Talk:SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 1/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Starship Test Flight Patch.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Temporarily removed uncited material

I removed the following material from the live article due to the high risk of citogenesis (from breaking news outlets), moving it here so sources can be found before it's added back in:

Formerly at the end of the first lead paragraph:

and consequently also made the largest rocket explosion in history since the N1 rocket of the Soviet Union.

Formerly the third lead paragraph:

Starship's maiden orbital launch attempt also marks the most thrust ever produced by a rocket. However, because SpaceX intentionally minimized the launch protection infrastructure (such as not installing a water deluge system or a flame diverter), the rocket caused severe damage to the spaceport and surrounding infrastructure. The concrete underlying the launch mount and the rocket was completely blown off, leading debris to shower the spaceport and dust to fly to outside the launch exclusion zone.

DFlhb (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for removing these sections. While I have seen speculation on Twitter around the former third lead paragraph, we need an actual source before making that claim. I have not seen any evidence to support that the explosion was on the scale of the N1, and any such evidence will likely require an analysis of the explosion to determine its magnitude. Rainclaw7 (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

So I did find a few preliminary secondary sources. The second passage ("former third lead paragraph") seems both verifiable and accurate at first glance.

• For "most thrust ever", I found this source, but it seems so uncontroversial that I bet we already cite sources that support this
• For the water deluge and flame trench, I found this source, which while self-published, seems plenty reliable
• For damage to the launch pad, I found a Gizmodo article and this WaPo article which support the sentence at first glance

Still looking for a source on the N1 comparison. DFlhb (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Second passage now restored, with citations DFlhb (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Time zone name

Should we use CT or CDT? Saltq (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I changed it to all instances of CDT to CT Saltq (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

CDT, although admittedly I'm following my own precedent in spaceflight article editing, I like it because it adds specificity to the date Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense Saltq (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Comparison to the N1

Is there a source for the comparison in the lede to the N1 rocket explosion? Unless we have a source describing the explosion's magnitude, I don't think we can make that specific claim. Rainclaw7 (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I noticed that too. Booster 7 was mostly empty when the destruct command was sent in this case, where as the N1 was fully fueled at the time of the explosion. PythosIsAwesome (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

It was the fourth (and last) N1 flight that made it until MECO and failed to separate the stages. The major explosion you're talking about happened during N1's second launch attempt. Starship's flight and issues were similar to those of N1's fourth flight. 2001:4BC9:1F90:19FF:934:FC6C:4FC4:4FE9 (talk) 06:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Consistency of Units

Per the MOS, the units should be consistent, in this article they are all over the place. This could be considered science and SpaceX uses SI units, even displaying them to the public. I think the SI units need to be first. Avi8tor (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Should we have a photo of the explosion?

It could improve the article Saltq (talk) 05:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

We'd need a freely-licensed image. C-SPAN has it (at 13:35), but it's low-resolution, and there isn't much to see. Don't think it's worth including unless we find better footage. DFlhb (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks like even though C-SPAN's US Gov coverage is freely-licensed, this isn't. DFlhb (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

NPOV

@FinTGM, going by the comments in #Explosion should be mentioned earlier in the lead section and #Possible restoration of concrete impact passage, there's consensus for minimizing trivia in the lead and presenting RS criticism of the lack of acoustic suppression. Reverting those gives undue weight to SpaceX's perspective. RAN1 (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I also find the wording "early conclusion" irritating. For comparison, the wording in the Challenger disaster article is "broke apart". The better word in the starship case may be "exploded", that's also easy to find sources for , i.e. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/20/science/spacex-launch-explosion-elon-musk.html. C9po (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I modified the lead so that it mentions that the Starship exploded. Carpimaps (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 15 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. The title proposed originally is not precise enough, and the second proposal is also not appropriate, as 64.229.90.172 and 2A02:C7F:2CE3:4700:F4E1:539D:24BE:6186 showed. The third and fourth proposed titles are simply too long and are not reflective of the flight's common name. Per WP:NOGOODOPTIONS, I have closed this as no consensus. If an editor believes the current title is still not appropriate, they should file a new move request. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks (contribs) 11:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

---

SpaceX Starship orbital test flight → Starship Flight Test – As I explained in a previous topic on this talk page, "Starship Flight Test" appears to be the official name used by SpaceX, on their webpage and live webcast. Although concerns that the test flight may be confused with other test flight may be warranted, this is exactly what hatnotes like Template:About should be applied.

Relevant: WP:TITLE, specifically WP:QUALIFIER.

[osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 06:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Paging @CactiStaccingCrane [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 06:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

There isn't enough precision in the Starship flight test name. For the uninitiated Starship Flight Test can mean many things: Starhopper hops, or SN5/SN6 hops or even the high-altitude flight test of SN8/9/10/15. The current name, while longer and not "official", is not ambiguous. Even in inner spaceflight circles this Starship flight is usually referred to as OFT - Orbital Flight Test. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

"Starship Flight Test" appears to be the official name, or as official as it gets I suppose.

I mentioned this exact point you are raising in my two previous comments on this topic — hatnotes are used to disambiguate between much more ambiguous titles, so why not here?

Citation for "inner spaceflight circles"? Doesn't seem reliable to me. [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 07:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

OPPOSE. The starship has already had test flights. This is the first orbital one, therefore, it's name should remain SpaceX Starship orbital test flight. Redacted II (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that this test flight was *not* an orbital flight, rather it was a sub-orbital test-flight, with Starship returning to Earth with a hard-water landing in the Pacific off the coast of Hawai'i. Starship would not have completed an orbit of Earth. 76.146.142.66 (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Support - Although there is a slight disambiguation problem with List of SpaceX Starship flight tests, official denomination should prevail. If more flight tests come and they all have the same denomination "Starship Flight Test", we might need to number them. And it would be consistent to have the first one named "Starship Flight Test 1" like the others and not "SpaceX Starship Orbital Test Flight". Even if most of those flight tests don't get an article but get arranged in a list. CodemWiki (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it'll come to that like how there are literally dozens of missions named "Starlink Mission" but we'll come to that when we have to (which is still quite a ways away). [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 21:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Support - or rename it to Starship 250-km altitude flight test Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

My reasoning is that this is precise enough, given Starship (the second stage) won't complete a full orbit, and "Starship suborbital flight test" is too easily confused with previous atmospheric tests; if more tests are announced number them sequentially Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Hold for now; I see the reasoning behind the change suggestion, but, alas, there is at present no pressing reason for the change, well, so SpaceX names something officially, but our article title works from an external point of view: we add the SpaceX name, and we indicate that it is an orbital flight test (whereas the previous ones were suborbital flight tests). If future tests are announced/ conducted, a suitable change (e. g. to include the plural) would be in order. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The flight test is scheduled for NET 12 hours right now and will likely be ITN once it launches. There is some degree of urgency to this [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 01:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Pardon my bluntness, but this urgency rather eludes me. If anything, the redirect already in place is sufficient for the time being, in my opinion. --Ouro (blah blah) 01:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - the title seems definitely too generic if we remove SpaceX. Spaceship is a common name that people do not automatically associate with SpaceX. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose While the reasoning behind the proposed move is definitely valid, including the fact that the test is orbital will definitely prevent a lot of confusion. Furthermore, the titles of articles don't always completely reflect the official names; for example, Crew Dragon Demo-2 was officially called Crew Demo-2 and SpaceX Demo-2, but the article has a different name. Liljimbo (talk)

Oppose Prefer to keep the current title for now and reassess in the future. The proposed title is too generic, and there's no urgency to change. GoPats (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - New title isn't specific enough. There have been other, sub-orbital Starship flight tests. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose there have been multiple "Starship" flight tests already. Most of them exploded when they landed. If it is renamed, it needs a date attached. It probably should have a date or number attached regardless, as there will be other flight tests in the future -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - True that this is the title, but it seems to just be a placeholder title by SpaceX. I'm not sure that it's the official mission title, and in any case it would be too general and not specific enough. ChekhovsGunman (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Multiple flight tests have been already performed, maybe "SpaceX Starship orbital test flight 1" could be used in the future Saltq (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Current title, while unofficial, is not as ambiguous as a "Starship Flight Test" (which, if the name is used again for another flight test [which is likely, with how generic it is], the article's title would have to be changed again). - Cheers, KoolKidz112 (hit me up) 12:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Strong support Current title is misleading as the flight did not, and was never intended to reach orbit (it was planned to get close to orbit, but not quite go all the way). Using the official name removes this problem, and we can always revisit the name when the second test occurs if that creates ambiguity 2A02:C7F:2CE3:4700:F4E1:539D:24BE:6186 (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The flight WAS intended on reaching orbit! Just a "trans-atmospheric orbit', where perigee is below the karman line Redacted II (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Which is, by definition, not orbital 2A02:C7F:2CE3:4700:F4E1:539D:24BE:6186 (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as it is less specific and possibly more confusing than the current title Chaosdruid (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose since removing the reference to SpaceX could potentially be confusing as there are other Starships. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Starship maiden test flight

Alternative proposition now that it flew: How about Starship maiden test flight since it didn't really reach orbit? --Ouro (blah blah) 14:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Strong support for Starship maiden test flight - As the flight was not orbital. Some of the future launches will eventually reach orbit, whereas this one was not even planned to be orbital but only trans-atmospheric. Not even SpaceX referred to this flight as orbital. CodemWiki (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Support. I like this and concur with CodemWiki. – The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 16:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Support {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Support I think this is appropriate, perhaps SpaceX Starship maiden test flight to be even more clear? PythosIsAwesome (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Support for SpaceX Starship maiden flight or SpaceX Starship maiden test flight 2001:4BC9:1FB0:D51C:7099:CA4C:9AD6:973F (talk) 06:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Support In my opinion it's more suitable because per nom, the ship did not really reach orbit. Gtgamer79 (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Support It is a more suitable name per nom. The person who loves reading (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Support per nom, this makes sense. - Cheers, KoolKidz112 (hit me up) 14:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Support my main problem with the current title is that SpaceX is not needed in the title, and of course it wasn't orbital so this proposed title makes sense. Yeoutie (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose This is not the maiden test flight. There have been several test flights already, in which the Starship section generally has exploded on landing. The maiden test flight was taken by Starhopper, the prototype version of Starship. And several full-sized STarships have already flown before S24. This propsed name fails WP:AT it does not accurately describe the topic as a descriptive title, as it is not even close to being the maiden flight of smoething called Starship (from SpaceX). It is only the maiden orbital test flight, and not the mainden test flight. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment I will note that there are non-SpaceX Starships with maiden flights that are also not the topic of this article, so not the SpaceX maiden flight and not the maiden flight for other non-SpaceX Starships -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose this was the first integrated test flight, not the first flight overall, so proposed title is as misleading as the current one, just for a different reason. 2A02:C7F:2CE3:4700:F4E1:539D:24BE:6186 (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. As other's have said, this wasn't the first flight. It was just the first integrated flight. The current name is in no way misleading, so any change based on that principle shouldn't even be considered Redacted II (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Question — reaching orbit was the goal; should we remove "orbital" simply because it failed? Is this consistent with similar articles? As CactiStaccingCrane said above, the best candidate for WP:COMMONNAME seems to be (Starship) "orbital flight test" or "orbital test flight" (recent media sources either use "orbital" in the headline, or upon first mention of the launch). Doesn't it make sense to keep it, for recognizability? DFlhb (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  Reaching the orbit actually wasn't the goal at all, the test was suborbital by design! "The second stage would have followed a suborbital trajectory and performed an unpowered splashdown approximately 100 km off the northwest coast of Kauai (Hawaii)" [1] Ain92 (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose As 2A02 says, it was not the maiden flight of Starship. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

SpaceX Starship first integrated test flight

Or "First integrated test flight of the SpaceX Starship" --- While it is rather a meaty title, there are plenty out there with longer titles. We have to be accurate and reduce any possible confusion and I agree with 2A02 in that this was the "First integrated test flight of the SpaceX Starship". Chaosdruid (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Support Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

SpaceX Starship first integrated flight test

Support I support this one instead of the above one even though it has almost the same title but i prefer flight test intestead of test flight. Cause in " https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1wcilQ58hI&ab_channel=SpaceX " Spacex official starship flight test webcast, Spacex commentator mentioned it as "first integrated flight test" at 52:44 or you can also choose "SpaceX Starship first integrated orbital flight test" if you want but i prefer what the Spacex commentator said. " https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1649033533846097927 " even in this official Spacex twitter account tweet, Spacex mentions it as "Starship’s first integrated flight test". Also in my opinion you can also use "SpaceX Starship maiden integrated flight test" (cause maiden seems like a proper word instead of first and i am not adding the word orbital cause it was not supposed to go orbit anyway) or "SpaceX Starship integrated flight test" (cause I do not think using words like first, second or third in title is appopritate in this context and i think this is the best among the several titles i have mentioned cause this is close to what Spacex and Spacex commentator mentioned). or you can also add orbital to those titles even though i am against it (cause i have heard Transatmospheric Orbit is still orbit but i do now know, is it still orbit? since it wasnt planned to complete a single revolution aka rotation around earth) so you can probably use "SpaceX Starship maiden integrated orbital flight test" or "SpaceX Starship integrated orbital flight test". So i have many titles here and you can choose between them. Also I have only highlighted the proposed titles not any simple words.Swtadi143 (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Support for SpaceX Starship first integrated flight test I still maintain that this flight wasn't orbital and no one will remember this flight as "orbital". CodemWiki (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MaxQ

I do not think that MaxQ can be considered a success, of course the Starship reach a maximum Pdyn, at some point, but never reached the values of the predicted MaxQ due to suboptimal thrust. Hektor (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

At Max_q#In_rocket_launches the definition reads as the maximum experienced during the flight. Does that definition need adjustment? At T+1:18 SpaceX does call out MaxQ. Was that wrong? The scheduled MaxQ moment was T+0:55. Are the 23 seconds difference due to lower speed, lack of thrust? Should it really be a theoretical maximum based on optimal trust? Can't suboptimal be sufficient for a successful flight? Isn't there any redundancy in number of engines? Could MaxQ have been reached if only one or two engines failed? Please explain. Uwappa (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

In all honesty, considering that it held together during those crazy Kerbal loops, I am pretty sure the rocket endured FAR more than the calculated stress expected at the theoretical max-Q. It blew up cause it was intentionally detonated, not cause the aerodynamic pressure did something notable, as far as we know. 194.102.58.8 (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiDGb1CXw4I&t=180 at 3:00, Chris Hadfield, retired astronaut: "They made it through the speed of sound, through maximum pressure". Uwappa (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

It actually got bent up during those loops. There is an image where you can see the deformation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8q24QLXixo&t=453s&ab_channel=ScottManley CtrlDPredator (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Max q is dependant on velocity and altitude/air-pressure. Starship flight profile was different than planned due to the loss of multiple engines. It wouldn't have reached the same Max q as a nominal launch.

Absolutely a partial success on Max q for the test launch. CtrlDPredator (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Great comments by Scott Manley, including good footage on damaged launch site. Added a ref in Damage chapter. As for MaxQ: Updated table in flight profile. Uwappa (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Explosion should be mentioned earlier in the lead section

As it is now, the explosion is the last thing mentioned in the lead section, with the opening paragraph dedicated instead to describing how impressive the launch was. Most Wikipedia readers do not read the whole article, or even the whole lead section, and the actual events of the launch should probably be mentioned earlier and more clearly than “safety personnel were forced to activate the flight termination systems.” 49.184.15.181 (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I removed "forced", which sounded awkward. But I oppose this, since our articles should be understandable, not dumbed down. An encyclopedia shouldn't try to appeal to low-attention-span folks, who can just read the tabloids. Nor do I think the most powerful rocket ever flown is about "how impressive the launch was"; it's factual information. The current lead simply follows the chronology. DFlhb (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I abridged the lead anyways since it was listing off trivia. RAN1 (talk) 07:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks; was indeed necessary — DFlhb (talk) 10:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

At some point this suggestion had been adopted, despite opposition from @DFlhb above—and let me add my own—or consensus? I did happen to restore the natural/chronological ordering before seeing this discussion; I hope that’s ok. 67.185.21.25 (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Removed talk of "huge debris cloud" from lead

This is a minor point and isn't really relevant. Rockets kick up dust when they launch and this is not abnormal. Also Port Isabel was not "covered" in silt. Ergzay (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Engine failures in intro?

FinTGM has been removing any mention of the engine failures from the intro ([1][2][3]). I think we should include that fact, what do you all think? RAN1 (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, he constantly claims that there are no official sources claiming that quantify the number of engines that failed during flight, but firstly, SpaceX have said themselves that "The vehicle experienced multiple engines out during the flight test", and telemetry from the bottom of their official livestream shows that at least 5 engine failed by the end of the flight, and that 3 failed after liftoff (as I cited in my edit that he later removed). Secondly, as long as we make it clear that the sources are only assuming, we don't need to use information exclusively from the official source. Trustworthy astronomers and news articles. Horizon206 (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Whilst one or two of the engines were out. This was not visible on the engine of the diagram on the SpaceX webcast. Official data of the engines is most likely different to the active telemetry of the engines shown on the webcast. SpaceX needs to identify how many Raptor engines lit out, if any relighted all of a sudden, and what cause the initial failure in the first place. We can update the quantity of how many Raptor engines lit-out once official information of the flight has been released in potentially a few weeks time. Please take this seriously. FinTGM (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Do not listen to anyone who claims it is acceptable to include assumptions from sources. Yes, whilst the origins of the information may have derived from trust-worthy news organisations and especially “space-oriented” magazine websites, the information present basically translates into “let’s guess how many Raptor engines failed throughout the flight”. Whilst it may be obvious to the human eye how many Raptor engines lit-out during ascent, official investigation reports released by SpaceX and the FAA in potentially the few coming weeks from now will detail all of the successes and failures of the performance of the vehicle during the flight test. Another point is that one article from a website may state for example “So it appeared 5 raptor engines had lit-out during ascent”. Another may have described “As Starship ascended through the clouds, 8 raptors appeared to have failed. And another might have said “Whilst it was not obvious how many raptors failed to ignite, it does appear that 6 raptor engines have failed during the test flight”. This shows what happens when you consider sources which do not rely on official information! The reports are essentially the only evidence which can be used to recount the test flight. Who knows… an unknown amount of raptors may have ignited or shutdown whilst S24/B7 was in locations where the engines are hardly visible. This counts especially from liftoff behind the tsunami of smoke and dust and whilst the vehicle was in an uncontrolled spin following MAX-Q. See my point now? Seems like I am one of the only people who have common sense. How about we wait for some clear evidence from SpaceX and the FAA and not instead rely on sources which include assumptions from visually watching the rocket ascending! Please use common sense! Thank you. FinTGM (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

We don't need a count to say what every RS clearly states: Multiple engines failed. There's no speculation, it's accurate and verifiable, and it's a relevant result in a test flight. RAN1 (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Can’t the telemetry-derived engine status indicators from the official SpaceX stream be considered a consistent and reliable (albeit primary) source for here, pending any more detailed technical post-mortem report? There’s no room for dispute about that telemetry info, if one cared to extract it frame-by-frame. 67.185.21.25 (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

We can't evaluate primary sources because it would be unverifiable original research, otherwise we would just source it to a time link. RAN1 (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree with User:RAN1: The intro can describe: multiple engines failed. That is relevant and beyond any doubt. The report will answer questions such as: How many? When? Why? Those answers can go to the 20 April chapter. The current chapter Reactions does a fine job of describing several points of view. Uwappa (talk) 05:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I concur that engine failures can go in the intro.

I would also argue that a sentence about the heavy damage to the launch pad belongs in the intro. That's because of Musk's preflight statements that a primary goal of the test was avoiding such damage and that such damage would take months to repair. PRRfan (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Elon Musk's opinion on "hopefully not blowing up the launchpad" in intro?

I am refering to this paragraph in the introduction :

"Before the launch, SpaceX officials said they would measure the mission's success "by how much we can learn" and that various planned mission events "are not required for a successful test." CEO Elon Musk said another metric of success was “Just don’t blow up the launchpad" because it would “probably take us several months to rebuild the launchpad if we melt it”."

While necessary for WP:NPOV, shouldn't this paragraph be moved to the Background section (first section of article)? It's not a short version of something that will be explained more thoroughly in a section of the article, it's a brand new paragraph about information that will not be explained later. Since it details what SpaceX and Elon Musk thought before the launch, it just makes more sense to place it in #Background. CodemWiki (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The goals of a test flight are its very reason for being, so the intro should list them, however briefly—and then explain more deeply later. I think the two sentences quoted above are a succinct description for the intro. If editors prefer, we could slim that to: "Before the launch, SpaceX officials said they would measure the mission's success "by how much we can learn", while CEO Elon Musk said another metric was “Just don’t blow up the launchpad"." PRRfan (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree. SpaceX's statements are not preemptive PR damage control, but rather, neutral reflections of SpaceX's more trial-and-error-based development process. DFlhb (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

References

fewer words, more clarity?

FinTGM has reverted my edit of this sentence:

"A failure after liftoff led the Flight Termination System to destroy the Starship and Super Heavy booster around T+4:00 of the test flight."

to his:

"A failure which occurred following liftoff had caused the Flight Termination System to initiate on both the Starship and Super Heavy booster destroying both vehicles at around T+4:00 of the test flight."

I'd argue that the shorter version does the work with greater clarity and fewer words. Any expansion is better kept for the longer explanation in the body of the article. Thoughts, anyone? PRRfan (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

And I'd argue that we could do better yet by adding important context:

"The vehicle reached an apogee of about 39 km before entering an uncontrolled tumble, leading autonomous safety systems to destroy the Starship and Super Heavy booster around four minutes after liftoff." PRRfan (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion: "The vehicle passed Max q and reached and apogee of 39 km before an uncontrolled tumble. Around T+4:00 the Flight termination system destroyed both vehicles." Uwappa (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd suggest that "max q", "flight termination system", and even "T+4:00" are technical terms better left for the article than the intro. I also think it's better not to say "The vehicle" and then "both vehicles". How about: "The vehicle passed Max q and reached an apogee of about 39 km before entering an uncontrolled tumble, leading autonomous safety systems to destroy the Starship and Super Heavy booster around four minutes after liftoff." PRRfan (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Chop it into several, shorter sentences. Not sure if the flight termination system is autonomous. Skip the T+4:00 time and the 'after liftoff'. The precise time is not so relevant. Flight termination BEFORE liftoff would not make sense.

New suggestion with less words: "The vehicle passed Max q and reached an apogee of about 39 km. After an uncontrolled tumble the safety systems destroyed the Starship and Super Heavy booster." Uwappa (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Good point on "autonomous"; that was left over from someone's earlier edit. (And I looked up SpaceX's post-flight statement, which said the destruction was "commanded", which suggests it was not autonomous.) I think we need "four minutes after liftoff", not because (as you point out) we need to stress that it happened after liftoff, but because we need to say when it happened: early in the flight. How about: "The vehicle passed Max q and reached an apogee of about 39 km, then entered an uncontrolled tumble. About four minutes after liftoff, the safety systems destroyed the Starship and Super Heavy booster." PRRfan (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we need "unplanned"; plus RAN1 reminds me that "apogee" is for orbits, so: "The vehicle passed Max q and reached an altitude of about 39 km, then entered an unplanned, uncontrolled tumble. About four minutes after liftoff, the safety systems destroyed the Starship and Super Heavy booster." PRRfan (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Altitude is good, consistent with SpaceX terminology in the launch video. The 'unplanned uncontrolled' does not make sense, as there is no 'planned controlled' tumble during ascent. Simply 'tumble' suffices. The loss of altitude tells a story that things did not go as planned, more than the exact time. Termination would also have occurred with altitude loss at 2, 3, or 5 minutes. New suggestion:

"The vehicle passed Max q and reached an altitude of 39 km. After it tumbled to 30km the safety systems destroyed the Starship and Super Heavy booster."

For the "early in flight" a small graph would be nice. Time on the x-axis, altitude on y-axis. Uwappa (talk) 05:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I like your graph idea. This ("...reached an altitude of 39 km. After it tumbled...") requires the reader to make unnecessary leaps. Also, "unplanned" is necessary somewhere; it's the first time the article tells the reader that all did not go as planned. And the time is necessary; the reader cannot be expected to know how long it would take to reach 39 km. How about: "The vehicle passed Max q and reached an altitude of 39 km, then began an unplanned, uncontrolled tumble. At 30km and four minutes after launch, the safety systems destroyed the Starship and Super Heavy booster." PRRfan (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll be happy to create the Graph as soon as the Graph template is back up, with 1:19 9km maxQ, 1:25 10km, 1:58 20km, 2:26 30km, 3:09 39 km, 3:59 29km. That graph will tell the story well.

You have a point with the leap. That leap can be smaller by introducing 'peak altitude' and a 'however'. I'd prefer tumble and 30km to be in the same sentence, e.g.:

"The vehicle passed Max q and reached a peak altitude of 39 km. However four minutes after launch it had tumbled to 29km when the safety systems destroyed the Starship and Super Heavy booster." Uwappa (talk) 09:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

We're still jumping past "something unexpected happened" and leaving the reader with no sense of how long this all took. How about: "The vehicle passed Max q and reached a peak altitude of 39 km, then unexpectedly began to tumble. At 29 km, about four minutes after liftoff, the safety systems destroyed the Starship and Super Heavy booster." PRRfan (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

That looks good. Go for it! Uwappa (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Great; thanks! PRRfan (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@PRRfan Starship is not equipped with a method of commanding flight termination from the ground so SpaceX's own statement on this is incorrect. There is no range control officer that controls flight termination on Starship. Furthermore, FAA themselves stated that the autonomous flight termination system was activated. Ergzay (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Cleaned up article

I've cleaned up the article, if people have issues with the edits lets please not wholesale revert the edits and instead actually constructively discuss the edits. I spent a lot of time and effort cleaning this up so please don't try to throw away all the work. It's important to judiciously use sources in a way that does not inflate fiction into reality. Please be careful of WP:FALSEBALANCE in fixing NPOV issues. Ergzay (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

FAA has not grounded the vehicle in any abnormal way

There is only a single source claiming this and no other reporters are claiming this. The CNBC source is misunderstanding SpaceX's launch license and FAA's standard precedures. I'm going to be removing any mention of the launch vehicle being "grounded" unless someone can find another source that claims this. Ergzay (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's some commentary that people should use to context the "grounded" claims. https://twitter.com/alexphysics13/status/1650785078241370112 This is one of NASASpaceflight's main reporters. Ergzay (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ergzay: I am a bit confused why you are claiming the CNBC source is "bad" and that the "Vehicle has not been grounded." Per the source you removed, [...] the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grounded the company’s Starship Super Heavy launch program pending results of a “mishap investigation,” part of standard practice [...] which does say that it has been grounded as part of a procedure. In addition, there is Time: Musk’s tweet barely had time to go public before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced it was temporarily grounding the entire Starship fleet and Politico: The Federal Aviation Administration grounded SpaceX’s Starship rockets on Thursday after one of them exploded minutes into lift off on its first test flight and crashed into the Gulf of Mexico. [...] The rockets will remain grounded pending an FAA investigation to ensure “any system, process, or procedure related to the mishap does not affect public safety,” as is standard practice, the FAA said in a statement. As far as I can tell, there is no misunderstanding at all involving CNBC and the content that was removed should be fully restored. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, it is clearly verifiable that the vehicle is grounded and also that the move is common practice for any launch that ends in a range safety termination, including test flights. It would be odd not to mention the grounding, though a little balance is necessary (the move is not strictly punitive but it's not without teeth). Penitentes (talk) 03:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The "punitive" aspect is what I'm most concerned with readers misunderstanding. As long as that is clarified I'd be fine with the "grounded" terminology. The way "grounded" is used for aviation for example is when there's a danger to people riding the aircraft and to prevent any aircraft with the specified components or type ratings from flying. That's not the type of grounding this is. Ergzay (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that is accomplished easily. 'Grounded' is also used frequently to refer to aircraft unable to take off because of weather conditions or airline software crashes, so it's not purely associated with, say, 737 MAX-like situations. I think it's an appropriate and widely-understood word to use so long as, like you say, it's given the context that (A) test launches often fail and result in this exact same FAA process, and (B) SpaceX will be able to fly Starship again after completing the required environmental mitigations.

I understand the urge to avoid the word entirely but I think it's still correct. If SpaceX wanted to to launch a new Starship tomorrow, would the FAA let them? No. That's a useful fact. Penitentes (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Penitentes Even if they had succeeded in all of their goals they still would not be able to launch tomorrow because they would have still needed to go through the application process with the FAA to allow a launch. That's also important and useful fact. One of those of course being "no open mishap investigations". I've added FAA sources to the article that help clarify things, maybe we can pull content from that. Ergzay (talk) 03:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Penitentes Here's the FAA source: https://www.faa.gov/space/compliance_enforcement_mishap Also there's this PDF that mentions SpaceX's "Anomaly Response Plan" that's mentioned in this wikipedia article. https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-06/20220613%20SpaceX%20Starship%20Super%20Heavy%20at%20Boca%20Chica_FONSI_ROD%20Final.pdf Ergzay (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Penitentes The "required environmental mitigations" were just one element that was cherrypicked by CNBC out of a long list of things. Here's the full FAA canned response that was sent to multiple reporters that I assume is the one CNBC used.

• “The Anomaly Response Plan referenced in the 2022 Programmatic Environmental Assessment has been activated. In addition, other environmental mitigations require that SpaceX must have ongoing monitoring of vegetation and wildlife by a qualified biologist. This includes conducting a pre- and post-launch survey and submitting a report to the FAA and to the other involved state or federal agencies. There are also required mitigations specific to SpaceX coordinating with state or federal agencies to remove launch debris from sensitive habitats. The FAA will ensure SpaceX complies with all required mitigations. Furthermore, the FAA made compliance with the environmental mitigations a condition of the license.”
• “SpaceX was required to perform analyses to ensure that the public was not exposed to unacceptable risks. SpaceX is required to perform a post-flight data review to ensure consistency between the assumptions used for their safety analyses and the data observed from the flight. SpaceX is also required to resolve any inconsistencies identified. As required by regulations, SpaceX must demonstrate that any ground safety and flight hazards do not pose unacceptable risk to the public during licensed activities.”
• “SpaceX is responsible for local, state and federal compliance requirements. The FAA will ensure compliance with its regulations.”

From: https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/faa-monitoring-spacexs-clean-up-after-starship-launch/ Ergzay (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Penitentes I dug this up WP:Frequently misinterpreted sourcing policy. It states "Journalism and news-reporting about or touching on technical topics cannot be used as a reliable source for technical claims. Journalism (in either sense) simplifies both concepts and wording in such topics." which is at play here. Ergzay (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

If the wording needs to be adjusted, then that makes sense to alter it to achieve a balance. I was just focused on the part that a CNBC article would not be usable in the article due to a supposed reliability issue given how unusual that would be. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Super Goku V I need assistance in adjusting it because it feels accurate as written at time of writing and it's hard to understand the issues others have and what would satisfy their issues while also maintaining balance. I'll admit that I have bias on the topic so it's hard to see through my own bias. I just want the article to be as accurate as possible. I'm fine with including reporters' misunderstandings as long as it can be reasonably inferred that they're misunderstandings. Ergzay (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

For example, we could make it clear that CNBC thinks the vehicle is grounded without implying that FAA says the vehicle is grounded. Ergzay (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ergzay: My issue was just about excluding the CNBC source as I failed to see any problems with it. In any case, if you think it is important to make it clear, then you could try to attribute the wording to CNBC. If that doesn't work, then maybe a footnote would be a better way to clarify for readers. I do want to point out here that it seems to be very common for reliable sources to attribute the FAA's actions as grounding. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I restored the CNBC article on people's insistence but it's still incorrect. The FAA does not "ground" space launch vehicles like it does aircraft. FAA does not use that terminology for space vehicles and never has. Wikipedia using an uneducated media misunderstanding of technical topics is not good editorial practice. I'd be more okay with it if you can find a space industry reporter using the term, but I haven't found any such reporter using the term. For example anyone from this list (found via a google search but most names are very recognizable): https://martinwilson.me/space-journalists/ Ergzay (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't clear to me that the issue with the source was the terminology used, but at least things are cleared up now. Regarding the terminology, it seems like reliable sources commonly use grounded: Associated Press, Ars Technica, CBS News (Texas), Gizmodo, The Hill, and Space.com. If you have a reliable source that saying grounding is an incorrect term with regards to the FAA's oversight of commercial spaceflights, then it could be possible to address. (I did some searching, but I didn't find anything, potentially due to struggling to come up with a good way to search for any.) --Super Goku V (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Super Goku V The Ars Technica article is notably different because in that case the vehicle actually went outside of its assigned safety corridor. Though I'll grant you on some of the others. They're still using the term incorrectly however as the FAA does not use the term. (Note you won't find the word "grounded" in a quote.) I think it's important to make it clear that the source is using the term and it's not FAA using the term, as that would be accurate. It's also important (though I think what we have now is sufficient) to make it clear that this is standard procedure after any flight termination event. Ergzay (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, I get that it is apparently a commonly misused term based on what you are saying, but I am currently under the belief that we would need a source that talks about this to be able to address it in the article. (Maybe there is another way, but a source would be preferred at least for proof.) In any case, I think one of my earlier replies said that we could try attributing the wording to CNBC and see if that works out or if it causes issues. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Let me phrase it this way. Space Launch is conducted on a "launch only if you have permission from the federal government" basis. This is unlike air travel where permission is granted in blanket terms to all flights of an aircraft that has a type certification or individual certification. This means the FAA needs to explicitly ground aircraft when a problem is found. However for space vehicles launches this is not the case so there is no "grounding". All the FAA has said in this case is basically "we need you to complete the prescribed anomaly investigation paperwork that you previously agreed to do in the event of a mishap". Mishaps are whenever anything doesn't go exactly according to plan. Ergzay (talk) 03:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but quite literally over a half-dozen reliable sources have decided to use "grounded" in their reporting, some in conversation with other sources and some independently. Clearly the term isn't as narrow as you indicate. Wikipedia has a policy towards WP:COMMONNAME in its nomenclature for articles; the same principle applies to terminology. There's no native imprecision in "grounded", and in-line attribution of the term suggests this is a statement challenged by other sourcing when it in fact isn't. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti I mentioned this in another comment but repeat it here. I dug this up: WP:Frequently misinterpreted sourcing policy. It states "Journalism and news-reporting about or touching on technical topics cannot be used as a reliable source for technical claims. Journalism (in either sense) simplifies both concepts and wording in such topics." which is at play here. Grounding of the vehicle is a technical claim. We can say the same thing more accurately with something like "Starship cannot launch again until all elements of the standard FAA's post-mishap investigation have concluded" or some variety thereof. Ergzay (talk) 04:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Stop pinging me. That's an essay with little weight relative to actual policy, which defers to what the actual sources say. You still haven't provided a single source that demonstrates that "grounded" is inappropriate. In fact, your definition of the FAA needs to explicitly ground aircraft when a problem is found is fulfilled by the fact they can't launch again until the problems are resolved–a piece of content you initially deleted completely unwarranted. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It's significantly more difficult to prove a negative than to prove a positive. Would you honestly expect the FAA to come out and say "to all you news agencies no the FAA does not ground spacecraft"? I've done extensive searching and I cannot find the FAA using the term grounded to refer to spacecraft, though indeed there are many news organizations that use the term. WP:COMMONNAME applies to proper names btw, not misused technical terms, unless there's something I'm missing on that page. Ergzay (talk) 05:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I've made another edit to the page removing the quotes around "grounded" and tweaked the wording slightly. How is it now? Ergzay (talk) 05:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing almost exclusively describes it as grounding, so just call it grounding. Also, add it bad to the lead. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I can add it back to the lede, but not as it was written because that incorrectly states that the FAA announced that it was grounded, of which there is no source stating that in quotes. I've rewritten it using the FAA statements. Ergzay (talk) 05:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The sources included already note that this is standard practice; adding random prior flight reports to prove this is both unnecessary and original research. I abbreviated the description in the lead as it's hopefully obvious that, should the FAA say things aren't safe, they won’t greenlight another launch. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not WP:SYNTH to use rephrase a source without changing the meaning. Please use that term correctly. If I was doing WP:SYNTH then you were as well. Also you didn't "abbreviate" the description in the lede, you rewrote it. The length is almost identical. Secondly, it is not "conducting" a mishap investigation, it's overseeing SpaceX's. The word "oversee" is directly from the FAA. I very carefully worded that. Ergzay (talk) 05:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

According reliable sources, the FAA is conducting its own investigation, perhaps as part of overseeing the SpaceX one. See the Yahoo source. And, yes, it is original research and synth to take a source with no information related to one topic and use it to make inferences about another (and unnecessary when the claim is already sourced properly elsewhere). ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

My previous comment was regarding the lede, rather than the section further down. However, how is it original research or synth to use a previous source indicating exactly what I was saying, namely that SpaceX has gone through mishap investigations before? That source indicates a previous mishap investigation. There is nothing being synthesized there. Ergzay (talk) 06:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

That's actually textbook original research: if I notice that presidential candidates worried about fundraising don't announce they'll run until late in the game, it would be original research to say "he waited to announce, which is normal" and cite a similar instance from a previous election. The same is the case here. It's also unnecessary, as at least three of the currently cited sources about this launch in particular note the normalcy in this action and how it's not an indication of anything unusual. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know much about presidential candidates so I can't speak to your example however it doesn't strike me as original research. Using a source that indicates exactly what you're trying to indicate cannot be original research, by definition. Ergzay (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

See the Smith and Jones example under WP:SYNTH for a demonstration of original research using a source that indicates exactly what you want to say being used. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Revert of lead sentence citing WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV

@Abductive I've added a source to the statement you challenged here: [2]. However citing WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV on a mere statement of fact linking to a main article seems a bit extreme... even adding a source seems unnecessary here but if you really wanted it you could have just added a "citation needed" template. Maybe slow down a bit here? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Slow down? The article is far too deferential to SpaceX's spin as it is. My edits were an attempt to get a handle on the NPOV and UNDUE problems as gently as possible. In fact, why is there no picture of the ship exploding? Abductive (reasoning) 10:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what "spin" you are referring to honestly. This is an article about a rocket test... pretty hard for it not to be "neutral". If you have a suitable picture of the explosion to add go right ahead. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  I mean there seems to be an attempt by some editors to "spin" the article away from a neutral status toward some kind of disaster, which seems rather strange. It's difficult to understand why they'd want to do that. Ergzay (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

SpaceX POV

SpaceX's POV is getting pushed here, so far the following have been removed: engine failures, uncontrolled spin, and launch damage from the lead; flight details from the April 20 launch; and the fact that the NYT reported Port Isabel, 6 miles (10 km) away, getting blanketed with dust. In their place, we have excessive SpaceX trivia and "HUGE SUCCESS", gratuitous Musk quote and FAA overhead, and an undue focus on activism instead of the launch's effects. Until these issues are resolved, the POV tag should stay up. RAN1 (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

RAN1, can you link to the diffs of the removals? For the dust, I see it there mentioned by The Washington Post. Huge success is in reactions, a direct quote and only appears once. Could you propose the changes you would want? — AdrianHObradors (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

at least part of the article is specifically going against SpX POV. For example the last sentence implies that people satirized the RUD, when in all aspects, SpX is kinda proud of the outcome, memes be damned. 213.233.110.186 (talk) 09:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I've made some changes and additions to hopefully address some of these issues. There are other issues with this article, namely minor WP:VERIFIABILITY matters; I've downgraded the article to a rating of C-class until these issues are resolved. I suggest that those more familiar with the subject focus on acting BOLDly and add sourced content when and where it appears with deference to opinions from experts on space flight, both from SpaceX and external parties. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

As of the current version by Pbritti, all of the issues RAN1 pointed out have been fixed.

• Multiple engine failure - under #April 20 launch
• Uncontrolled spin - mentioned in intro and under #April 20 launch
• Launch damage from the lead - see section #Launch site damage
• Flight details - under #April 20 launch, although maybe you're thinking about specific missing details?
• Dust in Port Isabel - under #Effects on local communities
• "Huge success" - under #Reactions, appears once however, and fortunately not in uppercase
• Musk quotes - don't necessarily put the best light on him, which is good for WP:NPOV
• FAA overhead - Should remain on the article
• undue focus on activism instead of the launch effects - activism can be found under #Effects on local communities, launch effects can be be found in #intro, #launchpad damage, #effects on local communities.

The neutrality template should probably be removed, unless someone can point out other important issues concerning the neutrality that have gone unnoticed. CodemWiki (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

FYI I've kept "spin" but removed "uncontrolled" because that would be WP:OR and rephrased many things in the article including bringing back some deleted content. If people have specific issues with the changes I've made let's discuss them. Ergzay (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@RAN1 Please stop trying to make this out to being "SpaceX's POV". That is not what's happening here. Ergzay (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@RAN1: If you are referring to my edit on removing the template, then it was just because the template was placed in a section outside of the lede while the linked discussion only dealt with text in the lede. (Given the heavy editing on this article, I am unsure if my edit taking the tag down was what you are referring to.) In any case, it seems like this section is discussing a potential issue, so we are good there. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we should remove it at this point... it's kind of ridiculous to have a neutrality banner on a rocket launch page :-D let's settle down. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I would absolutely agree, I think there have been POV problems with the editing. With a pushing of SpaceX's POV, largely in relation to Elon musk, whose statements really shouldn't be centered. This has been somewhat corrected at this point. By any means a rocket explosion is not a success, even if expectations were low. The article should reflect that, along with the impact it had on the community that lead to heavy criticism. LoomCreek (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted the POV removal. Removing that so hastily, in a day, without consensus is not appropriate. LoomCreek (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@CodemWiki: I reverted you on this based on WP:TWITTER. I've spent the better part of a hour trying to determine if anyone certifies the veracity of the video in question and have come up empty, so I think the treatment in the paragraph requires in-line attribution and additional contextualization. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The guesses by the Washington Post for that part can be interpreted by casual readers in different ways such as SpaceX rockets can throw debris on people's cars. It's an easy way to spawn something else than information. See how people are already confused here : https://twitter.com/latestinspace/status/1649058400410509313

As twitter cannot be cited, if no quotable info exists, I would disagree with keeping that sentence on the page because of the lack of context. I would still prefer however to keep the information with added context if quotable sources exist. CodemWiki (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the neutrality warning can be removed for now, it's at a high enough quality particularly after the addition of the San Antonio article on the FAA Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 08:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

However, the concerns by Jerome below are still valid and extant; more information on locals and environmentalists' reactions is welcome Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 08:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Possible restoration of concrete impact passage

I liked the passages about the impact of the launch on the pad. I would prefer it (and the ESG Hound and Gizmodo sources) be restored. I believe it would also be in the interest of enforcing neutral point of view, the reactions section seems heavily skewed toward praise. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, and it looks like RAN1 already took care of it. DFlhb (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@DFlhb: NYT discusses ESG Hound and the water deluge. RAN1 (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Excellent work. Hopefully my concerns on NPOV will be addressed more fully as the weeks go by Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Jarrod Baniqued, hi there! The reactions page was tagged as POV. I've linked it here as I see it as the only one discussing it. Please let me know if it is still unresolved or if we can close it and remove the tag. Thank you! — AdrianHObradors (talk) 11:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the concerns have not been resolved, and that it is best to wait till the 27th for more potential coverage of the dust and environmental problems; also, I would advise that other editors keep the Democracy Now source for now Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 05:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I see the San Antonio source and Loren Grush's wildfire article have balanced the POV out nicely; I would approve removing the neutrality warning, but editors are still more than welcome to add mentions of locals and environmentalists' reactions per Jerome Frank Disciple's concerns below Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

That sentence only cited WaPo; I've brought back the wording (except "intentionally") and cited the whole paragraph to both WaPo and NYT. DFlhb (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Anti-SpaceX POV

Comparing versus an earlier state of the article, most positive comments toward SpaceX have been scrubbed from the article and many comments that elaborated on "investigations" or other such things happening as standard procedure have also been removed to make the article appear to describe the event as a failure. For example look at the article at this point: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship_orbital_test_flight&oldid=1151090035 I've been working to restore some of this content Ergzay (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Your edits were wholly unacceptable with the deletion of sourced content explicitly phrased to demonstrate a real impact of the launch while maintaining neutrality by noting that it was standard behavior. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti Please don't wholesale revert multiple constructive edits. Reverting your edit. If you have issues with individual edits please revert those. I'm fine with re-adding the CNBC source if you prefer. What specifically do you have issue with? Note we already had a source that discussed the dust spreading into the local area. Ergzay (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ergzay: It is plainly ok to revert multiple edits, especially when the reverted edits are unilateral, go against consensus by multiple editors on the talk page, and removed sourced content. I am undoing your reversion as consensus presently goes against your edits and your edits themselves undid multiple editors. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

That's not what the consensus is at all. I'm undoing your edit warring. Please follow WP:BRB. Ergzay (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Please describe what you have issue with so that we can discuss it. Ergzay (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ergzay: 1. Multiple editors discussed the POV issue and undertook edits to rectify the issue, concluding these changes accomplished the objective of resolving the POV issue. This was accomplished by using reliable sources to add content that acknowledged the particulate issue, the grounding, and the successful nature of the launch. 2. You deleted a wholly reliable source without any proper rationale, exclusively added positive material, and readded an MOS-violating bold name to the lede. 3. You did all this without recognizing the multiple editors in consensus against you then repeatedly reverted efforts to force you to acknowledge this consensus. You have been repeatedly told to acknowledge consensus on this and other articles. Do so. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti

1. The grounding is still in the article and hasn't been removed though I did reword it substantially. What more would you like changed?

2. The CNBC source can be added back, but the specific reporter in question does not have experience in reporting on the spaceflight industry so is not aware of the standard terminology FAA uses after any flight mishap. (They also have a history of yellow journalism and paparazzi-style reporting on Elon Musk.) The email they received is a standard canned FAA email that is given after any test flight mishap. i.e. that specific source is lying about what the FAA actually said. The same thing happened after every single previous SpaceX test flight mishap. Thus we need additional sources to properly couch that.

3. On the "MOS-violating bold name". This is used in many articles on Wikipedia so I was not aware of this being MOS-violating. I'll remove the bolding. Though if you can point me to where in the MOS this is mentioned that would be helpful.

4. There is no "consensus against me". You are the only person who has objected to my edits. Also what "other articles"? I don't have any history of going against consensus.

Ergzay (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I really don't trust an editor to unilaterally deem a single reporter incapable of accurately reporting something, especially when the content pulled from their article is object "X said Y" stuff. You clearly didn't perform the relevant diligence necessary in your changes, disregarded consensus, as three editors stated the POV situation had been resolved (and two disagreed on this talk page with your edits after the fact!). You are inserting WP:OR with your claims in point 2, don't understand basic MOS per 3, and don't know what a consensus is per 4. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ergzay: you still seem confused how MOS works. See this edit for explanation of how our style guide here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti Okay I guess your issue is that you think "The SpaceX Starship orbital test flight" feels unnatural and forced? I found the english for that statement to be without issue. Ergzay (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti The stuff pulled from the article is not "X said Y" stuff though. If you look at what was pulled, it was mostly outside of quotations. For example the word "grounded" does not appear within quotations anywhere in the article. I'm not sure where you're getting "your edits" as there is no previous discussion talking about any of my edits. Many people have been editing the article. I looked up MOS and your statement actually violates MOS. MOS:BOLDLEDE says the article title in the lede should be bolded. Ergzay (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

"Grounded" is popular nomenclature summarizing the action; see Politico, The Telegraph, and Flying. Reliable sources are superior to your personal sentiments. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

"Grounded" is a specific technical term that only applies to aircraft that are type certified, regulations that don't apply to spaceflight yet. The term entered popular vocabulary during the 737 MAX grounding and gets sometimes misapplied to spaceflight. There is no "grounding" of space vehicles, especially test vehicles. Ergzay (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Also the Flying source quotes the Politico source so is not an independent reliable source and The Telegraph source sources the CNBC source so also not an independent reliable source. All of which, do not quote the FAA as stating that the vehicle is grounded. Ergzay (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

"Grounded" is popular parlance used in reliable sourcing; you can't arbitrarily declare it inappropriate without a serious source to back that up (and even then, you have to prove readers will be confused by the phrase if used). Besides, the effect is the same. See this source, too, for evidence of the FAA's actions. This is all to say you still violated consensus. Undo your edits. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The full FAA statement can be seen in the source I included in the article. https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/faa-monitoring-spacexs-clean-up-after-starship-launch/ Ergzay (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, I've added the source back in with proper couching and re-edited the lede. Ergzay (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Is there anything else specific you have issue with that you think is incorrect? Ergzay (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti If you have any further changes you'd like made, please mention them. Otherwise I'll come back to this page tomorrow to see how discussion has evolved. Ergzay (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti "Grounded" in popular parlance refers to an aircraft that would otherwise be allowed to fly, no longer being allowed to fly due to a restriction imposed by a government regulator. This isn't the case for a spacecraft as they do not have carte blanche permission to launch, each launch must be approved by the government regulator. This is a term being misapplied by journalists that lack technical understanding of the processes they are reporting on. At best it's poor understanding that results in misrepresentation of the facts, at worst it's deliberately sensationalist term being used as clickbait. In either case it's inappropriate to use here on wikipedia, which is a trusted source of information that should use accurate terminology and prevent the spread of incorrect information. 203.12.11.126 (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@203.12.11.126: You need to source that claim and demonstrate why "grounded" is a misrepresentation using said source. Do not ping me again and reply in the conversation above (feel free to copy your initial comment there to ease flow of discussion). ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

203.12.11.126 is not me, that you seem to be assuming is me. Ergzay (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I second this reply, sorry if late Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 08:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

As repeatedly noted on your talk page: I told you the problems and you ignored them. You don't need to spam this page with four consecutive comments, three new sections, and links already shared. You're being textbook WP:TENDENTIOUS. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC) |}

I've fixed several of the problems, so no they were not ignored. Please stop making false accusations. Ergzay (talk) 04:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Stop trying to hide, delete or edilitorailize my comments. If you disagree with them, state that, but you don't get to try to hide them, delete them or editorialize the hiding of them with your own assumptions of their content. This is just ridiculous. I've commented on your talk page. We can continue there. Ergzay (talk) Ergzay (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

POV: Local-community-aftermath and reaction sections

I realize that POV claims have been discussed in several sections above, but each of those sections seemed to contain very specific allegations, and I wasn't sure any would fit in here.

I came across this article from the In the news excerpt ... and was surprised at what I considered a heavy use of primary sources. I thought I'd do my part and add at least one secondary source, to the FAA investigation, and when I searched for those sources ... I was surprised at what came up, because it didn't seem like the article had fully covered it. For example, the first source I found used the word "moratorium", which was implied but not explicitly stated, to describe the FAA's actions, and it said it came in the wake of an outcry of environmental concerns.

When I searched specifically for environmental concerns, I also came across

• this New York Times article, the headline of which is, "SpaceX’s Starship Kicked Up a Dust Cloud, Leaving Texans With a Mess". That article is, chiefly, about the "billowing cloud of dust and debris, shaking homes and raining down brown grime for miles" that accompanied the launch; it described residents who reported themselves "terrified", cars covered in "brown debris", windows shattered, a large piece of debris striking a car, a beach closed by a judge, and more. To my surprise, that article was cited in this article ... but only once, and for this sentence: The company activated the FAA required "anomaly response plan", but otherwise refused to comment on the situation, though Musk had previously said a flame deflector could be needed.
• This article from Euronews which also refers to the beach closure and, separately (not saying it'd be right for this article) notes opposition to the launch site by environmental and indigenous groups.
• This article from Common Dreams that discusses various experts disagreeing about the danger of the debris and the physical damage.

So, while I wouldn't say the article's content currently features a spin, I do think that there are some omissions in this article that present a NPOV concern. In sum, I think it's fair to say that the article has two chief deficiencies I want to flag. I can try to add some of this content this week, but I see that there's a devoted group of editors here with far more knowledge than me on this test flight, so I thought mentioning it might be enough to pull the trigger.

1. Despite the extensive coverage (including the NYT piece above), it's missing a lot of information about the local-community impact.
2. The reactions section is devoted to the iterative development of the SpaceX program, and it fails to convey the concerns raised by environmentalist groups.

--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how Wikipedia policy handles news articles that are effectively engaging in "muck raking", but that is what is going on here. Whether we should include any and all "muck raking" as valid reporting I'm not sure. There's only one or two documented photos of this "brown debris" and it looks like muddy rain. I'd say making too big a deal of it in the wikipedia article would be NPOV. Also keep in mind that vox populi interviews can find basically any opinion they want to amplify by talking to enough people. Ergzay (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

... You have to realize that what you just said is blatantly WP:OR, right? "There's only one or two documented photos of this "brown debris" and it looks like muddy rain."? And I'm sorry, you think including what's in reliable secondary sources would be an NPOV issue ... but excluding it wouldn't be?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

My point is that I'm countering that they are reliable secondary sources on the topic. When sources have vested interests in discrediting something, they're no longer reliable secondary sources. Ergzay (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

No, sorry. That's not how WP:RS works. The New York Times is greenlit. I'm not sure what vested interest you think they have in discrediting SpaceX, but there's no room for that kind of conspiratorial speculation in determining what's reliable. And, frankly, the fact that you're suggesting as much makes me think maybe you should step back from this article.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey I'm sorry I need to follow this up. I just removed a line from the article. The line concerned potential road damage caused by the launch. It said, "There was no road damage but the road was blocked by debris until April 22." There was a citation after the line. The citation was a tweet by RGV Aerial Photography that provided a picture of the road and said, "This is a view of highway 4 taken during our flyover. probably one of the few reasons why it remains closed to the public."

I wasn't going to say anything, but I looked back to see who added the line to the article, and I saw it was you [3]. I'm not trying to lecture, and frankly, as I've already explained to another editor, I'm not going to be a presence on this article, but I do think it's worth pointing out that there are issues with that edit—most obviously, it was pretty egregious WP:OR.

The tweet that you cited did not say "there was no road damage". So how did you get there? I, and correct me if I'm wrong, assume you looked at the photograph provided, maybe zoomed in quite a bit, and concluded "I don't see any road damage; there's no road damage." But that is precisely the type of methodology the policy against original research is designed to prohibit. You didn't have a secondary source describing whether there was road damage (or, if you did, you didn't cite it) ... you analyzed a picture yourself and determined there was no road damage.

I know potentially false information in the encyclopedia can be frustrating. But Wikipedia's accuracy, by necessity, will reflect the accuracy of reliable secondary sources. If a fact is wrong, we have a fair amount of faith that those sources will eventually say what is right.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I second this post Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 08:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree with @Jerome Frank Disciple. Clear and on point.

I think some good faith editors are doing a lot of good work on those pages but are not super aware of some important policies. This is not Reddit.

Sourcing problems and original research WP:OR are rampant. And those are crucial pillars for this encyclopedia.

We should probably ping the relevant wiki projects. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 09:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Road damage

We currently quote a tertiary source that claims that road damage (CNBC citing Sierra Club citing unnamed sources). I had added a source showing flyover photographs showing that the road was not damaged and that there was instead debris blocking the road. @Jerome Frank Disciple removed that flyover photograph however and I'm not sure I follow why. I have been unable to find any source reporting on road damage. If we're going to remove the primary source showing that there's no damage then I think we should also remove the tertiary source that claimed there was road damage. (Also it doesn't make sense from a physical perspective, or pass the BS test. If there was road damage it wouldn't be repaired in under 2 days. Government agencies don't move that fast.) Ergzay (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

This is WP:OR. You need to stick to what reliable secondary sources say and always try to avoid WP:PRIMARY {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 09:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Page Title

@Ultimograph5 paging you w/r/t page title: on the SpaceX website, I see the official launch announcement as "Starship Flight Test". although "first integrated flight test of Starship" is used in the description of the launch, it's not a title.

https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-test

I think that you're right that people may be confused about which Starship test flights this may be referring to, but that's what Template:For is used for. [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 04:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

During the livestream, the hosts used "Starship Integrated Flight Test" throughout the webcast. It is also what SpaceX and Musk were using to reference the launch on Twitter the week before. ArrowMartian (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It's ok as it is for now, since a Transatmospheric Orbit is still an orbit. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Not at all the flight was planned to be orbital, actually it was planned to be suborbital, with an apogee under Earth surface. Ain92 (talk) 10:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Lead sentence (was: Orbital test flight)

I've multiple times had to re-add "orbital" to the lede when it was removed for various reasons. Can we get consensus that this was an orbital test flight so that people can stop removing it? Ergzay (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Per MOS:REDUNDANCY: Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information that is not already given by the title of the article. RAN1 (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I just removed it and—sorry!—am just now seeing this request for discussion. Here's my reasoning: This was the first test flight of the Starship+Super Heavy stack. Period. That's the distinction. Adding "orbital" suggests to the reader that it was merely the first *orbital* test flight. Consider: it was also the stack's first morning flight and its first televised flight, but we wouldn't say, "This was the first morning test flight of the stack" or "this was the first televised flight" because those would suggest that there had been other flights. To be sure, it was an orbital test flight and the first orbital test flight of the Starship vehicle—but that's not what we're talking about in the lead sentence. There's plenty of room to make those distinctions later. PRRfan (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The most "significant" portion of this test was that the goal was to reach orbit however (or quasi-orbit however you want to term it). That was the most significant aspect of the flight, that they were finally attempting to reach orbit. Yes we wouldn't say "This was the first morning test flight of the stack" because that improperly puts the emphasis on "morning", while "this was the first televised flight" incorrectly puts the emphasis on "televised". When there are multiple "firsts" simultaneously you need to pick and choose which is the most significant first. Here it is that it was an orbital flight attempt to contrast it versus all the previous suborbital flight attempts. Ergzay (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. It is less significant that SpaceX tried to reach orbit than it is that they established a new world's record for tallest and most powerful rocket to take flight. This is implicit in the lead paragraph, which places the flight in its most significant context by talking about the record. PRRfan (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not just that they tried to reach orbit it's that they tried to reach orbit in the context of many previous suborbital attempts and also as you mention that it was the tallest and most powerful. Ergzay (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

If that's your argument then "test" isn't needed either, nor is "flight", as those are both in the title as well. I'm confused on the correct way to interpret that. Ergzay (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

"The first flight of SpaceX's integrated Starship spacecraft and Super Heavy first-stage booster..." would work fine. "The first of...", not so much. PRRfan (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

"The first launch" is the least redundant phrasing I can think of. RAN1 (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the Oxford English Dictionary example at MOS:REDUNDANCY is illuminating however as it shows the adding of additional descriptive terms to establish the notoriety of something. That's why I feel having "orbital" there is important. Leaving off "test" is better than leaving off "orbital". Ergzay (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the key here—both to RAN1's concern about redundancy and to Ergzay's about the significance—is that the subject of the lead sentence is "SpaceX's integrated Starship spacecraft and Super Heavy first-stage booster". It's not about Starship alone. By talking about the stack, the lead avoids redundancy with the page title. And because it is about the stack, we need not add descriptors to "establish its notoriety"; indeed, to do so invites reader confusion (in the way "the first morning flight" suggests previous flights at other times). If the lead is going to be about the stack, it need not (for redundancy's sake) and should not (for clarity and distinction's sake) say "orbital." Alternately, we could change the focus of the lead, at the cost of some redundancy—something like "The first orbital test flight of SpaceX's Starship spacecraft, which was also its first flight atop the Super Heavy booster, took place on April 20, 2023." PRRfan (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The OED example clearly says that the consideration is that OED is a proper noun. The current version doesn't even mention Starship Flight Test in the first paragraph. RAN1 (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I have to be honest I think you all might be over-reading MOS:REDUNDANCY. It seems like we're one step away from concluding that "SpaceX" can't be in the first sentence, since it's in the title. Why don't we default to bold? something like On April 20, 2023, a SpaceX Starship orbital test flight ended four minutes after liftoff when the vehicle began to tumble and was destroyed. (or something similar) --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I like that: "On April 20, 2023, the first SpaceX Starship orbital test flight ended four minutes after liftoff when the vehicle began to tumble and was destroyed. A sequel to suborbital tests of the Starship spacecraft, the uncrewed flight was also its first launch atop the Super Heavy first-stage booster. The combined vehicle was the tallest and most powerful rocket ever flown, with twice the thrust of the Saturn V super heavy-lift launch vehicle developed in the 1960s." PRRfan (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

^ Looks good too me!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 02:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Also looks good to me. That resolves all the issues I had, but it creates one more minor one. I think a slight modification is needed as "began to tumble and was destroyed" seems slightly incorrect to me but I need to think on it more to figure out what it should be changed to. Ergzay (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, all! Posting. PRRfan (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry guys I've reverted because I find it pretty crazy that we say "how it ended" before even mentioning "what it was". The old lead seems clearer than the new proposed one and more logically structured.

What is the issue we are trying to fix here? Is it just the word "orbital"? I think we might be "throwing out the baby with the dirty water" here. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Good point, @Gtoffoletto:. I just tried to restore the bold but also make sure the "what?" was listed before the "what happened?". That look okay to you?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Much better. Nice job. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Van strike requires context

The van that was struck by debris was deliberately parked unreasonably close to the launch mount by NASASpaceFlight.com, with SpaceX's permission, in order to be used as a camera mount in full recognition that it was so close that it was likely to be damaged just by the pressure wave of a normal launch never mind unintended debris. This seems to be frequently left out by many sources to give a false impression that there was substantial risk to the public and that it's a miracle no-one was hit by debris. By leaving out the essential context of the NSF van's unique circumstances we further the false narrative of innocents endangered by flying debris. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I've re-added a previously deleted section that mentions NASASpaceFlight.com owning the van and that they were there knowingly. To anyone thinking of removing the sources again, remember that by WP:SELFSOURCE sources that are talking about themselves are allowed to be used. In this case sources from NASASpaceFlight.com and it's employees speaking on their behalf are valid. We can't use sources from LabPadre for this though because its not their van, even if it's their cameras that observed it. At least that's my reading of Wikpedia policy. Ergzay (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti Please discuss on the talk page. It's easily verifiable that they own the vehicle. There's an entire youtube video of them with the van, in a different location, discussing the damage to the vehicle. Would you prefer the youtube source be used? Ergzay (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's the video of NASASpaceflight doing a walk around of the vehicle and discussing the damage to the vehicle and the circumstances of why it was placed where it was. https://www.youtube.com/live/vRdp1tyUUF0?feature=share&t=5797 We could maybe add this as a source if it's felt to be needed. Ergzay (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I explicitly told you not to ping me again–that's even more WP:UNCIVIL conduct. Per WP:SELFSOURCE, self-serving and exceptional claims can not be sourced to social media like someone's Twitter. The destruction of someone's van in a launch is an exceptional claim–despite the apparent confusion that the claim is I own the van in this edit summary. The video is discussed in reliable secondary sources–currently referenced to The Washington Post article but there are a couple presently unreferenced reliable sources with the same information floating around–so reference to the video should be referenced exclusively to the secondary sources in keeping with SELFSOURCE's de minimis principle. Further, they are exceptional in that they describe one party inflicting damage to another's property–a claim with serious implications considering the FAA's requirement that SpaceX demonstrate "that there were no reports of injuries or public property damage" as referenced in the article. Reread SELFSOURCE. And the civility policy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

There is abundant evidence that NSF owns the van, they have stated that SpaceX warned them of potential damage to the van if it was put there, NSF has further stated that they(NSF) take full responsibility for the damage their van incurred. All of this on video, much of it shared days before launch. I don't see where the extraordinary claims are here. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The abundant evidence is all self-sourced and still an exceptional claim. If I claimed "debris hit my car" and posted pictures of my car in with significant damage, who's to say it was actually hit by debris besides me unless it was verified in a reliable manner. That's why you need the to stick to the secondary sources, as insisted upon by WP:SELFSOURCE. It's an exceptional claim about SpaceX, the subject, that the damage was caused by them. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The real exceptional claim is leaving out how close the van was to the launch mount and what it was doing there, creating by omission the extraordinary and false claim debris traveled beyond where it was allowed to and endangered the public. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

This is also a very good point. The other user is trying to create a story that does not exist by selective sourcing. Ergzay (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with @Largely Legible Layman. Nothing exceptional about a van with cameras mounted close to the launch being damaged. Not providing context is an WP:NPOV issue here. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 09:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Also: I honestly don’t think it’s very relevant to include the “photo van story” in the article. Who cares? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 09:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The pinging request was for the previous topic good sir, this is an independent topic. We already have an independent source saying the van was destroyed, the WaPo one, so that is already covered. That source was not removed.

The only thing at hand here is who owns the van and why was it placed there. There's nothing exceptional about someone claiming they own a damaged vehicle, thus your claims about it being an exceptional claim are invalid. Directly from the page "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". The van is owned by NASASpaceflight so it is about themselves and they are allowed to speak on the topic.

Furthermore it's well documented that the vehicle is owned by NSF in multiple sources from NSF. Look at the youtube video I posted. Will you reject that source as well? Ergzay (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I actually very intentionally tried to demonstrate that the video of the van could be fake–a view that I still hold considering that no major publication has independently verified that it happened. I explained to you what the WP:SELFSOURCE policy is; I'm trying to avoid accusing SpaceX of destroying a van when I don't really think it happened and that some guys on Twitter are not reliable sources. Also, yeah, I saw your accusation about WIKILAWYERing and appreciate you removing it; that was charitable and I sincerely appreciate the deescalation. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, no, the pinging request was simply for you to stop pinging me. Don't call me "sir", please. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

What's the correct way to pull you into a talk page discussion that you happen to not see or choose to ignore in that case, if not to ping you? Ergzay (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

It's well known in the space community that the video isn't fake (I don't think I've seen any claim anywhere that the video is fake) and it's also well known the vehicle is owned by NSF. NSF is not "some guys on twitter". They're one of the longest running space news organizations running for two decades now, one of the most respected ones at that. They have their own wiki page documenting who they are as well, albeit short at the moment. See: NASASpaceFlight.com

Also, please look at the youtube video I posted. It's from a livestream and shows that the vehicle very much exists. Here's a link for you again: https://www.youtube.com/live/vRdp1tyUUF0?feature=share&t=5797 Ergzay (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The van is not destroyed, and its damage is a non-issue because NSF(along with all the other photographers) agreed to a waiver to place camera equipment inside the approved debris 'splash zone'. The issue is that many sources, some probably unintentionally, are twisting the course of events by leaving out the van's context when discussing the debris strike and allowing people to falsely assume that the debris could of hit a person. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The only thing I'm really concerned about is that proper context be maintained that makes clear that the debris posed no risk to the public and no risk to any property that was not willfully endangered by the owner with informed consent, as was the case with the NSF van. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's a secondary source that claims NASA Spaceflight owns the fan. Would this be sufficient for you? https://spaceexplored.com/2023/04/22/photos-starship-pad-damage-elon-says-1-2-months-until-next-flight/ "However, the story of this site came from the NASA Space Flight van that was being used as a camera and live streaming platform. It took a direct hit from a piece of concrete shot out from underneath the orbital launch mount." Ergzay (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

That video is still SELFSOURCE that makes an exceptional claim. You notified me of the discussion through the edit summary initially, as I was already responding when I was pinged. I'm done discussing this with an editor who ignored a consensus, insisted there wasn't one, then the consensus again added everything they deleted. I've explained SELFSOURCE multiple times to both of you. I've linked an explanation of what an exceptional claim is. Multiple editors have repeatedly informed Ergzay that they don't understand the reliable source policy. I've been pinged despite asking not to be. I'll let literally anyone else discuss this with you two, but my patience is exhausted. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not the van was hit by debris is not the issue. The issue is presenting the van strike without the van's context and allowing readers to assume that people or their property could have been in danger. NSF willing sacrificed the van, with SpaceX's direct warning and permission. NSF is not claiming any wrongdoing on anyone's part, they're proud of their van's 'battle damage' as a normal occupational hazard of automated close range photography of rocket launches. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

If we don't have a reliable source, then it isn't something that can be explained on here. If it can't be verified, then it can't be included. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, please stop making false claims about me, you accuse me of being WP:UNCIVIL and then perform the same. I did not ignore a consensus and then the consensus "added everything that was deleted". Most of my changes are still in the article. Secondly, you are interpreting SELFSOURCE incorrectly by the plain language of what the article says. There is no mention of 'de minimis' in the article for example that you claim is there. Thirdly, you claim that exceptional claim page applies, but you've only ever asserted that the exceptional claim is that the vehicle was destroyed, which was already well sourced, not who the vehicle was owned by thus by your own admission exceptional claim doesn't apply. Finally, you're the only person on this subject who has "warned" me. Apologies on misunderstanding your refusal to be pinged, but nothing I could find on WP:UNCIVIL says anything about pinging someone so I think your claims there are a stretch regardless. Ergzay (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I think 'de minimis' is just a latin phrase meaning 'as little as possible' or some such, regardless it hardly seems to apply in this case. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ergzay and Largely Legible Layman: From SELFSOURCE: These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources. The use of de minimis is relevant to the discussion as SELFSOURCE is. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The primary source is only being used to verify a single sentence to provide appropriate context to a semi-secondary event. 'De minimis' refers to not basing the whole page on mostly primary sources, right? Therefore, in the case being discussed here I'm not understanding the 'violation of de minimis' that is allegedly occurring. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The violation seems to have been discussed in this edit, specifically so reference to the video should be referenced exclusively to the secondary sources in keeping with SELFSOURCE's de minimis principle. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

That's a misinterpretation of SELFSOURCE's de minimis principle though because nowhere in SELFSOURCE's article does it say that any element of the article must follow de minimis principle, only the article as a whole. In fact if you were to take that interpretation of the de minimis principle it effectively means that you cannot use self-sourced material because it would automatically violate the principle for arbitrarily small selections of the article. Ergzay (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

And the great majority of the article is drawn from independent sources, so there's no issue there. So also not relevant, but thanks for pointing out the direct source. I missed it on the page somehow (did a find but didn't come up). Ergzay (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

We have expended 29 comments on a damaged van, which by all accounts was not outside the exclusion zone, and therefore seems completely irrelevant. The dispute seems to have been prompted by the inclusion of a sensationalistic war zone metaphor by a WaPo writer, prompting others to try to balance that metaphor out. Just take it out altogether, starting from The Post also reported that a video of what was described as a van... DFlhb (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, changing it now. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality template

I am sure that the article can always be improved, but can people stop RERERE-adding the NPOV template to the article and just have discussions on the talkpage first? Or put specific tags to the actual disputable section/sentence? Considering how spicy anything Musk-=related is these days, can people please not jump onto one extreme or the other and discuss before labelling the top article with an orange band? 194.102.58.6 (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I see various discussions for specific sections so I'll remove the banner and let's try to be more specific on what the actual issues are so we can fix the problems. A banner at the beginning isn't helpful. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

This biggest issue seems to be: success or failure, or somewhere in between? The answer depends on personal expectations, ranging from: "it won't clear the launch pad" to "it will fly around the globe". Suggestions for keeping a WP:NPOV with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV:

• In chapter "Reactions", sort reactions in a list, from negative to positive. That will make the range of opinions more obvious.
• If any opinion pops up in the rest of the article, move it to reactions. Remove poorly sourced opinions.
• Put this flight into an historic perspective: How does this test fight compare with first tests of previous rockets?

Other sensitive issue: the launch pad. There is a lot of speculation. Was it too big a risk to leave out a flame diverter? Should the launch pad have been cooled with water? What caused the knockout of several engines? What happened with the steering system? What is the impact on the environment? Current chapters in 'Aftermath' already address most of these questions but we'll have to wait for the answers in the FAA report. Suggestion: refrain from speculation but do list the questions while waiting for the FAA's answers.

Uwappa (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would still suggest that the biggest issue with the article is the omissions of the kind of information I listed above, though I've since made an effort to include some of these restrictions. Unfortunately, even that process gave me some additional concern—I saw a few lines that had been added downplaying the restrictions that weren't in the sources.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

"Reactions"

@DFlhb: I really think the "Reactions" subsection is inappropriately named. I didn't turn the section into a list, but I think the list made very clear that it is not a general reactions section. If it were, it would include, for example, the environmental group reactions. Instead, that section is purely devote to technical assessments. I actually agree that "assessments of technical progress" is too long, so I replaced "reactions" with "technical assessments"--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The environmental groups' reactions weren't to the launch, but to the damage, so they're properly placed in the "Surroundings" section. I see no issue there — DFlhb (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

That's a distinction without a difference. The environmental groups were, chiefly (though not exclusively), reacting to the debris kicked up by the launch. That's absolutely a reaction to the launch. And either way, the section wasn't titled "Reactions to just the launch". "Technical assessments" is more accurate.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

You're right; no objection to your rename. DFlhb (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jerome Frank Disciple After your recent removals of all the quotes of praise it's now become WP:UNDUE or WP:NPOV because only quotations from neutral to negative sentiments are expressed. You shouldn't purge all the positive quotes. We just summarize the positive congratulations now. Can you please restore some of them, or pick alternative positive quotes? Specifically referring to this change. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship_orbital_test_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1152145920 Ergzay (talk) 07:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I removed them; feel free to bring those back if you feel strongly about them. They were quoted by a bunch of outlets, so their remarks do have some weight — DFlhb (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I did not remove any quotations!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jarrod Baniqued:—Hi! I saw that you deleted a bit of information I had added, but—only because I felt fairly sure that it was the result of an edit conflict (mostly because your edit summary said you were adding information and "copy edit[ing] for punctuation")—I went ahead and re-added it.

If that was a mistake, I apologize! I won't revert again if you take it out. That said, I really do think Roesch is worth specifically mentioning—his criticisms are directly quoted in multiple reliable sources—the very sources that are (and, to be clear, before my edit, were) cited in the section in question. Using his criticisms and then replacing his name with "some environmental experts" is a bit weasel-wordy, and I think it prevented the article from discussing some of his more specific critique (since it needed to speak, generally, of "some environmental experts").--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I see, thanks for letting me know Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of OR & the opinions of Roesch and de Weck

@Jerome Frank Disciple Roesch is a blogger though, and we don't allow blogs. Ergzay (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The fact that Roesch has a blog doesn't mean that nothing he says can ever be cited. His words are quoted in reliable secondary sources. That's enough.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ergzay: we've talked about original research before, but I'm afraid it's still an issue with some of your edits. As I said previously, "I know potentially false information in the encyclopedia can be frustrating. But Wikipedia's accuracy, by necessity, will reflect the accuracy of reliable secondary sources. If a fact is wrong, we have a fair amount of faith that those sources will eventually say what is right."

Your content removal here, based on the edit summary you provided, was inappropriately based on original research. The content, as it was, conveyed what Roesch had been quoted as saying in the New York Times. As I mentioned above, NYT is greenlit (and we also had a second source similarly quoting Roesch). You decided that Roesch is not sufficiently an expert to be quoted on the matter and, separately, that Roesch was wrong. That's OR. Please try to focus on (1) finding material from reliable secondary sources and (2) erasing material that's not supported by reliable secondary sources. Disagreeing with the material in reliable secondary sources isn't generally a legitimate basis for removal.

Separately, the quotes around "no significant impact" were not being used as scare quotes; that's a legitimate quote from the FAA, and the NYT also put quotations around that statement.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

This isn't the case, Jerome; it's very widespread and very appropriate to question the reliability of a given source for a given statement (WP:RSCONTEXT); "generally reliable" doesn't mean always reliable, and just because something is verifiable doesn't mean we need to include it (WP:VNOT). You might find discussions like this one interesting, though please don't participate since I don't want to be accused of canvassing. The point is, it's not original research, per editors more experienced than you or I.

