibility in his opinion. Feel free to ask him his intentions if you disagree. If NSF did have insider knowledge about SpaceX's plans, they would put it in an article or at least clarify that the source of the info is external to their own opinions. "A bad source is better than no source" is not a good argument and is not correct. Narnianknight (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, official confirmation is not needed. SpaceX does not need to say "Launch in November" for the article to list "NET November"

For example, if "Official confirmation was used for IFT-4, the IFT-4 date would have stated "NET 2024" until May 24. 13 days before launch. IIRC, IFT-5 came 6 days before launch. That, IMO, is undesirable.

The Chris Bergin tweet supports the claim of a November launch for IFT-6. That claim doesn't need insider info. Redacted II (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe the Falcon 9 list people knew what they were doing when they said, "Future launches are listed chronologically when firm plans are in place." NextSpaceflight is also run (or sponsored or something) by NSF, and it says NET 2024. I repeat, Chris Bergin never claimed a launch in would happen in November. He said, "... it really could be game on for Flight 6 in November!" merely claiming the possibility of such an occurrence. That is what the word "could" means. The presentation of information should be based on meaningful sources, not desirability. Narnianknight (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

NET:

No Earlier Than. Or, a possibility.

The possibility was repeated here maybe ten minutes ago. Redacted II (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

All dates in the list are implicitly NET as well. What's your point? Narnianknight (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

That saying its claiming the possibility of a launch in November is sufficient to list "NET November" Redacted II (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems we fundamentally disagree on what the Future launches section is. I believe it is a collection of planned launches. Correct me if I'm wrong: you believe it is a collection of possible launches. Thus, I believe a plan for each detail must be cited, and you believe a possibility for each detail must be cited. Is that accurate? Narnianknight (talk) 01:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Your interpretation of how I view the Future Launches section is incorrect.

We do agree that it is a collection of planned launches (though "Inclusion criteria for Future launces" points out our disagreement in this area: you want official confirmation of the launch, while I think a sourced statement from NSF or similar media is sufficient). (Please correct me if I'm wrong here) But while you want each detail to be cited via official sources, like before, I view NSF as a sufficiently reliable source to list details like NET dates.

A source backing the possibility of a launch in November is, IMO, sufficient to list that launch as set for NET November. Redacted II (talk) 01:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Obviously the source does not have to come directly from a launch provider or payload customer, but I think the information must have ultimately originated from one or the other (to the best of our knowledge). I view nasaspaceflight.com articles to be sufficiently reliable sources, but not tweets that are not making specific claims of launch provider intent. NSF (tweets and articles) do a good job of using language like "possibly," "likely," "perhaps," and "could" when they speculate rather than passing off their own ideas as fact. This is one thing that sets them apart as reliable. Because of this, it's pretty easy to tell whether they are making a claim of fact or providing their own opinions. I believe the former, not the latter, make valid WP sources. If NSF unequivocally make a claim that SpaceX or anyone else will do something, I won't doubt them just because there's not confirmation through official channels. Narnianknight (talk) 02:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, thanks for correcting my assumption!

I still must disagree: information doesn't have to originate from the launch provider (SpaceX) or payload customer (also SpaceX). I have tried adding a note to such claims from NSF, but it broke the reflist, and so was removed (the exact note was: "Estimate from NASASpaceflight, unconfirmed by SpaceX"). Redacted II (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

If the ultimate origin of the information is not from the planners, then the source is just making things up. Sorry for waxing philosophical here, but intent can by definition only originate from the mind of the intender. If this is to be a list of planned items, the items had better actually be planned.

We can keep arguing about this, but either way, in this particular case, Chris Bergin did not make any claims about SpaceX's plans. Narnianknight (talk) 03:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Intent can be inferred (but not confirmed).

Chris Bergin has claimed that a November launch is possible. Adding a note to such claims would be preferable, but such notes induce errors in the reflist Redacted II (talk) 11:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Intent such as planning to fly a suborbital trajectory can be inferred, because they have only done that so far (along with other evidence); however, intent of launch date cannot be inferred without evidence, as it is unpredictable.

The list is about things SpaceX are planning, and Bergin made no claim to what they are planning. Narnianknight (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

But there is evidence.

B13 is already on the OLM, which was the evidence referenced in the source. Redacted II (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, that's evidence that there is a possibility of November in Bergin's opinion, not evidence that SpaceX are planning for November. Narnianknight (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

But the possibility of November is all that is needed to list that the launch is NET November Redacted II (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

You have failed to demonstrate how Bergin's opinions qualify as SpaceX's plans. Narnianknight (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, the source doesn't have to say "SpaceX is planning to fly in November", only that November is the earliest that they can fly. Redacted II (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Why do we care about a guess of the earliest date they can fly? If we want to write fan trivia for what SpaceX could do, we can do that over on the Fandom Starship SpaceX Wiki.

How have you determined that a list of things SpaceX is planning should include things other than SpaceX's plans? Narnianknight (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It can include claims from reliable sources (like NSF) describing the earliest date SpaceX can launch.

NET is No Earlier Than. The possibility of a launch. So a source that says that they might launch in November is sufficient for saying that they might launch in November. Redacted II (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

That answers neither of my questions.

