Talk:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

GovSat-1 re-using B1032 from NROL-76

Meanwhile, the next SES mission has been confirmed to re-use a booster, recycled from none other than the famous secret payload NROL-76. Preparing the source, to be inserted when the article gets unlocked. — JFG ^talk 00:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

And Paz got its launch date: 10 February, 14:22 UTC. — JFG ^talk 01:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Zuma and article stability - again

It's very frustrating to see that changes are being made without prior discussion. I have left things as they stand in the article, I don't want to start edit ping-pong all over again. But I'm disappointed at the lack of talk here on an issue that we all know involves strongly held views. I propose that we discuss this issue now and see if we can come to consensus. There was previously quite wide support for 'Rocket success, payload failure'. Is this still the case? Chris Jefferies (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I still agree with 'Rocket success, payload failure' consensus. Can we add to text below that operations continuing seem to back up Gwynne Shotwell's statements or is that OR or is there a source for this? crandles (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The Washington Post is among the first heavyweight media to publish on this It's still not definitive, of course, but their correspondent quotes the 'operations continuing' argument. Chris Jefferies (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

'Rocket success, payload failure' is still the most accurate way to describe the result, the uncertainty about Zuma is explained in the text of the entry. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

BatteryIncluded has restored this to 'Rocket success, payload failure'. Resolved for now. Chris Jefferies (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

U.S. Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.): “The second concern is the reliability of the delivery systems. And that issue is being debated between the contractors, SpaceX and the satellite manufacturer, Northrop.” and “Those two companies are going to have a long and, I suspect, very expensive discussion,” So the causes of the unsuccessful Zuma launch is under debate between the SpaceX and Northrup, but we accept SpaceX-s position without confirmation. That's definitely violates WP:NPOV. Kalpet (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

No, you are wrong on two counts. 1 - The payload was successfully launched into the correct orbit. 2 - There is no public debate between SpaceX and NG; SpaceX has made a clear statement that Falcon 9 did it's part correctly, NG has so far neither denied nor confirmed that statement. In no way can that be described as a 'debate'. Whether there is debate between the two parties behind closed doors is not known, whatever Mr Garamendi may have said. Wikipedia articles can only be based on what has been reported in public. We can say that NG has not accepted responsibility, we can say that SpaceX has denied responsibility, we can say Mr Garamendi claims there's a debate, and we can say there are claims of payload failure and even claims that it's in orbit and working but we cannot currently say more than that. Chris Jefferies (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Then please show me the payload. All reports agree that the payload did not reached the orbit. Still you want to list it as a successful launch, I have no idea why. It is under debate if its a rocket or payload failure. But you choose to accept SpaceX denial, without any confirmation. WP:NPOV Kalpet (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a confirmation of sorts, if it was possibly SpaceX's fault, operations would have ceased while they review what went wrong and how to avoid it again. SpaceX's operations are continuing and this argument was presented in Washington post. A case of actions speak louder than words. crandles (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Senator U.S. Rep. John Garamendi - who represents the US State, the customer - explicitly stated that the cause of the failure is under debate between the contractors. Siding with one of the contractors are not impartial. Your speculation related to the SpaceX operations is not a source. 09:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalpet (talk • contribs)

So far it is the only official statement regarding of Zuma launch. WP is speculates on rumors, it does not provide any sources. It is not a reliable source. That's were we stop. Elk Salmon (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of additional unreliable sources, many of them does provide details that does not contradict with SpaceX official statement. X-23, BOR-1, BOR-2 and BOR-3 were launched with a rocket, but never went into orbit. Still those are considered successful launches as missions were accomplished. So as this time, Payload was delivered into an orbit with given parameters. F9 mission was accomplished at that point. Payload was provided with own adapter and was hard attached to the second stage. It is unusual. Adapter is usually provided with the upper stage. But, it had to perform own operations to separate from the second stage. But that's all unreliable speculations, so we do not use them as a source. Elk Salmon (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's another quotable source with a more recent analysis. Chris Jefferies (talk) 10:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

