Talk:Starship flight test 9/Archive 1

Archive 1

created page

since flight 7 is ready to take off and more information will probably be announced soon I felt that a page for flight 9 was ready to be made Canadien1867 (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Creating this article was quite premature.

(At least go find some sources) Redacted II (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

sry I'm new to editing

(but someone created the flight 8 page before 6 even lifted off? I didn't think I was being premature, oopsies)

aaaaaand I'm off to read the editing tutorials

have a splendid day Canadien1867 (talk) 02:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Its fine, its just that when creating a page, you need to provide (IIRC 3) sources.

There aren't many sources that mention flight test 9 (yet, that will change) Redacted II (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Given that the article was unfortunently deleted (thus requiring it to be recreated in weeks, if not days), I've copied the source code into a draft of a draft here. Redacted II (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you!!!!! Canadien1867 (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

No problem. Redacted II (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Now an official draft, submitted for review. Redacted II (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

The AfD result

Responding here to @Redacted II, who said in an edit summary that DRV is not required to overturn a deletion discussion that expressed a consensus that this page should be redirected just six weeks ago. Frankly, I don't think that's true. A community consensus had been reached, and the burden should be on editors who want to overturn it rather than those who wish to maintain it to argue to point. But rather than edit war, I guess we'll have to redo the AfD here on the talk page. Pinging AfD closer and participants @Asilvering, @RachelTensions, @158.184.209.107, @WellThisIsTheReaper @Eluchil404. I have zero opinion on the merits of this AfD but I generally think editors should not try to end-run AfD results without discussing first. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

After deletion, several additional sources were added.

(Confirmed) Reliable independant sources include:

NASASpaceflight

FCC

Ars Technica

Additional possibly reliable independant sources:

ISPreview

Non-independant sources:

Elon Musk

Starlink

There are more than enough sources to be thoroughly notable. And likely to be many more in the near future. Redacted II (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Also pinging @Canadien1867 who created the article Redacted II (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Usp as well Redacted II (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Redacted II, you even participated in that AfD. Restoring this article is clearly against consensus. -- asilvering (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Article was modified significantly since AfD.

And it meets notability requirements. Redacted II (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

What @Dclemens1971 said, the burden should be on editors who want to overturn it rather than those who wish to maintain it to argue to point, is correct. Typically, the first step is to go to the admin who closed the AfD. I'm here now, so go ahead: what are the new sources that weren't available to the previous AfD participants, but are now available, that make it clear that this topic meets WP:GNG now when it did not before? -- asilvering (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Alright, comparing the (almost) current version of Flight Test 9 to the version of Starship flight test 8 that was nominated for deletion (by the same person). The later # is current Flight 9

Size: 4,849/10,541 (this isn't a reason for notability per WP:GNG, but it does serve as an indication for article size)

Independant, reliable (according to community consensus) sources: 2/3 (maybe 4).

Even when comparing the current flight 9 to the Flight test 8 when the deletion discussion was closed, it somewhat comes out ahead:

Size: 6,687/10,541

Independant, reliable (according to community consensus) sources: 5 (maybe 6)/3 (maybe 4).

But when just looking at sheer # of sources:

Flight 8: 11

Flight 9: 21

The current flight 9 article has more information that when Flight 8 was saved from deletion, and more sources.

The reasoning for initial deletion nomination was: "Article is WP:TOOSOON. Article is full of WP:CRYSTAL and speculation, and doesn't pass WP:GNG. The spacecrafts that are purportedly flying this test are still being built and no details are known."

WP:TOOSOON says: "If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered". As previously established, there are sources. So thats inapplicable. WP:CRYSTAL states " If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented". But preparation is already in progress. One of the two boosters that may fly on this launch is undergoing cryogenic testing and the ship has completed assembly. The assignment of the ship is certain, and there are two candidates for the booster (again, both are sourced). WP:GNG has been addressed earlier, so I'll repeat myself. There are 3/4 reliable independant sources, and 2 non-independant sources. Thats more than enough for notability. Redacted II (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Redacted II, this isn't what I asked for. Please show me the new sources that weren't available to the previous AfD participants. You can just put a list of URLs in your reply, that's fine. -- asilvering (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Basically all of them:

"Consolidated opposition to petitions and response to comments of SPACEX. Exhibit A. satellite dimensions and DAS outputs"

"And with a glimpse of the future, views from Starship entering Earth's atmosphere were made possible by Starlink"

"Starlink 2024 Report Details 1Tbps Speed LEO v3 Broadband Satellites"

"Following Flight 7 SpaceX line up future Starships"

Pad B's Major Milestones: Chopsticks, Tank Farm, and Flame Trench Developments | Starbase Update

Primed To Fire and Rolled Back | SpaceX Boca Chica

"Starship Booster 16 got to work quickly after arriving to Massey's early in morning performing a multi hour partial cryo test well into the night. Next up should be a full cryo test before returning home to Mega Bay 1 for some engines"

From Pad A Repairs to Pad B's Chopsticks: A Week at Starbase | Starbase Update

"The Starbase That Never Sleeps | SpaceX Boca Chica"

"🚀 SpaceX is Installing the Chopsticks to Second Starbase Starship Launch Tower"

""Hey Look, That's The Pad B Chopstick Moving" | SpaceX Boca Chica"

"Starship Delayed to Next Week and Moon Landers Approaching - The Flame Trench".

"Successful ocean landing of Starship! We will do one more ocean landing of the ship. If that goes well, then SpaceX will attempt to catch the ship with the tower"

"Fire destroys Starship on its seventh test flight, raining debris from space"

"Starbase making progress on second launch pad"

"Starlink 2024 Report Details 1Tbps Speed LEO v3 Broadband Satellites" Redacted II (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, none of this helps establish a WP:GNG pass. -- asilvering (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

So, the additional independant reliable sources don't establish WP:GNG?

Why? Redacted II (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

In the above list, there are no independent, reliable sources containing significant coverage of the subject that were not available to the participants of the earlier deletion discussion. -- asilvering (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

FCC permit, and Ars Technica are both independant and reliable sources, neither of which were part of the article at the time of deletion.

Last Dif before deletion attached as a reference. Redacted II (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Neither of them contain significant secondary coverage about the launch. -- asilvering (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

"Flight 9 and Beyond

After Ship 34, we have Ship 35, which is only one section shy of being fully stacked. Assuming it gets fully stacked within the next two weeks, Ship 35 may not be ready until April or May. Regarding objectives, Ship 35 could be the first Ship to orbit with a potential catch attempt on Pad B at Starbase, not Pad A."

Is that not significant coverage? Redacted II (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

It is not, no. -- asilvering (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Then what exactly is the definition?

I don't see any policy that requires the entirety of a source to be dedicated to a certain topic:

In fact "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Redacted II (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

The guideline is at WP:SIGCOV. -- asilvering (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Which I quoted directly above.

"Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

Two entire paragraphs constitutes more than a "trivial mention"

(my apologies for not ctrl-cing in the second paragraph. I've added it below):

"As always, these timelines use data from older vehicles, and SpaceX can speed up testing and booster outfitting. Still, assuming Booster 16 won’t be ready for several months, SpaceX might end up reusing Booster 14 to get another flight in. Reflying the just second booster that landed wouldn’t be unprecedented, as SpaceX did the same with the second Falcon 9 that landed."

Redacted II (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Given that discussion seems to have stagnated, (as well as recommendations by Dclemens1971), I've started a discussion at WP:DRV. Redacted II (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

The Ars Technica link above doesn't even discuss this launch, and the the FCC permit is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. @Redacted II, you appear not to have convinced the closer of the AfD, so your next step is WP:DRV. One final comment: the WP:BRD cycle meant you should not have reverted my redirect. Canadien1867 took a WP:BOLD step to recreate the article, I reverted it, and the next step should have been to start the discussion rather than re-reverting. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

My interpretation of BRD at the time of revert for how it applied to the situation was the reversion to the redirect was the Bold Edit, and thus reverting and requesting discussion was following policy. Redacted II (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Your interpretation was incorrect. Dclemens reversed Canadien's edit - that's a revert, putting us at BR in the BRD cycle. We ended up at BRRRD, but we got to the D in the end, so all's well that ends well. -- asilvering (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll try to stay out of this argument for now because I don't have much to add, but I'll state the following:

Redacted II stated in this discussion that he was waiting for T-24 hours until flight 8 to create the article. We have now passed that point, so even if it was WP:TOOSOON when I created the article, it isn't anymore, so why bother changing it? The article passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG now, and it will have even more information in a few days after flight 8.

