Talk:List of Starship launches

1864:"This is not a list of vehicles; it is a list of launches. Your sources are talking about vehicles, not launches. The payload or mission name is the primary point of information; all else is secondary. For something to be included here, the original source of the information has to come from an insider such as a launch provider or payload customer (whether or not there is an information "middle man," e.g. journalist, leaker). Anything else is speculation. We have yet no official indication that there will ever be such a thing as "Flight 7" and "Flight 8." Also, if we keep adding flights based on the vehicles that exist (which just doesn't even make sense in the first place, especially since they scrap ships sometimes), eventually one will overlap with an actual announced mission." 1332:"sock IP" even in the header. Your citation above you picked out of the "possible move" comment, distracting and cherrypicking again. The main accusation was "an attempt to make others believe that they are not all the same person". Also accusing of several severe personal attacks and many more. There was a clear vote of all 4 commenters against you, clearly stating "I don't see any of those diffs as personal attacks", "This thread is a waste of time." and " I don't see anything actionable here.". Your replys there showed you were totally unregenerate, contradicting all admins and others. 537: 516: 1145:"There aren't any speculatory missions listed. Speculation would require it to not have a source." This is just laughable. If you use a speculative source, it stays speculative. Your only(!) source "spacenews.com/starship-lunar-lander-missions-to-require-nearly-20-launches-nasa-says/" says "NASA says", so why don't find he original NASA statement? Because there is none! If you read the extremely inprecice arcticle more carefully, it's not NASA but a single "official", a "assistant deputy associate administrator"(!!) is speculating. 1871:"The "mission name" is almost always just the payload, but it doesn't have to be. Of course if there are multiple primary payloads we list all of them. You seem to claim the "mission name" would be "Falcon Heavy Flight 6," but you just made that up. The difference is that "Starship Flight Test 4" is the closest thing we have. Not a single entry in the Falcon list has a the payload entry blank. On the contrary, there are payloads listed such as "SpaceX COTS Demo Flight 1" and "SpaceX COTS Demo Flight 2."" 207: 186: 1836:

insider such as a launch provider or payload customer (whether or not there is an information "middle man," e.g. journalist, leaker). Anything else is speculation. We have yet no official indication that there will ever be such a thing as "Flight 7" and "Flight 8." Also, if we keep adding flights based on the vehicles that exist (which just doesn't even make sense in the first place, especially since they scrap ships sometimes), eventually one will overlap with an actual announced mission.

217: 432: 411: 547: 1840:

the closest thing we have. Not a single entry in the Falcon list has a the payload entry blank. On the contrary, there are payloads listed such as "SpaceX COTS Demo Flight 1" and "SpaceX COTS Demo Flight 2." Clearly, the point is to describe what the mission is doing, not the physical object in the fairing (it just happens to almost always be that). Having the payload entry blank is just confusing. Look at

339: 318: 155: 140: 442: 621: 2051:

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

1959:

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

1899:

Since every Falcon flight had a payload, it gives no precedence either way in the case of a launch with an empty payload bay. The payload column is the "defining" data point of each launch. It's the most important part of each entry, and if left blank, it's not immediately obvious what the launch was

1839:

The "mission name" is almost always just the payload, but it doesn't have to be. Of course if there are multiple primary payloads we list all of them. You seem to claim the "mission name" would be "Falcon Heavy Flight 6," but you just made that up. The difference is that "Starship Flight Test 4" is

1488:

The reason those flights were a success is because they successfully lifted off and got further than the time before each time. SpaceX was able to collect the data and make improvements so the next flight could go even further yet again; so all those launches were a success. To say that any of them

1280:

Failed for good reason, as everybody can re-read: You was the one who provoked me first, then invented a lot of nonsense to distract from the main issues, and then wanted to silence me with false accusations like beeing a socketpuppet. This all failed grandiously and you were told to stick to facts

688:

If you don't know "how", why not ask for help? You should have copied the whole page including history and talk. Now, with deleting much of the original page (and renaming it), most of the work of others gets diluted and neglected as their changes and efforts are no longer repesented in the history

1904:

list the mission name, except when there is a large number of payloads." In other words, when we can't use the name of the physical payload, we use the mission name. It makes the most sense to put in the payload section the payload(s) name(s) or mission name, whichever suits, and if there is none,

2186:

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

1574:

Nonsense again. Suborbital is by definition not orbital. You don't understand the difference between transatmospheric and TEO. Not everything someone gets into transatmospheric heights will get orbital. Flight tests 3+4 were on purpose not fast enought by a few percentages, to avoid space junk if

1892:

Flight 7: The only mentions the article gives to Flight 7 are "which hints that the first Block 2 Starship will fly on the seventh flight" and a tweet from Alex saying things like "likely refers to Ship 30 and Ship 31" and "perhaps the confirmation that Ship 32 may not fly and that Flight 7 will

1079:

This seems a lot like "being inferred from a primary launch announcement just because we know it must happen." Basically what I'm getting at is that no one is going to get any useful information about a given launch from this. You strongly agreed to entering "only officially announced missions,"

2279:

Opinion- I don't think we're in the business of predicting the future, so the section title "Future launches" should be replaced by "Planned launches." Assuming that, we don't have access to information on the current plans SpaceX has, and we know SpaceX plans change over time. What we have are

2134:

I'm not sure how those tweets can be considered anything other than speculation. The editors' note (originally from the Falcon list) explicitly says "Only officially announced missions should be listed, no rumors or speculation." How are these sources official in any capacity? I have not found

1835:

This is not a list of vehicles; it is a list of launches. Your sources are talking about vehicles, not launches. The payload or mission name is the primary point of information; all else is secondary. For something to be included here, the original source of the information has to come from an

1858:"The Ringwatchers article does not mention Flight 7. As has been said before, youtube is not a good source. If there is no other source for something, there's a good chance it should not be mentioned. Besides, I could not find in the NSF video the mention of S33, B14, Block 2, or Flight 7." 1828:

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

1893:

feature the next version of the ship." "Hints," "likely," "perhaps," and "may" are not words of official announcements; they are words of speculation (not unreasonable speculation, but speculation none the less). This list is not supposed to include speculative entries.