And another one, this is a very interesting read, much more technical information and analysis. Well worth a look. Chris Jefferies (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Of all that analysis only SpaceX gives direct comments on their portion of the mission. Early or later the official answer from NG and US Government will be given. So we wait. It could take a full year. Elk Salmon (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Proposal: partial failure, with explanations

I understand the argument that this article should focus on the SpaceX side of events, however it still looks very odd to see a "green light" success report for a mission that by all credible accounts failed before deployment. In the vast majority of RS discussing the history of spaceflight, all similar cases involving a payload separation mishap have been labeled a launch failure, irrespective of which country and which combination of contractors was responsible. This situation is distinct from the numerous early spacecraft failures, which are considered launch successes (e.g. the recent Hitomi breakup during commissioning shortly after deployment). Spaceflight RS do agree with Appable's definition of "launch success" as "all payloads separated into their desired orbits"; anything less than that is usually labeled a "partial failure", e.g. wrong orbit, even when the satellite then regains its target orbit on its own power. In light of the above, my proposal on the reporting in this article is to designate the Zuma launch as a "partial failure", with a summary of known facts to explain what happened (SpaceX rocket did its job, NG-supplied PAF reportedly failed to separate, satellite was not detected in orbit after the first couple laps). Let's try to get consensus on this among "regulars" in the next few days, otherwise we can bring more eyeballs with an RfC. — JFG ^talk 14:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I still object to the idea that the 'definition of "launch success" as "all payloads separated into their desired orbits"'. Maybe I'm too used to planetary missions, but spacecraft of that sort don't reach their the desired orbit until long after launch. The desired orbit is around another planet. Similarly, geostationary communications satellites are not in their desired orbit until they are in geostationary orbit. Not a geostationary transfer orbit. But the usual practice is to declare the launch over and successful when the planetary spacecraft is on a escape trajectory to a transfer orbit or the communications satellite is on a transfer orbit to geostationary orbit. So, at some point well before deployment into the desired orbit, the rest of the trip becomes an issue of mission success rather than launch success.Fcrary (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, you are relying on speculations. And that speculations says that payload was provided with own adapter. Deploying wasn't the part of F9 mission. It only had to deliver it to an orbit with given parameters. Elk Salmon (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

No institution contradicts SpaceX version of successful launch. We can only state launch successful, unknown fate of the payload. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

You say, 'Let's try to get consensus on this..'. It's been discussed here over the past week and consensus reached. For the details please read the discussion in the relevant sections above. Chris Jefferies (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Chrisjj: The consensus isn't apparent to me. We still haven't actually defined launch outcome with anything other than a limited two-person consensus, for example. Appable (talk | contributions) 18:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

There is precedent for not exactly reporting one version of the story. For example, NRO declared Atlas V NROL-30 a success, though multiple other sources reported the satellites were placed in the wrong orbit. Due to those other, non-involved sources we categorized it as a partial failure. I would note that there is no evidence that "deploying wasn't the part of F9 mission" - actually, we have no idea whose responsibility it was. Categorize this as a complete failure if we put weight on the "fell back to earth" reports, but with heavy detail about what happened. Appable (talk | contributions) 18:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The most reliable source we have for reporting success is SpaceX themselves. Given that on one has contradicted this, I think that it should remain classified as a 'Launch success'. I notice that someone changed 'Rocket success, payload failure' to 'Rocket success, payload status classified'. Not sure I like this, but if we want to go with classifying the payload status as not definitively failed we should say 'unclear' rather than 'classified'. However, I believe that there are enough reports in reliable sources saying that they "have verified via confidential contacts in the US govt that the payload failed" to simply report 'payload failure'. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: I agree with you that 'payload status classified' doesn't make sense in a column headed 'Launch outcome'. The contents of the column must surely be 'Success', 'Failure' or a word or short phrase for some other form of outcome. Chris Jefferies (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Chrisjj It has to be clear to the reader. 'Rocket success, payload failure' is clear. If we just add 'success' the confusion will continue to result in continued edit warring. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere I absolutely agree and didn't intend to suggest otherwise. The wording is good, a short phrase of the kind I had in mind. Chris Jefferies (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd be ok with 'Rocket success, payload unclear' though, if that is what we have consensus for, but not seeing that yet. 'payload status classified' is unnecessarily wordy and implies that only an 'official' reported result can be added, which isn't true. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary. SpaceX is the least reliable source on this topic, they have significant business interest to avoid the blame. The only reliable source is the senate, the state, the customer. And we have Senator U.S. Rep. John Garamendi who told us, that the cause of the failure is under debate between the two contractors. Siding with SpaceX on this topic, well, not so impartial. Kalpet (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

It would be amazing if there weren't any such discussions. Question is, is there any evidence that these discussions are not along the lines of NG saying we know our adapter was at fault but do you have any data to help us identify the exact cause and how we can prevent this happening again (this would be exactly about reliability of the delivery systems). If not, then it seems to me that actions of SpaceX speak louder than words. crandles (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Actions of SpaceX? WP:NOR It is only your analysis. The fact supported by sources is that the cause is under debate. It is not our task to accept Space X explanation, and disregard the fact that it is debated by NG WP:NPOV. 15:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalpet (talk • contribs)

Washington post ref 241 [1] for SpaceX operations continuing as an argument for SpaceX believes what it says is in the explanation, so it is not OR. Meanwhile I don't see any response from you that the Senator's sentences you reported are fairly useless as they can include what we would expect if it was not SpaceX's fault. crandles (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Reject - I suggest we retain the wording 'Rocket success, payload failure', but I'm also happy with 'Rocket success, payload unclear'. I do not accept 'Partial failure' as a proper description of the outcome. I agree that an explanatory note is necessary; we already have one and if necessary it can be edited. Chris Jefferies (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Reject Prefer 'Rocket success, payload failure' or 'Rocket success, payload unclear' with prose as now or adjusted as appropriate. crandles (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support Payload lost, cause unclear and there is an ongoing debate between Space X and Northrup Grumman. WP:NPOV Kalpet (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Reject - Fate of payload (and its supplied adaptor) is independent of launch. Launch stated to be successful by SpaceX and not contradicted by any institution or agency. Must retain the wording "Rocket success, payload failure/unknown" BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Reject - The launch and the launch vehicle's job (which is the subject of this article) ends at the interface between the vehicle and the payload. A failure on the customer's side isn't a launch vehicle failure, not even a partial one. Fcrary (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - As someone who have been editing such tables for some time, I have never thought that the question of "is the satellite in orbit?" would lead to a Rashomon answer (at least, since the end of the Cold War).

And then ZUMA happened.

From what I could remember from years of experiences dealing with rocket launch records here on Wikipedia and elsewhere, I have never remembered any situation like this one - LSP strongly (even somewhat emotionally) defending its rocket's performance, S/C supplier with mouths shut and then there are multiple quotes in media claiming the satellite's down, with none of the sources named! The satellite's already something like no other (e.g. secrecy one level over NRO satellites, and unlike PAN/CLIO we don't even know its composition) and it's no wonder that people are trying to fit all sorts of theories as to what happened.

The main problem is, of course, that the sources of failing news are unverifiable by person (*). I must say the rumors are certainly suggestive (and fits in with the payload separation failure theory), but I don't think it's the only theory that can fit in with all the data we know, and the only one entity involved reports that all things are well, so........

.........I am refraining from making a choice here right now. The data we have are so vague and contradictory that multiple theories from payload separation failure to spacecraft completing its mission after de-orbiting by itself can fit with what little we have seen, and such a "dead and alive" situation is unprecedented. Any - any choice of words for launch outcome can be the right one.

If this is my own website I would have went with Success and a very long note on contradictory reports (or maybe just leave it blank) for now - but that's only because I tend to give the LSP the benefit of doubt. Yet I understand why others want to go with failure - the nature of the rumors are too suggestive to think of otherwise.

I just hope everyone understands that this is an unprecedented situation for as long as launch vehicles are around and there's no need to fire up arguments. Perhaps someone will observe a satellite that can be linked with ZUMA later (1 week is a very short time for satellite observers to find classified objects in space) or N-G/US Government will surprise us and issue statements on what happened (after all, the US Government doesn't really need to admit the failure of USA-193, yet they did - after rumors of 1 year long). Barring that...... ˉ\_(ツ)_/ˉ

(*) There was a Congressman who made some statements urging for investigation, but the implications are too broad to made any conclusions out of this.

Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Galactic Penguin SST, that's actually quite helpful, at least you've helped us feel we not all losing the plot! Chris Jefferies (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Galactic Penguin SST, I agree that we have a Schrödinger's satellite situation. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Reject - This article is about the Falcon rockets, not about the payloads they launch. If the rocket does everything it's intended to do, the mission is a success. Gwynne Shotwell has said that the rocket did everything correctly; none of the reports contradict that.

It should mention the reports of a payload failure in the description, but the "Launch outcome" box should just be green with "Success". The payload status is irrelevant. Angel Cupid (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Reject - The launch vehicle was a complete success including every functional part of it. In this case the payload happened to come with an attached payload adapter that failed to separate. This is a failure of the payload, not the launch vehicle. If it was a SpaceX payload adapter then this would be a partial failure. Ergzay (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170206022222/http://archive.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/2017/jan/30/thales-use-spacexs-falcon-9-launch to http://archive.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/2017/jan/30/thales-use-spacexs-falcon-9-launch

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

 Checked — JFG ^talk 00:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Important

Falcon Heavy Launch begins in 5 minutes. Please can someone add the section, I don't know how to. It's currently listed on future launch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Advanced AI (talk • contribs) 18:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Advanced AI: No hurry. First of all, the launch has been delayed a couple of hours, and second of all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a live blog, there is no need to immediately update articles within seconds of events occuring -- that is what Wikinews is for. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Just watched it live. Flight success to second stage shutdown, successful simultaneous booster landings back at ground pads. Unknown outcome for drone ship landing of central core (feed from the drone ship cut out apparently due to vibrations. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Only one of the three engines of the central booster worked, and it crashed into the sea, destroying itself and the drone ship. The Tesla Roadster sent into space has gone into a different orbit not as planned, and will be travelling further out into the solar system, as far as Ceres's orbit User:Advanced AI —Preceding undated comment added 15:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It missed the drone ship as would be expected. Drone ship has been seen back in port and out towards Ceres was a mistake, orbit is as planned slightly different inclination to ecliptic from Mars and at aphelion reaching similar orbital distance as Mars at Aphelion. crandles (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Advanced AI: Musk's tweet about Ceres's orbit was mistaken. The original plan was to have an orbit whose aphelion is at the same distance as Mars's. The final orbit achieved by the roadster has an aphelion of 1.6699 AU, which is pretty darn close to Mars's 1.6660 AU. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Possible loss of centre core

At 38:30 on the SpaceX live feed, one of the guys says "we lost the centre core" over the radio just before the feed cuts off. Still waiting on confirmation in media sources, but if it was a success we would have heard by now. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Until we have confirmation it is better to retain the 'unconfirmed' status. I've removed the core landing from the launch statistics graphs for now until confirmed. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The video above is not citable as confirmation of failure, the guy on the radio could have been referring to a number of things (loss of the feed for example). Martin Embeh please leave it unconfirmed for now until we have confirmation (it will come soon). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

At one point on the live feed, they showed the barge ("I still love you") camera showing a handrail and LOTS of smoke. I think it crashed. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Some unconfirmed speculation that it missed the drone ship and hit the water nearby. The "we lost the centre core" bit is super clear at 38:30 on this feed too, but not enough to pin a 'failure' report on IMO (he could have misspoke (as he cuts himself off a moment later, or he could have been referring to the feed). Probably lost, but no downside to waiting for confirmation. The smoke could easily have been from the landing burn (see the landings of the other two boosters for example). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

"The smoke could easily have been from the landing burn". It is evident you did not see the live feed nor the replay. The smoke blast came sideways from outside the barge. BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

If it landed safely they would have showed it complete with a marching band, as they did with the side boosters. Lets wait for the official "oh shit". But overall, it was a gigantic success, and I bet they got all data they dreamt of. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The Verge briefly states, "The center core then broke away from the vehicle’s upper stage, but did not land as intended on one of SpaceX’s autonomous drone ships in the Atlantic Ocean. That means SpaceX has now landed a total of 23 rockets upright." Pretty vague, but enough to pin 'failure' on? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Space.com on the other hand states "SpaceX has now successfully landed Falcon-family rockets 24 times — three on this mission alone." Both sources are probably speculating. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I expect a statement from SpaceX the latest when they are at the barge to investigate what happened. The booster is not a secret government satellite, and no matter what happened the mission was a big success, they won't hide the overall result of the landing. --mfb (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

[2] and [3], some more speculation about core status (not sure if reliable sources, and nothing concrete anyway). Agreed that SpaceX will soon make a statement. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Let's calm down for a few hours. I strongly suspect SpaceX isn't going to say anything before 9:30 Eastern time or so. The actual flight involves a 5.5 hour cruise, before restarting the second stage engine (something their national security customers want demonstrated.) It's quite likely SpaceX will want to know how that worked, before making any statements about the core's barge landing. If I'm correct, we've got a few hours before we hear anything but media speculation. Fcrary (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Live news conference] starting now. Should get confirmation one way or the other very shortly. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The stream from the car is better than the stream from the press conference. --mfb (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

LOL Mfb, there is a better stream here.

The Verge decided to double down based on speculation, so we could report the failure now, but given the impending press conference, I'm keen to just wait for official confirmation. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Yep, Musk confirmed that the landing failed, not enough propellant to slow it down enough, so it crashed next to the drone ship (and took out 2 of the drone ship's engines). He also said that they do not intend to reuse the boosters, not did they intend to reuse the core had it been recovered. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

At the end of the conference he noted that the side boosters (but not the central core) had titanium grid fins, which he was happy to have back, as they will reuse those and said (paraphrasing) "If I had one to pick to lose, it would have been the core". Interesting and possibly useful quotes for this article or the one on the FH maiden flight. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Tesla Roadster orbit.

Elon tweeted that they had a successful 3rd burn, and that they overshot the previously planned TMI orbit and sent it to the asteroid belt... Not sure how to report this. Did they originally intend to throw it as far as they could, or did they accidentally overshoot? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 04:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure it is an overshoot. Mars orbits on the inner edge of the asteroid belt. From the onset, they wanted to "throw" the car far. I don't think the third stage has a star tracker for navigation anyway. BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Jonathan Amos from BBC Science is quite knowledgeable, and here he mentions that Tweet but makes no comment whatsoever: [4]. I think that if it is significant to SpaceX, it will be a couple of days so it is put in perspective. BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what exactly the second (not third) stage uses but it certainly can determine its orientation in space. Otherwise the coast phases would make every orbital insertion random luck. They probably just used whatever fuel was left to increase aphelion. --mfb (talk) 07:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Flight landings

Hey all. Just a minor thing, but wanted to raise it here anyway. It looks like we are using the landing outcome chart to separately account for landings of each core and side booster of Falcon Heavy. So contrary to the title, it's not a chart for each flight, but each landing. So should we change the title from "Flights by landing outcome" to "Flight landings by outcome"? Otherwise we would have to change the chart from counting 2 ground pad successes and a drone ship failure to one partial failure. --Natural R_X 02:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done, good catch. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Reusability / Block 5 / FH in "by rocket configuration" graph

I like the idea, but I'm not sure how well that will work in 2018. We should get Block 5, reused Block 5, and FH. How do we handle FH where some parts are reused? In addition, the graph suggests the whole rocket was reused, that is not true. Maybe a separate graph for launches of reused boosters? --mfb (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I think a separate graph would make sense. Great timing for adding this info, btw, just a few hours ago I was thinking that there needed to be reuse info in the graphs. Greg (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

At first I thought we should make a separate graph, but we already have four of them, and the "reused FT" entry looks informative for this particular graph. I'm a bit wary of adding a distinction for Block 5, which seems to be merely an evolution of the Full Thrust version towards its optimal design, just like block 4 was. But we'll have more information when it starts flying, and we can have this debate then. See the ongoing discussion at Talk:Falcon 9 Block 5#Merger proposal. — JFG ^talk 09:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

94.200.220.210 added Block 5 and FH in the graph, 140.254.77.189 made FH cyan. Personally I prefer olive as it provides a better contrast and is not so bright. The question how to deal with block 5 is relevant again, although the maiden flight of that is probably 3 months away. It is known to be a variant of FT. I suggest to put it in the existing FT group. As we don't need more different colors that way, we can use the current Block 5 color for FT. That way every year from 2017 on will just have FT, FT reused and FH. Easy, and it shows the main idea. --mfb (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mfb: I restored the distinctive "Olive" color for Falcon Heavy. I'm not convinced by moving "Block 5" to a different color but I'm not convinced to keep it with the "Full Thrust" group either. Hopefully we shall learn more when Block 5 actually flies. — JFG ^talk 03:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Lunar fly by tourist mission abandoned or ?

See [5] and [6]. Is that enough to remove it?

I don't know if it ever was on the manifest at spacex.com but now it is not there. --mfb (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Date formats in this article are not correct

The date formats in the prose in this article are inconsistent, and currently, lean heavily in the direction of the US custom: mmmm dd, yyyy.

When the article was created, the dates were nearly completely in the also-acceptable format of dd mmmm yyyy. It appears that someone came along with one of the date-reformatting tools at some time, and changed the dates to the American format sans discussion, and then others of us just followed that change, not catching it for discussion at the time it occurred.

Per WP:MOSDATE, plus many settled discussions on this topic on many articles in the past, the default date format in an article should not be changed without a specific discussion and consensus to do so. I cannot find a consensus in the Talk archives to have changed this. Does anyone else know of a date format discussion in this article? Cheers. N2e (talk) 07:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, changes happened with this edit [7] on April 17, 2014 and gives reason as "(Use American date formats. This is an article about the list of launches from American of an American rocket built by an American company)". It also added "Use mdy dates" rather than changing existing style format. Before that the dates weren't really consistent some using 3 letter month abbreviation some long form, some in prose had day after month though majority had day before month. I think we should be grateful someone was prepared to do the work of making the dates more consistent than complaining of breach of etiquette. The choice made seems sensible, the flights are from USA by an USA company. crandles (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Spaceflight articles, in general, use DMY format regardless of country of origin. No hard and fast rule of course, but this is how things have generally evolved. I do wish WikiProject Spaceflight could come to a consensus to recommend a unified format. Regarding this specific situation, the edit which tagged the article with {{Use mdy dates}} was inappropriate as the predominate format was DMY. I strongly recommend the article be returned to its original formatting. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The date format has been discussed as part of the featured list discussion, but at that time it was nearly consistently mmmm dd, yyyy already. I don't really mind, I find day month year more intuitive, but as long as it is unambiguous and consistent I'm fine with it. --mfb (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Hispasat launch date TBD

Should be edited here and on 2018 in spaceflight but I don’t have the time for that right now. https://twitter.com/spacex/status/967270883713679360 --mfb (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done – Almightycat did it; thanks to both of you. — JFG ^talk 17:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Simplifying for All Falcons