Sure, it was too soon to create the article when I did. I'll give you that. But my point is, it isn't anymore. I explained more on the flight 9 draft, which I'll repeat here:

This article has been expanded and updated with a lot of new information since the deletion discussion. Also, the flight 8 article was created the day flight 6 lifted off, and if we follow that pattern, shouldn't this article have been created shortly after the flight 7 launch? Also, flight 8 is possibly launching in just 2 weeks (following the NET date of Feb 24th), and even more information about flight 9 will almost certainly be provided soon. Also, heres another fun fact: when the flight 8 article was created, it had significantly less information than the flight 9 article does now, and nobody seemed to care about it back then. Additionally, this flight 9 article has a wide variety of reliable sources, which some members of the original deletion discussion did not seem to notice or understand. Therefore, I believe this article can be created at this point, as there are no longer any valid reasons not to. Canadien1867 (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Still a crystal-bally mess sourced to guesses and theories from the YouTube channel of what is essentially a SpaceX fansite, and some Elon tweets.

Certain people can call NASASpaceFlight a reliable source until they're blue in the face... until they publish something that isn't a) an educated guess from amateur spaceflight enthusiasts on YouTube, or b) one sided, non-objective SpaceX coverage because they don't want to get on the bad side of SpaceX and lose their special access, then I don't think we can call them a reliable independent source, especially for the purposes of establishing notability. RachelTensions (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Communiuty consensus is that they are a reliable source.

So, you can call NASASpaceflight an unreliable source until your, as you put it blue in the face, but the rest of the community disagrees.

They certainly aren't amateurs: they've been doing this since 2005, and what special access do they have? Redacted II (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm unsure why you're linking to that talk page as if there has been a community discussion there to determine the reliability of that site. I searched the archives for "NSF" and "NasaSpaceFlight" looking for a past discussion and most of what I found is just you, in particular, calling them reliable.

I've still seen no evidence of fact checking, editorial oversight, or objectivity. They publish guesses and rumour. RachelTensions (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Look at the talk-page banner. Or the FAQ, for that matter.

"NASASpaceFlight.com, generally reliable but need some check to separate speculation from reported facts, as with the case of freshly reported news." Redacted II (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Also, checking the archives, NSF as a reliable source is widely accepted. I recommend using ctrl-f.

Here are a few "quotes":

"reliability of this source is consistent with the use of NASASpaceFlight.com and their YouTube videos and livestreams as reliable sources in SpaceX-related articles" Archive 13

"Hello, probably a bit late here, but I have just added manifacturing section for that. These information can be taken from either photogrpaphers, nasaspaceflight and a few news articles" Archive 2

There was no issue with NSF during its Good Article Review. In fact, another user recommended it: "I also reccommend avoiding using Elon Musk's tweets as references and instead using articles from NASASpaceflight and other similar news agencies" Redacted II (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of community discussion proclaiming them reliable, just a talk banner and an FAQ that seems to imply they're reliable because they're notable enough to have an article?

Even if we assume that there was consensus behind that banner, it states that speculation should be separated from reported facts. Almost every single citation in the article is referencing speculation on their part, not facts. As an encyclopedia, we deal in facts.

These are indications of speculation, not facts:
"NASASpaceflight has claimed"
"It is expected"
"hinting"
"it is believed"... "but this remains unconfirmed"
"it is likely" RachelTensions (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Speculation is not reason for deletion: "If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented"

Speculation is well documented and labeled appropriately. Redacted II (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@RachelTensions, would you consider taking it to WP:RSN for a consensus, if there isn't already one in the archives there? -- asilvering (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Since Flight 8 has happened now, we could probably wait a while for major sources to show up and as soon as we get some decent amount of sources mentioning Flight 9, we could probably move the draft into mainspace. As for the reliability of NSF as a source, previous discussions mostly considered NSF as reliable, although I'm okay with opening a discussion at RSN if needed. User3749 (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Recreation

Pygos, pinging you for the review on this one to save some poor NPR who doesn't know what they're about to walk into from trying to read through all this. -- asilvering (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Gladly Pygos (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC)