Talk:SpaceX Starbase

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SpaceX Starbase article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 4 months

Spaceflight: SpaceX working group Mid‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by SpaceX working group.

Rocketry High‑importance

	Rocketry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	The topic of this article is spaceport.

United States: Texas Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Mid-importance).

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 120 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

It is requested that a photograph of "Gateway to Mars" sign be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in the following regions may be able to help:

the United States
Texas

The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Reuters special report

See this new Reuters special report [1]https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/spacex-texas-musk/. It has some interesting info that should probably be aded to the article:

"Starbase’s expansion has injected a dizzying influx of money into campaign coffers, business dealings and the personal finances of people elected to represent the public."
"Starbase’s growth, Reuters found, was fueled by aggressive lobbying and eased by an accommodating political class that itself flourished with SpaceX’s rise." One local resident alleged, "The politicians here are in SpaceX’s pocket,”
About permitting, which has been a hot topic lately, SpaceX allegedly directed employees to disguise their work on a backup power plant that they didn't have a permit for. One former employee says: “The company’s attitude was to move ahead without asking permission and apologize later”. Stonkaments (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceX water deluge claims

The article, citing SpaceX's self-published blog, currently includes this sentence: "In their statement, SpaceX said that the deflector did not spray pollutants into the environment and used drinking water, and said that samples of outflow water consistently showed negligible traces of contaminants and within standards."

I believe this sentence should be removed, as these claims appear to be false and violates NPOV, specifically WP:MANDY. The reliable secondary sources that I've read on this subject do not support SpaceX's claims that they used drinking water and didn't release pollutants into the environment. Does anyone have a more reliable source supporting SpaceX's claims here? Stonkaments (talk) 05:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources credibly claimed that SpaceX's statements regrading the September 10 EPA claims are false?

At the moment, we have an EPA claim that pollution occurred, and SpaceX's claim that pollution did not occur.

The actual EPA claim is predicated on statutory requirement for an industrial process wastewater permit. However, it does not allege that any specific pollution actually occurred. (Except for a LOX spill which is not related to the deluge system.)

SpaceX's claim is based on laboratory testing of the water in question. WP:MANDY does not apply here, because it's not a bare refusal. It brings significant qualitative context to the table.

It's worth noting that both parties can be right here. The system could have required the permit, while at the same time not actually have been a source of pollution. So both should be included. Foonix0 (talk) 06:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not fundamentally a question of true or false; reliable sources I've seen haven't deemed SpaceX's rebuttal to be worthy of mention, which means including it would appear to violate WP:DUE. Stonkaments (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two sources that link directly to and/or state the contents of the rebuttal. Both sources were already used elsewhere in this section. Foonix0 (talk) 06:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pad A and B or Pad 1 and 2

Its been discussed widely among the spaceflight community that at Starbase, the Launch Pads are actually numbered 1 and 2, not A and B. A and B have been assumed since the first pad was built at Starbase, but now we are increasingly seeing references to Pad 2, such as from SpaceX employee Dan Huot,^[1] Starship Gazer has also made numerous references to Pad 2 during its construction.

So, do we update the naming scheme to Pad 1 and Pad 2 (so OLP-1 and OLP-2, Integration Tower 1 and 2 etc)? I know it will be a tedious update.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I haven't seen this discussed anywhere else. TheCosmicNebula (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pad A -> Pad 1 should be implemented. Redacted II (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am implementing this as per SpaceX's latest tweet https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1951030322767994912 TheCosmicNebula (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^ Huot, Dan (2025-06-05). So here we go: it's Pad 2. It's not Pad B, it's always been Pad 2 and I'm sorry if this hurts. Retrieved 2025-06-05 – via Twitter.

[1] Huot, Dan (2025-06-05). So here we go: it's Pad 2. It's not Pad B, it's always been Pad 2 and I'm sorry if this hurts. Retrieved 2025-06-05 – via Twitter.

[1]