Talk:Firefly Alpha
 | This article reads like a press release or a news article and may be largely based on routine coverage. (June 2024) |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Press release cleanup
editParts of the article reads like it comes from press releases or advertising. Most specifically regarding capabilities and how successful launches are described. Reformulating some sentences to be more neutral would also help the general tone. Amphioxi (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Firefly Alpha or Alpha?
editWithin the article, after the mention of the name in each section, can it just be referred to as "Alpha" instead of "Firefly Alpha"? Cheers! UnknownM1 (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Probably shouldn't. It's formal, recognizned name is Firefly Alpha, not Alpha. @UnknownM1 Starship SN20 (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Anomaly during a test fire
editExpect delays. Firefly confirms ‘anomaly’ and fire during first stage hotfire test --mfb (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
stage details
editFirefly has kindly made a few tech stats available, in the users guide, does it make sense to add them to the article?--Patbahn (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Should we make a notes column in the launch history table?
editShould we make a notes column in the launch history table? Maybe stating that the Firefly Alpha launch yesterday had anomaly and why. Starship SN20 (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Stop changing "partial failure" to "success"
editThe launch provider is not the company who determines success or failure. Firstly they're a primary source, and secondly they're labeling something that is judged externally. For other rockets, notably SpaceX, when they released payloads at a lower orbit than planned then we mark that as "partial failure". Ergzay (talk) 10:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Jrcraft Yt Please stop reverting and discuss. Ergzay (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
You keep stating they only partial payload deployment occurred. I've added references for all payloads being deployed. You cite celestrack TLE's as your source, but since decay has occurred, you cannot use expired TLE's alone. Because obviously there won't be TLE's for the others. I'd argue that continued use of that is bias and knowingly pushing false information. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Jrcraft Yt I'm not sure what you mean by "expired TLE's". The last known TLE for each object is given there, if it was seen at all. They don't remove the TLEs for objects that have deorbited as far as I am aware. Ergzay (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Also, do you have third party sources that actually state "partial failure" rather than "success"?. Because it's speculation on your end if you don't. It's widely reported as successful. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I've added one to the article, and it's by the company that runs spacetrak. In fact they call it a "90% failure". There hasn't been enough time for others to come around and critically analyze the initial reports of success that Firefly themselves have been pushing. Also if Wikipedia is to be consistent then I suggest looking over the discussion archives on the talk page of List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches around the CRS-1/Orbcomm OG2 launch (in 2012). Ergzay (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
If you want to open discussion on this, go ahead, but you're going to have to show consensus in reporting for partial failure and not success. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)