Talk:SpaceX Starbase

"and he foresaw launching spacecraft to Mars from the site"

"and he foresaw launching spacecraft to Mars from the site".--He predicted ... .--Wouldn't that be a better way to say things?--Isn't it "crystall ball-ish" to claim that launches to Mars will not be moved - et cetera - to another location? 2001:2020:32F:ECE9:E11F:F5E2:9E0E:3BA4 (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Water Deluge System

Just out of curiosity, would SpaceX Starship's "Water Deluge System" be considered good enough for a standalone Wikipedia article? I already believe that this topic meets the criteria for both WP:GNG and WP:N. Just want to hear other's thoughts on this. I've started a draft article here. Cheers! --WellThisIsTheReaper ^Grim 19:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@WellThisIsTheReaper, I would be keen to see that, fwiw! I've seen coverage by TechCrunch, Bloomberg, Business Insider, and CNBC, and I imagine we haven't heard the last of it. Plus the Starbase article is already rather long. Tumnal (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Public sources now out with info about expansion of SpaceX land/facilities

I'm sure there will be more, but public sources are now releasing info, and secondary source media are beginning to publish on the matter. Definitely info to improve the article.

Let's collate some sources here:

• TPWD to consider land swap with SpaceX at Boca Chica, 17 Jan 2024, myRGV.com news site. — N2e (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• https://www.valleycentral.com/news/local-news/spacex-requests-43-acres-of-boca-chica-state-park-from-texas/ — N2e (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Reversal of previous content improvements

User:CactiStaccingCrane, can you please explain why did you undo my previous edits to the section before you moved the content, when you moved some content from the Starship page? I just toned down some of the language used and fixed the capitalization of “NASASpaceflight”. Thanks. User3749 (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)