Why would we lower our standards that far? By that logic, I could go find any prediction or idea of what could happen from the commentators on an NSF stream, put it here, and pass it off as SpaceX's official plan. This would obviously be disingenuous, because they were not reporting on SpaceX's plans and were not pretending to do so.

If we allow sources like that, it is no longer a list of future launches but rather a Fun Compilation of Things People on the Internet Think SpaceX Might Do. Narnianknight (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The question isn't "Why we should lower our standards that far", its "Why we should raise it that high"

Looking at this dif, source for IFT-3 was a Musk Tweet. As does this dif for IFT-4.

This one uses SpaceNews, which IIRC, is not WP:RS.

This dif uses a NSF video for IFT-5.

Prior precedent does not put the bar where you think it is.

(Also, I did try to add a note labeling a similar statement as claim from NSF previously, but it did mess with the reflist) Redacted II (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Elon Musk works at SpaceX. SpaceX employees are the ones doing the planning.

Jeff Foust was reporting on a direct statement from a SpaceX employee.

The transcript of that video does not even contain the word August. We cannot justify bad refs with other bad refs in the past (there have been many).

To determine whether a source supports a statement, we have to look at all aspects of the source, not just some golden status of "WP:RS." From WP:NEWSORG:

"News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content."

"Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis."

"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces ... are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. (see also § Statements of opinion, below)."

From Talk:SpaceX Starship:

"NASASpaceFlight.com, generally reliable but need some check to separate speculation from reported facts, as with the case of freshly reported news."

If we look at this source circumspectly, we realize

1. This is Twitter, not nasaspaceflight.com, and thus deserves a higher level of scrutiny than a news article
2. Bergin uses the account as a personal account
3. Most importantly, the tweet does not make a claim about SpaceX's plans

It is not usually very hard to differentiate between sources that make specific claims and ones that are opinion in nature. It is only reasonable to keep this list to only things that SpaceX is planning and to treat sources that are not even claiming to report plans as just that. Narnianknight (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

How does a source that says "could be game on for Flight 6 in November" not support "NET November 2024"

All your arguments have failed to explain how a source that suggests the possibility of a launch in November cannot be used to state the possibility of a launch in November.

But, I'm going to just stop, because this is going nowhere. Redacted II (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

A source that suggests the possibility of a launch in November can be used to state the possibility of a launch in November. However, this is not a list of possibilities. It is a list of SpaceX's plans. No amount of "NSF is WP:RS" can change the fact that a source that does not make a claim about SpaceX's plans cannot be used to support a claim about SpaceX's plans. Narnianknight (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2024/10/spacex-aces-flight-5-flight-6/

"Both vehicles are now Static-Fired and ready for integrated testing ahead of a potential November launch"

I'm readding the November 2024 launch date. Redacted II (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Definition of launch failure in this article

Hello all! What constitutes a launch as a failure for the purposes of this article? Should this context be added to the article to give better clarification of why some may call launches a failure while others call them a success? Macota99 (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

If you want to know editors' rationale for each decision, be prepared for some book-length reading. The decisions were not made lightly and will not be changed. You can find the discussions in the archives of Talk:SpaceX Starship (the links are in the box at the top).

We could try to put a section in explaining it, but I suspect it would be futile to try to boil the decisions down to a sentence or two that all the editors would agree with. Fortunately, success/failure should be less contentious going forward, once payloads are being flown. Narnianknight (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

To sumarize (so that you don't have to wade through ten pages of arguments):

(EDIT: Changed Orbit to Trajectory, as IFT-3 through IFT-5 were suborbital -Redacted II)

Destruction of vehicle means failure. This includes FTS (see IFT-2)

Failure to reach orbit the intended trajectory means failure.

Reaching a usable orbit trajectory, but not the desired one, is a partial failure.

Success is right orbit if the vehicle reaches the intended trajectory.

So, launch success is determined (for these cargoless flights) at the moment of SECO. Redacted II (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

And to be clear, "orbit" here means intended trajectory. Narnianknight (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, my bad. Redacted II (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

More wp:or, reverted

Reverted the boasted NET November: Once more original research from a speculating source just saying "Flight 6 may be only a few weeks away." This is not a fact and not even stating November! If not everything, making "November" out of "few weeks" is wp:or at the worst! 47.67.225.78 (talk) 09:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

"SpaceX completed a significant milestone in the Starship program with Flight 5 and is set to try to repeat it for Flight 6. Both vehicles are now Static-Fired and ready for integrated testing ahead of a potential November launch."

Read the source next time. Redacted II (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Redacted II once more reverted my edit, violating not only citation and OR rules, but edit warring. Neither "a potential November launch" nor "Flight 6 may be only a few weeks away" in this speculative source in anything we can state here as fact! It is speculation, it es markes as speculation in the source, and the source is known to be speculative at best anyway. As this is not the first time for him boasting and stretching questionable news from dubious sources, he once more shows he is not willing to constructively co-work but insists in his "I own this article" attitude. So sad seing an sole individual corrumpting numerous articles. 47.67.225.78 (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

List the rules I violated. With direct quotations.

I'll wait. Redacted II (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)