1163:, I support your efforts and general criteria, but in this case such arguments are superfluous, as all those refuelling starts are just speculation and "original reasearch" out of a single highy speculative article with a clickbait headline. Just go on and delete it. 1177:"Second, you have been instructed about primary and secondary sources and when to use them several times as well. As you now once more insist that secondary sources are the best and cherrypicking quotes, I have to assume you do this on purpose and to distract." 1344:

There is only on reason I bring this up here in detail: You started to pick on it (for revenge?), misleading others, and I just had to correct these half-truths. While you keep on doing original resarch and interpreting already dubious sources to your liking.

1155:

Out of this, you make some 50(!!) spaceship fuel missions and state that in a table as fact. Apart from one more "original research" by you, as you interprete this lousy article to a very wide stretch: This is extremely untrue and one more violation of WP

846:

Furthermore, all this comes from a single source where someone not related to SpaceX speculated(!) about how many refuelling flights might(!) be necessary. To include that in the tables, and making it the most striking feature of this pages is completely

1141:

Second, you have been instructed about primary and secondary sources and when to use them several times as well. As you now once more insist that secondary sources are the best and cherrypicking quotes, I have to assume you do this on purpose and to

1107:

The ref was put in the wrong spot. That has been fixed. (Also, yes, saying it is going to be version 2 is speculation. But we do know that its not Starship 1, and that Artemis 4 is going to use an upgraded HLS, so its very likely to be Starship

1227:

know how many it will be. You agreed to list launches individually rather than in a mission group; that means waiting for an announcement for a specific launch. If a ref does not mention a specific launch, it is not a source for a specific

1715:

A number of tanker launches, in the high teens, send a total of 1500 tons of Methane and Oxygen to a waiting depot. A HLS is docked to the depot, and the fuel is transferred. The HLS then reignites its engines, and travels to the moon.

1151:

The numbers "16" (NASA) or "8" (SpaceX) are not only disputed and given as "max", these are quotes themselves from much older articles. Why not quote those originals? Too lazy or distracting again? Or because they do not support your

850:

The problem is that Redacted II likes to include speculative data, dubious sources and original resarch, and never ever apprehends the problem of doing so, as you can see above and in many other discussions regarding Starship, e.g.

2023:

not the same as a NASASpaceflight.com article (the FAQ specifically mentions the website). Even if it was in an article, it's still speculation based on nothing but the vehicles. Outsider speculation is speculation no matter the

2113:

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

1511:

This has been discussed oder and over, and if some people had not split the starship topics into manyfold small articles without proper interlinking and (re-)import of old discussions, you would have found it. E g see here:

803:

section. The list is currently an eyesore due to the large number of refueling missions listed. These have no source (other than that ambiguous spacenews.com one) and no useful information. This does not adhere to

1832:

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

2098:"This list has greater public interest (by orders of magnitude) and should thus meet a higher standard of readability (the Starship list is the one less readable with black payload section, not the Atlas list)" 1374:

Unregenerate implies that filing a report at ANI, if it doesn't result in actions being taken, is somehow "wrong". As for contradicting admins, they said your actions weren't actionable. All I did was voice my

1867:

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

1737:

I've always thought that particular graph is a bit dumb. Almost all of them will be earth orbit flights. I hadn't even considered the problem you mentioned. I'm in favor of removing the thing entirely.

871:

The # of refueling missions is sourced (and if the # of refueling missions is an eyesore, then Starlink is going to be much worse). Given that they have a NET, if not an exact date, they should remain.

2382: 1992:

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

1910: 1906: 1303: 2280:

reports of plans, and we know the reliability of those reports. I suggest replacing the table with prose, fully indicating the dates and sources of the information about planned launches. (

940:

i. If we were to include launches "because we know they must happen," we could enter dozens of unnamed Starlink launches because they have to complete the constellation sometime, right?

1969:"The payload column is the "defining" data point of each launch. It's the most important part of each entry, and if left blank, it's not immediately obvious what the launch was for." 247: 943:

ii. A source saying a mission will have refueling flights is no more an official announcement for a launch than one saying there will be a bunch of Starlink launches in the future.

2328:

Prose allows for content like, "Spaceflight journalist Marcia Berger speculated that Starship Flight 8 might take place in 2025." That's difficult to squeeze into a table entry. (

818:

Every refueling flight require a scheduled date (these missions are so uninteresting with regards to statistics that there's no point having them listed far before launch anyway).

955:: "Only officially announced missions should be listed, no rumors or speculation." I think you'll agree that Musk saying something does not describe being "officially announced." 1575:

something went wrong, thus 3+4 did not enter an orbit at all. Either you know that and want to distract on purpose again, or you need to re-read some facts and educate yourself.

1044:

2Aii: Where are you getting an exact number? Every estimate has a different idea. It's misleading to put a number on it when SpaceX hasn't announced an official launch schedule.

1578:

WP:Sub-orbital spaceflight clearly explains that and lists e.g. all Blue Origin flights for exaclty that reason. All Starship flight tests so far did tecnically the same.

1138:

First, as above: I am not attacking, merely stating facts. You should learn to distinguish. You were cought several times with original research. So, now stop accusing me!

264: 2030:

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

1515:

It is also discussed and explained in the artikel itself in the table. In my opinion, a start that destroys most of the pads infrastructure, cannot be seen as success :)

131: 44: 2042:

This list has greater public interest (by orders of magnitude) and should thus meet a higher standard of readability (the Starship list is the one less readable with a

1620:

If that was true, why does the IFT-1 page state "The projected flight path would have been suborbital" ?? It is referenced by one of you reveered secondary sources...

1979:

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

1249:

In that case, I'd be okay with removing those flights, so long as it is listed under every mission that there will be a number of refueling flights in the high teens.

922:

B. Launches are listed in chronological order, unsortable. When independent launches occur between constituent launches of a mission, that mission's launches indeed

2314:

Tables for planned launches labeled "Future launches" is standard across many "List of {rocket} launches" lists. Your opinion does not address either controversy.

2377: 300: 290: 1148:

Even worse, what about "Exactly how many launches will be required has been a point of debate (..) Neither NASA nor SpaceX have given firm numbers recently." ?

2412: 689:

of this page, although their texts and contributions are now here. I see that as severe violation of WP rules. You once more disregarded the work of others.

498: 488: 1329:

en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1161#Repeated_personal_attacks_by_IP_47.69.67.250_(as_well_as_by_potential_sock_IPs)

2387: 2072:

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

254: 1008:

We have the exact number of refueling flights, and a general time for when they occur. That is supported by sources. The same cannot be said for Starlink.

960:

If an entry has no meaningful information about the launch, it is perhaps an indication that there are not strong enough sources to warrant its existence.

2372: 2089:

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

1875: 1802: 952: 670: 79: 2427: 2417: 603: 593: 1266:

I've redone the tables to a better format (ok, I pretty much copied the Falcon list format). I'll also go through and look at refs when I have time.

2407: 259: 127: 2135:

anything on the internet suggesting NSF or SSG have an official source for Flight 8. I want to make sure you know by "speculation," I do not mean

1972:

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

2019:

By the FAQ (sorry, previously didn't realize what that was), Starship Gazer wouldn't seem to be a notable source. Also, Chris Bergin tweeting is

1983: 1546:

Well, that is false. As the test flights never wanted to reach any orbit and were clearly marked as suborbital on purpose, this argument fails.

2432: 464: 393: 1927:

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

1381:

Your wording heavily implies otherwise: "This all failed grandiously and you were told to stick to facts and nstop your own original resarch".

2422: 2397: 1935:

be considered a valid source for flights 6 and 7 (in which case your other refs would be fine). There's still no source for Flight 8 though.

383: 85: 1841: 1638:(planned)" in the infobox, and in the sentence before the one you cited (which is the only mention of the word "suborbital" in the article) 1385: 916:

This is a list of launches, not a list of missions ("missions" here including any launches to support one primary launch, e.g. refueling).

1232: 1187: 1095: 2402: 1656: 1621: 1579: 1516: 1346: 1282: 852: 738:

As you failed to split the page and to migrate the page contents including history (or if not able, ask for), but simply copied content:

690: 569: 230: 191: 1547: 1252:

For the bottom half of the hierarchy of disagreement: tt's been going on for a while. Tried to get admins to resolve it. That failed.

1164: 757: 641: 242: 2392: 2092:"The Function and Orbit columns explains why they didn't (they were all suborbital ICBM tests, not exactly a one to one comparison)" 2027:

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

1989:"The point is, sources primarily talking about vehicles linking them to flights are useless if the flight is not actually confirmed" 1496: 1296: 948:

B. The thing I said about requiring a scheduled date may not be reasonable. It just depends on how they announce refueling missions.

455: 416: 2039:

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

359: 2086:" (If this is an actual account, sorry for @ ing you). Guess which account that links too? So, those tweets are endorsed by NSF. 1963:"Since every Falcon flight had a payload, it gives no precedence either way in the case of a launch with an empty payload bay." 99: 30: 1124:

NASA is the contractor (they aren't just paying for the launch of HLS, they're paying for the launches to fuel HLS as well).

874: 560: 521: 104: 20: 238:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

74: 1306:, I say "sock puppetry section, though that isn't the main issue". You were using multiple IPs, though not intentionally. 1635: 666: 166: 2187:

what they were doing when they added that requirement. Adding speculative sources does not fit the spirit of WP policy.

2110:"the tweets would arguably be good enough sources for which vehicles fly on said flight, but not for the flight itself" 1101:

Listing each launch individually, like on List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches, addresses the mission name issue.

937:

A. A supporting launch should not be inferred from a primary launch announcement just because we know it must happen.

355: 351: 346: 323: 65: 1047:

3: The refueling entries add nothing to the article. For example, look at the data in each column for Artemis III.

878: 139: 122: 2069:"By the FAQ (sorry, previously didn't realize what that was), Starship Gazer wouldn't seem to be a notable source" 1706: 800: 633: 24: 1118: 1999: 1952:

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

1368:

If that was the case, it would have been titled "Repeated use of Sock IPs", and not "Repeated personal attacks"

929:

C. If a launch is specifically purposed for a mission, that mission should be listed in the launch description.

2239:

I mostly used your WP:3O message, but clarified that the second dispute is regarding flights with no payload.

536: 515: 1966:

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

1660: 1625: 1583: 1520: 1350: 1286: 856: 694: 2319: 2227: 2199: 2144: 2060: 1940: 1918: 1849: 1771: 1743: 1551: 1455: 1271: 1240: 1168: 1085: 969: 830: 805: 761: 109: 1500: 2083: 1596: 2082:

Go check the NASASpaceflight website. There is a section called "Tweets by NASASpaceflight"/"Posts from @

2349: 2305: 2244: 2213: 2177: 2119: 2007: 1883: 1818: 1757: 1727: 1674: 1646: 1611: 1565: 1537: 1469: 1441: 1393: 1314: 1257: 1195: 1129: 1035: 904: 778: 714: 678: 172: 1188:

https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/at-least-15-starship-launches-to-execute-artemis-iii-lunar-landing/

1096:

https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/at-least-15-starship-launches-to-execute-artemis-iii-lunar-landing/

1492: 222: 2300:

Planned launches is better wording, but IMO, a table is much better for this task than a paragraph.

825:

Of course these guidelines are not carved in stone and could be changed in the future if necessary.

1365:"The main accusation was "an attempt to make others believe that they are not all the same person"" 55: 1712:

For example, here is a circumstance that is both expected to occur and will cause contradictions:

1231:(By the way, I am truly sorry you're being dog piled by someone comfortable in the bottom half of 661:

I don't know how to add the "content copied from articles x y and z", so I've copied content from

644:

for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

568:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

463:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2315: 2223: 2195: 2159:"explicitly says "Only officially announced missions should be listed, no rumors or speculation." 2140: 2056: 1936: 1914: 1845: 1791: 1767: 1739: 1655:

Still it is crontradicting and confusing. Stay consistent, use reliable sources and no guessing.

1451: 1267: 1236: 1180:

You mean when you continue to say I'm misusing them despite direct quotations that say otherwise.

1160: 1081: 965: 899:

There aren't any speculatory missions listed. Speculation would require it to not have a source.

851:

Talk:List_of_Starship_upper_stage_flight_tests#Dubious_statements_with_even_more_dubious_sources

826: 447: 70: 1794:, why did you remove Flights 7 and 8? Their existence is sourced, as is the vehicle assignment. 206: 185: 2344:

Not really: just write "NET 2025", with "Spaceflight journalist Marcia Berger" as the source.

1600: 1371:"Your replys there showed you were totally unregenerate, contradicting all admins and others." 1335:

I never said the "OR" dispute happened there, one more allegation by you. Just a few examples:

51: 1719:

In this scenario, HLS qualifies for both "Earth Orbit" (this should be divided) and "Lunar".

2345: 2301: 2240: 2209: 2173: 2115: 2003: 1879: 1814: 1753: 1723: 1670: 1642: 1607: 1606:

Suborbital is what IFT-3 and IFT-4 targeted: with a perigee below the surface of the earth.

1561: 1533: 1465: 1437: 1436:

I'm not sure this qualifies (especially given the IMO bigoted political claims made within)

1389: 1310: 1253: 1191: 1125: 1111:

We don't know ship or booster numbers past flights 7 and 8, respectively. No argument there.

1031: 994:(IMO, detailing Artemis 3 for every refueling mission, for example, is needlessly redundant) 900: 882: 774: 710: 706:

Two: You can't copy the history of an article. Maybe I could if I was an admin, but I'm not.

674: 913:

Here is my rationale. I would like to hear exactly which points you disagree with and why.

815:

Every individual launch require a reference (Flight 6, as of today, would not be included).

2334: 2286: 1431: 919:

A. Launches should be listed individually; missions should not group constituent launches.

886: 662: 552: 896:

The IFT-6 sourcing issue is being worked on. As of September 10, 2024, it has one source.

799:

We need some sort of established inclusion criteria for putting planned missions in the

1844:. The mission names are listed there, whether there is a co-manifested payload or not. 1359:"First, the provoking was not rejecting but accusing, threatening and personal attacks" 1080:

which refueling launches are certainly not (obvious exception for Prop Transfer Demo).

890: 431: 410: 2353: 2339: 2323: 2309: 2291: 2248: 2231: 2217: 2203: 2181: 2148: 2123: 2064: 2011: 1944: 1922: 1887: 1853: 1822: 1775: 1761: 1747: 1731: 1678: 1664: 1650: 1629: 1615: 1587: 1569: 1555: 1541: 1524: 1504: 1473: 1459: 1445: 1397: 1354: 1323:

First, the provoking was not rejecting but accusing, threatening and personal attacks.

1318: 1290: 1275: 1261: 1244: 1199: 1172: 1133: 1089: 1039: 973: 908: 860: 834: 782: 765: 718: 698: 682: 2366: 235: 821:

No speculative mission be included, even if it has a source claiming it will happen.

2191: 2166: 2136: 1752:

It doesn't exist on the Falcon 9 article, so removing it is probably a good idea.

1384:

And finally, please, stop with the personal attacks. The bottom two levels of the

2162:

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

1928: 1218:"NASA and SpaceX have demurred on specifying how many launches would be required" 1190:, is not speculative. I did search, by the way, for the original NASA statement. 1104:

The date listed is the official NET. Yes its unlikely, but its the official date.

773:(Thanks for providing the exact policies. It made finding the template possible) 2002:. Its the very first section). So S34 is sourced. I'll try to find one for B15. 460: 1532:

They were failures, as they didn't deliver the vehicle into the desired orbit.

2329: 2281: 1722:

How will we list this flight in the graph? LEO? TLI? Something else entirely?

1114:

Payload is, as you said, obvious. Mass is unknown, and may forever be unknown.

542: 437: 212: 1119:

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/04/nasa-starship-first-landings-on-ramp/

2055:

Again, speculation is speculation, no matter the likelihood of the outcome.

1801:

list the mission name, except when there is a large number of payloads. See

338: 317: 234:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the 2104:

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

1949:"Flight 8: Your second rebuttal addresses nothing in my second paragraph." 741:

Now, the history of this page does not show anymore who wrote which parts.

723:

I am not attacking, merely stating facts. You should learn to distinguish.

2101:

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

1810: 1806: 1378:"never said the "OR" dispute happened there, one more allegation by you." 868:, 47.64.136.116, stop with the personal attacks and baseless accusations. 1896:

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

1878:. Every flight has had a payload. So there isn't a reason to list "N/a" 1338:

en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Starship_flight_test_4#Requested_move_30_July_2024

2156:

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

1050:

Generic mission name. We don't know the actual refueling naming scheme.

1813:, and "GS-1" as payloads. Not "ViaSat-3" or "Falcon Heavy Flight 6". 1326:

Second, you should know your own failed attempt to silence me better.

843:

Right, I noted that directly after this unfortunate page was created.

808:. Future Starlink missions could end up in this predicament as well. 565: 934:

Each supporting launch should have a reference to it specifically.

1309:

And where in that discussion was I given any warning about WP:OR?

877:: as proven by this quote: "Knowledge articles should be based on 1464:

Agreed, but I did want to make sure before not adding it at all.

1098:), and when. The existence of these missions have been announced. 2208:

I could try to notify Project Spaceflight and Project Rocketry

1599:, with a perigee above the surface of the earth, but below the 1341:

en.wikipedia.org/Talk:SpaceX_Starship_(spacecraft)#improvements

1299:". And inventing nonsense is directly quoting Knowledge policy. 1094:

We know it must happen, we know the number of flights (Source:

709:

Three: How is splitting an article disregarding their changes?

2165:"I want to make sure you know by "speculation," I do not mean 1074:

Same as primary launch (and they're not really fuel customers)

615: 148: 15: 2036:

Those flights didn't have widely accepted names like these do

1805:. Flight FH 6 (May 1, 2023) is a good demo of this: it lists 1281:

and nstop your own original resarch. Now, you do that again.

1117:

Orbit can actually be filled in as low earth orbit (Source:

1982:

There is precedent to leave it blank. Literally blank. See

953:

List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches#Future launches

358:, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the 2095:

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

1998:

NASASpaceflight is considered a WP:RS (again, read the

1432:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1837908705683059166

1183:"If you use a speculative source, it stays speculative" 637: 628: 1709:" graph may cause substantial issues in the future. 1560:

Incorrect: transatmospheric is technically orbital.

564:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 459:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2383:

List-Class United States articles of Low-importance

1450:That is not a specific launch announcement at all. 1428:First Mars flight: "about five uncrewed Starships" 1001:, listing all the future Starlinks would be stupid 726:Obviously, you need to edudate yourself a little: 1056:The ref doesn't seem to support it being Block 2 875:Primary sources are worse than secondary sources 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 1955:Twitter sources are minimized (and trust me, I 1905:describe the launch as best as possible, e.g. " 1212:"quite a number of tankers" - Lakiesha Hawkins 8: 1529:There has been extensive discussion of this. 2153:"I've added the ref for Flights 6 & 7." 2052:said flight, but not for the flight itself. 350:, an attempt to structure and organize all 2046:blank payload section, not the Atlas list) 1876:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy Launches 1803:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches 1490: 1186:And the source for the number of flights, 703:Once more, stop with the personal attacks. 671:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches 619: 510: 405: 312: 180: 154: 152: 2128:I've added the ref for Flights 6 & 7. 1900:for. You said, "the payload section does 1053:Technically correct, to put it generously 729:Help:Page_history#Moved_and_deleted_pages 629:List of Starship upper stage flight tests 1874:Because those are the payloads. Look at 626:Text and/or other creative content from 354:. If you wish to help, please visit the 1797:Additionally, the payload section does 951:C. An editors' note from the source of 512: 407: 314: 182: 2079:not the same as a NASASpaceflight.com" 1995:"There's still no source for Flight 8" 795:Inclusion criteria for Future launches 753:I think you should clean up your mess: 2378:Low-importance United States articles 1975:"You said, "the payload section does 7: 1842:List of Space Launch System launches 558:This article is within the scope of 453:This article is within the scope of 344:This article is within the scope of 228:This article is within the scope of 2413:Mid-importance spaceflight articles 275:Knowledge:WikiProject United States 171:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 2388:WikiProject United States articles 1984:List of Atlas launches (1957–1959) 1595:IFT-1 and IFT-2 were aiming for a 1233:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement 278:Template:WikiProject United States 14: 2373:List-Class United States articles 473:Knowledge:WikiProject Spaceflight 2428:Mid-importance Rocketry articles 2418:WikiProject Spaceflight articles 2075:"Also, Chris Bergin tweeting is 1907:Crew Dragon In-Flight Abort Test 545: 535: 514: 476:Template:WikiProject Spaceflight 440: 430: 409: 337: 316: 215: 205: 184: 153: 138: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 2408:List-Class spaceflight articles 598:This article has been rated as 493:This article has been rated as 388:This article has been rated as 295:This article has been rated as 2354:01:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC) 2340:23:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC) 2324:18:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC) 2310:18:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC) 2292:18:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC) 2249:16:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC) 2232:15:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC) 2218:15:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC) 2204:15:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC) 2194:. We're not getting anywhere. 2182:12:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC) 2169:; I mean speculative sources." 2149:03:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC) 2139:; I mean speculative sources. 2124:23:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC) 2065:21:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC) 2012:20:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC) 1945:18:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC) 1923:18:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC) 1888:13:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC) 1854:12:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC) 1823:04:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC) 1776:00:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 1762:00:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 1748:22:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 1732:16:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 1679:18:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 1665:18:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 1651:15:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 1630:07:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 1616:11:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 1588:09:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 1570:11:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 1556:07:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 1542:12:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 1525:12:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 1505:10:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 1489:were failures is ridiculous. 1474:22:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC) 1460:19:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC) 1446:17:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC) 1398:19:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 1355:18:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 1319:11:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 1291:09:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 1276:18:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 1262:13:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 1245:12:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 1200:11:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 1173:07:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 1134:22:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 1090:21:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 1040:17:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 1021:Musk is not a reliable source. 974:16:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 909:12:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 783:11:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 766:07:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 719:12:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 699:07:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 578:Knowledge:WikiProject Rocketry 1: 2433:WikiProject Rocketry articles 1861:Read the FAQ. NSF is a WP:RS. 1592:Your confusing several terms. 1484:Flight 1 and 2 were a success 1295:So, provoking someone means " 885:, and to a lesser extent, on 861:12:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 835:22:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 581:Template:WikiProject Rocketry 572:and see a list of open tasks. 467:and see a list of open tasks. 