Talk:New Armstrong

Is the New Armstrong really a launch vehicle?
This article was created yesterday by an editor using a single-sentence reference uttered by Jeff Bezos to a future project of Blue Origin, that is for now, undisclosed as to any detail. That utterance of Bezos was: "Up next on our drawing board: New Armstrong. But that's a story for the future."

I came upon this article today, and did a bunch of housekeeping, but largely keeping all the content of what the article said yesterday, the day of Bezos' comment. I assumed good faith and figured the sources supported the major thrust: that New Armstrong is a new launch vehicle.

Now, looking more fully at the sources, and Bezos statement. I don't believe we can say that. Neither source says it is a launch vehicle; although it clearly is a new project for the company Blue Origin, and one that Bezos sees as "next up". One of the two sources in the article (the nsf20160912 one) says it is believed to be a launch vehicle, but could be a space capsule. The other article merely quotes Bezos one-liner and leaves it at that.

In short, the entire basis for this article is questionable. Perhaps headed to WP:AfD very soon, or to a WP:REDIRECT to a single sentence in another Blue Origin article that mentions the name of the project.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but this article needs a lot of work. And a basis for its existence based on verifiable information. N2e (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Bezos has a pattern here: New Shepard is a suborbital rocket(Alan Sheppard first American in suborbital flight), New Glenn is an orbital rocket (John Glenn, first American to orbit earth), New Armstrong... (first American to step on the Moon). I would leave it as a stub, no need to delete it. In time it will be more clear what it is. And having the historical records of the first mention of the project is nice.


 * It happened to me on the Raptor rocket, first small hydrogen staged combustion rocket, then huge full flow methane, the big, then small demonstrators, etc. This happens and it should be recorded. – Baldusi (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You should probably keep the orphan tag on the article for now, until there's three mainspace links to the article.
 * I'd normally agree with the AfD for now; I do agree the article needs some work in terms of sourcing, destubbifying (if possible), etc. However, seems to have more knowledge about the subject matter than I do, so perhaps we should respect his or her experience with this sort of thing. -- I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @  21:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but at this point I don't care who has insider information. If it doesn't have a citation, it isn't viable. We know zero about this concept other than its name. At this point in time, anything article-wise violates WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OR, and/or WP:SYN. I've redirected the name back to the Blue Origin article. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)