Talk:SpaceX Starship#rfc F9B6DDC

{{Discussion top|reason=WP:FORUM, WP:OR, and also a bit of WP:NPOV. There are plenty of places to discuss the recent Block 2 issues. Wikipedia is not one of them. Redacted II (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Plus...Plus, poor manufacturing or testing practices. I have no other explanation for the string of failures over the past few months. Unless it's sabotage, but that sounds too political to have a place here. But, in the spirit of asking, let me add to the question: Perhaps something could be reflected here in the section in this article, or in [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starbase#Impact this] supplementary article? ГеоргиУики (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:WP:OR and WP:FORUM.

:(Though I do agree that SpaceX is facing severe QC issues). Redacted II (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:Agree with Redacted II, this is original research. If you have specific RS's supporting the idea that there's been a decline in the quality of engineering at SpaceX in the Starship program, go for it and add to your hearts content (I agree that something is going wrong somewhere here with this program, but we go by sources not feelings/our personal opinions). Chuckstablers (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::Of course, hardly anyone, except an official government, can enter the territory of a private company and investigate from the inside whether and what is wrong. So, outsiders can only judge based on the facts of failures that are visible in the public space. So, what I have asked here is based on my own conclusions about what is happening. ГеоргиУики (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::That is WP:OR.

:::(Should I close this discussion?) Redacted II (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Ok, in article already was added some information about that I want. ГеоргиУики (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:the chirpy/PR tone needs to go. There is a growing disconnect between this page superlative claims and the reality of Starship. This rocket cannot go to LEO let alone the Moon or Mars or the stars. The fact that Starship is failing needs to be reflected in this page 2A02:A03F:622D:9800:5C3:FF61:398A:A9F1 (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::Remember WP:NPOV.

::Also, that Starship hasn't yet reached LEO (I do have to mention that they easily could, but haven't because of safety) is reflected in the article. Redacted II (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

{{Discussion bottom}}

I found [https://mexiconewsdaily.com/politics/space-debris-tamaulipas-thursdays-mananera-recapped/ an article] describing the debris from the tests coming ashore in Tamaulipas. I am not super familiar with this article, I came across in looking for information on Hurricane Erick, so I do not really know what to do with it. ✶Quxyz✶ 23:10, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:Mexico News Daily seems to be unreliable and very biased, but I could be wrong. Canadien1867 (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed Redacted II (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Could you elaborate on your reasoning because I have used this source in other articles and I might want to review its usage if it is too unreliable. ✶Quxyz✶ 19:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::The claim that the debris is toxic.

::::Everything I've seen so far is that the debris isn't toxic. Redacted II (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Whether it is toxic or not (it seems like it is not), the objective fact is that some debris came down inside Mexico. That deserves a note at least Hal Nordmann (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::No disagreement there Redacted II (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::[https://www.foxweather.com/earth-space/spacex-gulf-launch-rocket-debris-mexico FOX Weather] and [https://www.accuweather.com/en/space-news/spacex-rocket-debris-litters-mexico-beach-threatens-environment/1782495 Accuweather] also have articles about it if MND does not suffice. ✶Quxyz✶ 21:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The debris being toxic or there bring debris?

::::::::(I trust Fox about as far as I can throw a fully fueled Starship) Redacted II (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::In my opinion, FOX Weather (specifically) is relatively reliable. I haven't seen them make any bonkers claims. ✶Quxyz✶ 02:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::per WP:RSPS, it is unreliable when discussing science or politics Canadien1867 (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::That website is generally known to be quite Liberal and often makes false or greatly exaggerated claims.

::::Additionally, the article you linked above repeatedly mentions "Elon Musk's space debris" and makes it very clear that SpaceX is owned by him, which is a quite obvious indication that the article's main purpose is to spread a political opinion, make Elon look bad, and make the public angry at SpaceX. That is definitely a red flag and shouldn't be used as a source, unless you have reasons otherwise? Canadien1867 (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Being Liberal =/= WP:NPOV violation.

:::::Otherwised mostly agreed Redacted II (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Also, I know this might be somewhat pedantic, but the general definition of "space debris" is "defunct or non-operational, human-made objects in orbit around Earth". Therefore, the fuel tanks along Mexico's beaches that were mentioned in the article, which are likely from Super Heavy B11 or B13, are not "space debris", but the article claims they are. This continues to prove the article is unreliable. Canadien1867 (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::The debris is from B14.

::::::(Also, that is very, very pedantic. I'd call B13 and B14's corpses (even though they never passed the Karman line) space debris) Redacted II (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I have tagged it as possibly unreliable, use due diligence in my list of sources. I am going to go through some articles to see if I can find better sources for claims. If there is a better source, would it still be worth noting the debris on the coast of Tamaulipas? ✶Quxyz✶ 00:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)