42:Put new text under old text. 2423:List-Class Rocketry articles 2398:Low-importance List articles 1636:Transatmospheric Earth orbit 667:SpaceX Starship flight tests 368:Knowledge:WikiProject Lists 50:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 2449: 2403:WikiProject Lists articles 1669:Suborbital claim removed. 1641:Its was transatmospheric. 604:project's importance scale 499:project's importance scale 394:project's importance scale 371:Template:WikiProject Lists 301:project's importance scale 2190:I've posted a request at 1386:Hierarchy of Disagreement 1297:Rejecting an edit request 683:11:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC) 634:List of Starship launches 632:was copied or moved into 597: 530: 492: 425: 387: 332: 294: 231:WikiProject United States 200: 179: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 25:List of Starship launches 2393:List-Class List articles 1362:Examples of threatening? 236:United States of America 2172:I know the difference. 1388:should never be used. 1302:And if you look at the 1206:"at least 15 Starships" 456:WikiProject Spaceflight 352:list pages on Knowledge 1707:Flight characteristics 1634:It also lists "Regime 1597:Transatmospheric orbit 811:Therefore, I propose: 281:United States articles 161:This article is rated 75:avoid personal attacks 132:Auto-archiving period 100:Neutral point of view 1811:Aurora 4A (Arcturus) 1512:Talk:SpaceX_Starship 926:be grouped together. 744:This violates rules: 636:. The former page's 561:WikiProject Rocketry 479:spaceflight articles 223:United States portal 105:No original research 2131:"Black" was a typo. 2033:That's irrelevant: 1911:Starlink: Launch 28 1304:report that I filed 1215:"in the high teens" 642:provide attribution 249:Articles Requested! 1913:(60 satellites)." 1223:It is clear we do 448:Spaceflight portal 167:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 1507: 1495:comment added by 1029:Define meaningful 883:secondary sources 840:Strong agreement. 669:. I've also used 652: 651: 648: 647: 614: 613: 610: 609: 584:Rocketry articles 509: 508: 505: 504: 404: 403: 400: 399: 347:WikiProject Lists 311: 310: 307: 306: 147: 146: 66:Assume good faith 43: 2440: 1701:Statistics Issue 887:tertiary sources 806:WP:Verifiability 631: 623: 622: 616: 586: 585: 582: 579: 576: 555: 550: 549: 548: 539: 532: 531: 526: 518: 511: 481: 480: 477: 474: 471: 450: 445: 444: 443: 434: 427: 426: 421: 413: 406: 376: 375: 372: 369: 366: 341: 334: 333: 328: 320: 313: 283: 282: 279: 276: 273: 225: 220: 219: 218: 209: 202: 201: 196: 188: 181: 164: 158: 157: 156: 149: 143: 142: 133: 95:Article policies 16: 2448: 2447: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2363: 2362: 2084:NASASpaceflight 2016:Understandable. 1788: 1703: 1486: 891:primary sources 801:Future launches 797: 673:as a template. 663:SpaceX Starship 659: 627: 620: 583: 580: 577: 574: 573: 553:Rocketry portal 551: 546: 544: 524: 478: 475: 472: 469: 468: 446: 441: 439: 419: 373: 370: 367: 364: 363: 326: 280: 277: 274: 271: 270: 269: 255:Become a Member 221: 216: 214: 194: 165:on Knowledge's 162: 130: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 2446: 2444: 2436: 2435: 2430: 2425: 2420: 2415: 2410: 2405: 2400: 2395: 2390: 2385: 2380: 2375: 2365: 2364: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2330:— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — 2312: 2298: 2297:Partial agree: 2282:— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2237: 2188: 2170: 2163: 2160: 2157: 2154: 2132: 2129: 2111: 2108: 2105: 2102: 2099: 2096: 2093: 2090: 2087: 2080: 2073: 2070: 2053: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2040: 2037: 2031: 2028: 2025: 2017: 1996: 1993: 1990: 1987: 1980: 1973: 1970: 1967: 1964: 1961: 1953: 1950: 1947: 1897: 1894: 1872: 1869: 1865: 1862: 1859: 1837: 1833: 1830: 1787: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1702: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1639: 1604: 1593: 1576: 1530: 1527: 1513: 1485: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1434: 1429: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1382: 1379: 1376: 1372: 1369: 1366: 1363: 1360: 1342: 1339: 1336: 1333: 1330: 1327: 1324: 1307: 1300: 1278: 1250: 1229: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1216: 1213: 1210: 1207: 1184: 1181: 1178: 1157: 1153: 1149: 1146: 1143: 1139: 1122: 1115: 1112: 1109: 1105: 1102: 1099: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1072: 1069: 1066: 1063: 1060: 1057: 1054: 1051: 1045: 1022: 1015: 1009: 1002: 995: 992:Somewhat Agree 988: 982: 963: 962: 961: 958: 957: 956: 949: 946: 945: 944: 941: 932: 931: 930: 927: 920: 897: 894: 872: 869: 848: 844: 841: 823: 822: 819: 816: 796: 793: 792: 791: 790: 789: 788: 787: 786: 785: 771: 770:Added template 754: 751: 748: 745: 742: 739: 736: 733: 730: 727: 724: 707: 704: 658: 657:Content Copied 655: 650: 649: 646: 645: 640:now serves to 624: 612: 611: 608: 607: 600:Mid-importance 596: 590: 589: 587: 570:the discussion 557: 556: 540: 528: 527: 525:Mid‑importance 519: 507: 506: 503: 502: 495:Mid-importance 491: 485: 484: 482: 465:the discussion 452: 451: 435: 423: 422: 420:Mid‑importance 414: 402: 401: 398: 397: 390:Low-importance 386: 380: 379: 377: 342: 330: 329: 327:Low‑importance 321: 309: 308: 305: 304: 297:Low-importance 293: 287: 286: 284: 268: 267: 262: 257: 252: 245: 243:Template Usage 239: 227: 226: 210: 198: 197: 195:Low‑importance 189: 177: 176: 170: 159: 145: 144: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2445: 2434: 2431: 2429: 2426: 2424: 2421: 2419: 2416: 2414: 2411: 2409: 2406: 2404: 2401: 2399: 2396: 2394: 2391: 2389: 2386: 2384: 2381: 2379: 2376: 2374: 2371: 2370: 2368: 2355: 2351: 2347: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2337: 2336: 2331: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2321: 2317: 2316:Narnianknight 2313: 2311: 2307: 2303: 2299: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2289: 2288: 2283: 2278: 2250: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2229: 2225: 2224:Narnianknight 2221: 2220: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2201: 2197: 2196:Narnianknight 2193: 2189: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2168: 2164: 2161: 2158: 2155: 2152: 2151: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2141:Narnianknight 2138: 2133: 2130: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2112: 2109: 2106: 2103: 2100: 2097: 2094: 2091: 2088: 2085: 2081: 2078: 2074: 2071: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2057:Narnianknight 2054: 2050: 2045: 2041: 2038: 2035: 2034: 2032: 2029: 2026: 2022: 2018: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2009: 2005: 2001: 1997: 1994: 1991: 1988: 1985: 1981: 1978: 1974: 1971: 1968: 1965: 1962: 1958: 1954: 1951: 1948: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1937:Narnianknight 1934: 1930: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1915:Narnianknight 1912: 1908: 1903: 1898: 1895: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1873: 1870: 1866: 1863: 1860: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1846:Narnianknight 1843: 1838: 1834: 1831: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1812: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1795: 1793: 1792:Narnianknight 1785: 1777: 1773: 1769: 1768:Narnianknight 1765: 1764: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1745: 1741: 1740:Narnianknight 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1720: 1717: 1713: 1710: 1708: 1700: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1657:47.64.136.117 1654: 1653: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1637: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1622:47.64.136.117 1619: 1618: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1602: 1598: 1594: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1585: 1581: 1580:47.64.136.117 1577: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1528: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1517:47.64.136.116 1514: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1506: 1502: 1498: 1494: 1483: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1457: 1453: 1452:Narnianknight 1449: 1448: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1433: 1430: 1427: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1380: 1377: 1375:disagreement. 1373: 1370: 1367: 1364: 1361: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1347:47.64.136.117 1343: 1340: 1337: 1334: 1331: 1328: 1325: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1305: 1301: 1298: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1288: 1284: 1283:47.64.136.117 1279: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1268:Narnianknight 1265: 1264: 1263: 1259: 1255: 1251: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1237:Narnianknight 1234: 1230: 1226: 1222: 1217: 1214: 1211: 1208: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1182: 1179: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1161:Narnianknight 1158: 1154: 1150: 1147: 1144: 1140: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1120: 1116: 1113: 1110: 1106: 1103: 1100: 1097: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1082:Narnianknight 1078: 1073: 1070: 1067: 1064: 1061: 1058: 1055: 1052: 1049: 1048: 1046: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1030: 1026: 1023: 1020: 1016: 1014: 1010: 1007: 1003: 1000: 996: 993: 989: 987: 983: 981: 977: 976: 975: 971: 967: 966:Narnianknight 964: 959: 954: 950: 947: 942: 939: 938: 936: 935: 933: 928: 925: 921: 918: 917: 915: 914: 912: 911: 910: 906: 902: 898: 895: 892: 888: 884: 880: 876: 873: 870: 867: 864: 863: 862: 858: 854: 853:47.64.136.116 849: 845: 842: 839: 838: 837: 836: 832: 828: 827:Narnianknight 820: 817: 814: 813: 812: 809: 807: 802: 794: 784: 780: 776: 772: 769: 768: 767: 763: 759: 755: 752: 750:WP:COPYWITHIN 749: 746: 743: 740: 737: 734: 731: 728: 725: 722: 721: 720: 716: 712: 708: 705: 702: 701: 700: 696: 692: 691:47.64.136.116 687: 686: 685: 684: 680: 676: 672: 668: 664: 656: 654: 643: 639: 635: 630: 625: 618: 617: 605: 601: 595: 592: 591: 588: 571: 567: 563: 562: 554: 543: 541: 538: 534: 533: 529: 523: 520: 517: 513: 500: 496: 490: 487: 486: 483: 466: 462: 458: 457: 449: 438: 436: 433: 429: 428: 424: 418: 415: 412: 408: 395: 391: 385: 382: 381: 378: 374:List articles 361: 357: 353: 349: 348: 343: 340: 336: 335: 331: 325: 322: 319: 315: 302: 298: 292: 289: 288: 285: 272:United States 266: 263: 261: 258: 256: 253: 251: 250: 246: 244: 241: 240: 237: 233: 232: 224: 213: 211: 208: 204: 203: 199: 193: 192:United States 190: 187: 183: 178: 174: 168: 160: 151: 150: 141: 137: 129: 126: 124: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 2333: 2285: 2276: 2275: 2076: 2043: 2020: 1976: 1956: 1932: 1929:this exhibit 1901: 1798: 1796: 1789: 1786:Recent Edits 1721: 1718: 1714: 1711: 1704: 1548:47.64.137.61 1491:— Preceding 1487: 1224: 1209:"high teens" 1165:47.64.137.61 1152:assumtions?? 1028: 1024: 1019:Strong Agree 1018: 1012: 1005: 998: 991: 985: 979: 923: 881:, published 865: 824: 810: 798: 758:47.64.137.61 660: 653: 599: 559: 494: 454: 389: 356:project page 345: 296: 260:Project Talk 248: 229: 173:WikiProjects 135: 121: 94: 19:This is the 2346:Redacted II 2302:Redacted II 2277:Third Party 2241:Redacted II 2210:Redacted II 2174:Redacted II 2116:Redacted II 2024:notability. 2004:Redacted II 1880:Redacted II 1815:Redacted II 1754:Redacted II 1724:Redacted II 1671:Redacted II 1643:Redacted II 1608:Redacted II 1601:Kármán line 1562:Redacted II 1534:Redacted II 1497:72.23.250.2 1466:Redacted II 1438:Redacted II 1390:Redacted II 1311:Redacted II 1254:Redacted II 1192:Redacted II 1126:Redacted II 1032:Redacted II 901:Redacted II 847:ridiculous. 775:Redacted II 711:Redacted II 675:Redacted II 470:Spaceflight 461:spaceflight 417:Spaceflight 31:not a forum 2367:Categories 2077:absolutely 2021:absolutely 1960:Flight 8". 360:discussion 163:List-class 2107:100% yes. 1766:Removed. 1142:distract. 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 2222:Agreed. 1807:ViaSat-3 1493:unsigned 1006:Disagree 879:reliable 735:WP:SPLIT 575:Rocketry 566:rocketry 522:Rocketry 123:Archives 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 1868:source) 1228:launch. 1071:No info 1068:No info 1065:Obvious 1062:No info 1059:No info 756:WP:RIA 638:history 602:on the 497:on the 392:on the 299:on the 136:30 days 1931:could 1909:" or " 1156:rules. 1004:2Aii: 924:cannot 265:Alerts 169:scale. 2236:Done. 2192:WP:3O 2167:WP:OR 2137:WP:OR 2044:black 1933:maybe 1705:The " 1013:Agree 999:Agree 997:2Ai: 986:Agree 980:Agree 866:Again 732:WP:MM 365:Lists 324:Lists 84:Seek 2350:talk 2335:talk 2320:talk 2306:talk 2287:talk 2245:talk 2228:talk 2214:talk 2200:talk 2178:talk 2145:talk 2120:talk 2061:talk 2008:talk 1957:hate 1941:talk 1919:talk 1884:talk 1850:talk 1819:talk 1772:talk 1758:talk 1744:talk 1728:talk 1675:talk 1661:talk 1647:talk 1626:talk 1612:talk 1584:talk 1566:talk 1552:talk 1538:talk 1521:talk 1501:talk 1470:talk 1456:talk 1442:talk 1394:talk 1351:talk 1315:talk 1287:talk 1272:talk 1258:talk 1241:talk 1196:talk 1169:talk 1130:talk 1086:talk 1036:talk 1017:2C: 1011:2B: 990:1C: 984:1B: 978:1A: 970:talk 905:talk 889:and 857:talk 831:talk 779:talk 762:talk 747:WP:C 715:talk 695:talk 679:talk 665:and 73:and 2000:FAQ 1977:not 1902:not 1809:, " 1799:not 1235:.) 1225:not 1108:2). 893:.". 594:Mid 489:Mid 384:Low 291:Low 2369:: 2352:) 2338:) 2332:- 2322:) 2308:) 2290:) 2284:- 2247:) 2230:) 2216:) 2202:) 2180:) 2147:) 2122:) 2063:) 2010:) 1943:) 1921:) 1886:) 1852:) 1829:7. 1821:) 1774:) 1760:) 1746:) 1730:) 1677:) 1663:) 1649:) 1628:) 1614:) 1586:) 1568:) 1554:) 1540:) 1523:) 1503:) 1472:) 1458:) 1444:) 1396:) 1353:) 1317:) 1289:) 1274:) 1260:) 1243:) 1198:) 1171:) 1132:) 1088:) 1038:) 1027:: 972:) 907:) 859:) 833:) 781:) 764:) 717:) 697:) 681:) 134:: 54:; 2348:( 2318:( 2304:( 2243:( 2226:( 2212:( 2198:( 2176:( 2143:( 2118:( 2059:( 2006:( 1986:. 1939:( 1917:( 1882:( 1848:( 1817:( 1790:@ 1770:( 1756:( 1742:( 1726:( 1673:( 1659:( 1645:( 1624:( 1610:( 1603:. 1582:( 1564:( 1550:( 1536:( 1519:( 1499:( 1468:( 1454:( 1440:( 1392:( 1349:( 1313:( 1285:( 1270:( 1256:( 1239:( 1194:( 1167:( 1159:@ 1128:( 1121:) 1084:( 1034:( 1025:3 968:( 903:( 855:( 829:( 777:( 760:( 713:( 693:( 677:( 606:. 501:. 396:. 362:. 303:. 175:: 128:1 125:: 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index