Here, the NYT article doesn't evaluate Roesch's claims or corroborate them, but just quotes an interview Roesch gave. So the NYT is a secondary source and is reliable, as to what Roesch said; but technically not as to whether he's right (since the NYT provides no analysis or evaluation of his claims). But even if the NYT said things in its own voice, it's perfectly within the bounds of policy to question specific claims, and we have wide latitude to exclude them if we don't think they need to be in the article. If a discussion on his reliability is held, it should be on the specific merits of his claims, not on claims of OR. DFlhb (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd prefer if we avoided any kind of intense dispute resolution on this subject, and per your request I won't participate tin that discussion (and, if I did, I would say attribution and detail are preferable to the OR basis to exclude, and I say that as someone who thinks OR is commonly and appropriately used in exclusion decisions), but I also don't think that discussion is on point. Here, an editor with—as I previously established—some POV concerns (he accused various media sources of having a vested interest in discrediting SpaceX), on a highly technical issue, says that a source quoted within multiple reliable sources is "blatantly wrong" and removing content on that basis. There, editors are analyzing the strength of a claim made within various reliable sources, deciding whether the recollection of a particular cop is enough for an entire article devoted to the subject (and a DYK piece) are appropriate.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The Sound Suppression System wiki page that is directly linked to, for one. It'd be pretty easy to just borrow a source from there explaining what a sound suppression system is. Roesch is basically an internet twitter troll, with only self-claimed credentials. With the biggest SpaceX-hatred bias of anyone I've ever seen on the internet. Ergzay (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Is it even clear Roesch is talking about a sound-suppression system? I added the content, but I didn't include that wiki link. Separately, Gizmodo also wrote an op-ed saying the lack of a water system led to increased dust, though I don't see a source cited. And here's Texas Public Radio on the subject: "But proven launch infrastructure like flame trenches and water deluge systems, both of which could have prevented the debris and damage at Boca Chica, seem to not be an option for Starship."--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I was judging the content in the wiki as written, which says "for failing to use a trench or water system to dampen the impact of the launch (and thereby control the dust)." The purposes of any "water system" (not actually called that) are to absorb acoustic damage, primarily to prevent damage to the launch vehicle. The energy would otherwise reflect back to the launch vehicle possibly damaging it, or beefing up the vehicle to withstand that energy. (Most rockets have gone the way of water as it reduces the mass of the rocket structure.) It's nothing about controlling dust. Ergzay (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

So, having reviewed some sources:

• NY Mag, citing, Olivier de Weck, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets and a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, says: "Another way to contain rocket blasts is with lots of water. Large dust clouds and sandstorms don’t happen in the areas near Cape Canaveral, where NASA launches its rockets, in part because of the swampy environment, he says."
• here's Texas Public Radio on the subject: "But proven launch infrastructure like flame trenches and water deluge systems, both of which could have prevented the debris and damage at Boca Chica, seem to not be an option for Starship." and
• Gizmodo also wrote an op-ed saying the lack of a water system led to increased dust, though I don't see a source cited.

I added Olivier de Weck's opinion to the page, since I think he clearly qualifies as a reliable source being interviewed within a reliable source. Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The first source there is a good expert source. But the latter two are no good. A water deluge system or sound suppression system would not have prevented the damage that happened, because the amount of thrust would have blown away the water. Those systems are for absorbing vibrational energy transferred through the air (i.e. sound waves), not for protecting the pad concrete from the amount of shock that hit it. A diverter system is the only thing that would have protected the pad, but there would still be tons of dust (dust is going to be an inherent facet of this launch site, unless they can pave over with concrete a lot more land to remove dirt surface). Ergzay (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jerome Frank Disciple Although I'd be careful of using anything else from that NY Mag source, because they even falsely quote Elon Musk right after they quote Olivier de Weck, claiming Elon said "that it could be a “mistake” to have [a flame diverter]" which is the exact opposite of what he said (we have the correct source in the wiki already). Ergzay (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

de Weck said that fire trenches or a water pipeline would have contained more dust. Still, he also said that the launch was more of a success than a failure, so I added that to the article. Unless there's a distinction between "water pipeline" and "water system" that I'm missing, these sources all seem consistent to me, but, regardless, I don't think we need the Gizmodo or Texas Public Radio sources.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I just looked at your edit, however the issue here (which we don't yet cover in the wiki article) is that they can't actually do as that professor suggests. The professor isn't aware of the restrictions of their environmental review, namely that they can't use large amounts of water because they're not allowed to send the water into the environment as normal deluge systems do. Those were some of the conditions that forced the current design. That combined with the low water table would require them to raise the pad off the ground in a massive concrete mound (like is done at the cape) in order to build in the flame trench however there is not enough room for the ramp in the very little acreage they have. No one's really reported on this as far as I'm aware however. It's just general knowledge among the community from people who read through the environmental report. Most reporters won't bother to do that as they just want the clicks without doing any real research. Ergzay (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I mean it's rather obvious that a "water pipeline" is not a "water system". There are only two types of water systems on pads. Water deluge systems and sound suppression systems. Ergzay (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

One more thing. "fire trenches" is not a thing, and water pipelines do not contain blasts. Your earlier edit was better. Ergzay (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jerome Frank Disciple A seperate interview with de Wek in a much better article is here. He uses "water deluge system" there, which is accurate. https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230424-giant-spacex-rocket-leaves-crater-serious-damage-at-texas-base Ergzay (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@DFlhb, since you think that editor's analysis of source accuracy should govern inclusion/exclusion, do you want to jump in on whether you think @Ergzay's analysis here is sufficient to discredit the MIT professor of aeronautics, astronautics, and engineering systems? Ergzay says that, contrary to de Weck, "fire trenches are not a thing" and a "water pipeline" wouldn't work. (He does cite one source: a different interview in which de Weck uses the term "water deluge system" instead of "water pipeline"). No disrespect, Ergzay, but the type of analysis you're doing is precisely why I think editors' original research as to source accuracy shouldn't be a legitimate consideration, so, in fairness to you, I think DFlhb (and not me) should take up whether you've succeeded here. I would support leaving the article as is. If willing, I'd also like to ask @Gtoffoletto: to weigh in here—Gtoffoletto and I have both agreed and disagreed on this page, so I'm not sure who he'll agree with, but I have a lot of respect for their judgment.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jerome Frank Disciple Please don't misconstrue what I said. I said "fire trenches are not a thing", but this was not disagreeing with de Weck. de Weck did not use the term "fire trench". Further de Weck does not say that a "water pipeline" is a system to avoid damage. He says it's just a method to transport water to the launch site, namely that's what a water pipeline is for in any situation. What I'm criticizing is your writing, and some of the misunderstandings of de Weck by NY Mag (which makes multiple mistakes not understanding basic things throughout the article), not de Weck.Ergzay (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

As a side comment, I've not found a single actual aerospace expert ever misunderstand things with regards to this launch, within their area of expertise. Just lots of very bad reporters misunderstanding what aerospace experts are saying or paraphrasing them incorrectly. Almost nobody includes full quotes and they all just make a mess of what the experts say. Ergzay (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I did switch to flame trench and "pipeline [to] bring seawater" (as well as saying that they would have contained the dust, rather than the blast), since that's what was in the article. Still leaving it to others to determine whether your critique is sufficient. Again, I'm not comfortable with a Wikipedia editor holding themselves out as an expert and speaking to the accuracy of reliable sources, particularly sine this is not the only time that you've relied on OR, and the other. time that you did it, you opined on aerial road analysis.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

That's fine as I have no doubt of their response. I'm rather tired of having my corrections constantly reverted by editors without expertise in this subject so I'll wait a few weeks until things become more sane to do a massive cleanup and delete a lot of the misinformation in this article. It's gotten too mentally draining to do further editing. Ergzay (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Ergzay is right, that the article doesn't say a pipeline would "contain the blast" (and it's obvious, no?) The stuff mentioned in Ergzay's 16:22 post seems like common sense.

I don't know about Ergzay's point related to the that environmental report, or low water table. DFlhb (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Those changes have been made—I think while you were making this edit. Don't feel bad about not knowing enough about the latter points, I imagine few users do! But do you have thoughts on what do we do in the interim? Should we rely on an anonymous Wikipedia editor saying, as to some pieces of info, that the MIT professor must've not been aware of information and, as to others, NY Mag must have misunderstood him? I mean this is precisely the issue—OR as to accuracy can often require a level of expertise that few editors will actually have. And can you imagine a debate between two editors that do have that experience? How does that get resolved? An RFC that determines which rocket scientist has the truth on his or her side?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I've been tagged here to provide a third opinion and I would like to help but the discussion is very long and hard to follow. Can the debate be summarised by one of you? What is the issue here so that other editors may help find a consensus? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah absolutely. The dispute concerns the paragraph with Olivier de Weck and Eric Roesch, and while, initially, the focus was on the latter, the de Weck material was subsequently added, and now the focus is there. The source for the de Weck material is here. At first, I made some errors in transposing that material into the article, but, so far as I understand, those have been resolved. In short, the NY Mag piece, which switches between quoting de Weck and paraphrasing him, says that flame trenches and a "pipeline ... bring[ing] seawater" could have better controlled the debris/dust released at launch. This essentially corresponds to the Roesch opinion, and similar points were in a Texas Public Radio piece (though because there was no attribution for those points, that piece is not included).

Restatement of Ergzay analysis of de Weck, quoted from above

@Ergzay, however, takes issue with the de Weck statements, saying, "the issue here (which we don't yet cover in the wiki article) is that they can't actually do as that professor suggests. The professor isn't aware of the restrictions of their environmental review, namely that they can't use large amounts of water because they're not allowed to send the water into the environment as normal deluge systems do. Those were some of the conditions that forced the current design. That combined with the low water table would require them to raise the pad off the ground in a massive concrete mound (like is done at the cape) in order to build in the flame trench however there is not enough room for the ramp in the very little acreage they have. No one's really reported on this as far as I'm aware however. It's just general knowledge among the community from people who read through the environmental report. Most reporters won't bother to do that as they just want the clicks without doing any real research." Separately, Ergzay says Roesch is "blatantly wrong".

Now, I acknowledge that OR is sometimes a component of exclusion decisions (e.g., WP:FRINGE doesn't actually require a source saying an opinion is fringe). But I think that particular kind of OR—specifically, going to source accuracy—shouldn't be a basis for exclusion. @DFlhb has suggested that it is a legitimate basis for exclusion, at least as to the Roesch quotations, but he says he's unable to analyze the accuracy of Ergzay's critique. (To be clear: I can't, either.) So the question is ... should we include the de Weck and Roesch statements?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The comment you quoted above about de Weck isn't quite a statement saying he's incorrect. He's correct that if it was possible for SpaceX to do that, it would be a good way of doing it. My only point was a side quibble that it's not actually possible, for legal reasons rather than technical ones, even though there's unlikely to be a source (besides quoting the primary source) showing that. However including de Weck is MUCH better than using Roesch who has extreme bias (maybe better to phrased as "personal vendetta") and isn't even an expert on the technical subject. Ergzay (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay so your conceding de Weck should be in the article, but you're saying Roesch should not? I assume you'll concede that your analysis of de Weck claim doesn't belong in the piece, since that would obviously be inclusion of OR. I assume the "extreme bias"/"personal vendetta" is also OR, and your claim that he's not an expert does contradict the NYT description of him, but regardless, @Gtoffoletto I guess that's the main issue.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Well my advice would be to simply "stick to the sources" per WP:RS and avoid WP:OR at all costs. If there is a doubt about a statement let's check it other reliable sources report it and if so then we should include it in the article regardless of what any of us thinks. What are the sources here and what do they say? (Also let's keep it as brief and schematic as possible or no-one will take the time to read all this and help out.) {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! (And, sorry, when the question was "what are the technical merits of the source's claim?" ... the length, obviously, got long ... of course it's my position that WP isn't the place for that kind of disagreement, but alas.)--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)