So this list is a bit clunky, and a bit out of wack with lists for other rocket families (e.g. Atlas, Thor/Delta, Titan). What does everyone think about modifying this list to include Falcon 1 launches, transitioning this to a list for all Falcon (rocket family) launches, and enabling us to move this to List of Falcon launches? The only thing that doesn't align is the landing outcomes, which we could just put as (N/A). --Natural R_X 15:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

How does adding a new table make it less clunky, or are you trying to say it is just the title that is clunky not the article? Just successfully reached featured article status, is this a good time to try to call it clunky? Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are more closely related than Falcon 1 and Falcon 9. Different configurations generally go together on same page but Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 are completely different rockets. Page is only going to get longer even without adding in Falcon 1. So don't think I see your rationale being justified. crandles (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Have a look in the archives of this page, this has been proposed and rejected a couple of times. Basically, the falcon 1 is a very different rocket. All of these rockets are part of the falcon 9 family (yes even the falcon heavy). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 16:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

It was purely the title that I was thought was clunky, not the article. I ruled out simply moving this to List of Falcon 9 launches, because most visitors that don't follow SpaceX or rocketry probably wouldn't make the connection that Falcon Heavy is part of Falcon 9 family. --Natural R_X 19:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Natural RX, because in general I like condensing pages to avoid confusion or needing to visit multiple pages for similar information. However, while the Falcon 1 has only 5 flights, meaning its inclusion wouldn't be that big of a change, I would not create a family page until at least the launch of BFR, as it is a separate family, meaning there would be then two classes of SpaceX Rockets. Otherwise, their is an older rocket and newer rocket, not including variants, instead of an older family of rockets and an newer one. UnknownM1 (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, a merge with Falcon 1 launches has been rejected in the past, and I see no reason to bring this very different rocket to this list. I do agree that the title is unwieldy, and I would support retaining just Falcon 9 launches here, and listing the much rarer Falcon Heavy launches on that rocket's page only. — JFG ^talk 19:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. Since the Falcon Heavy is more like the Delta IV Heavy, a variant of the core rocket, it's ok to have both as "versions" of the same rocket on the same launches page. UnknownM1 (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah the Falcon Heavy belongs here. If it were still called the "Falcon 9 Heavy" we could rename it without issues, but it is the current title is the best we can do, unwieldy or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insertcleverphrasehere (talk • contribs)

Fairing Recovery

Hey I just wanted to ask if we should start including information about fairing recovery, such as recovery statistics, success/failures, and what not. I feel like it would be better to start now instead of catching up later. Thoughts? UnknownM1 (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I would wait unless we have something to report other than "Fairing recovered: no", especially since we don't have reliable sources on which missions have had failed recovery attempts with the 1.0 fairings (Musk mentioned past tests where the aerodynamics were not what they expected, but not specifics on which missions those were on). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it is too soon to add fairing recovery information to the table but something can be added to the prose. For example, the Paz flight's fairing was at least found by the recovery boat so that may be good information to include in the text box. --Frmorrison (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I was just about to write on the "talk" section of Wiki for the first time ever to ask the same question. I think the fairing recovery should be mentioned from now on :) 2001:EE0:4041:461E:1C79:E641:4E4A:DB42 (talk) 05:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

This is under consideration for inclusion in the Launch Manifest listing at NasaSpaceFlight.com it probably merits tracking just like reused stages do, now that it's about to start happening (or so it seems from all indications). While this may or may not be the right page, it is worth tracking somewhere on the wiki. ++Lar: t/c 20:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

With booster landing 'ocean success' meant "a controlled atmospheric entry, descent and vertical splashdown on the ocean's surface at zero velocity; for purposes of gathering test data". If they attempted to land on drone ship and missed it would be 'drone ship failure'. For fairing recovery, should we be using the same system so that if boat catch was attempted then it should be recorded as 'boat miss' or 'boat failure' rather than current 'ocean landing'? Have there been several 'ocean landings' where they have been gathering data but not attempting to catch with a boat? crandles (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I would say that if they recover the fairing, they recovered it. It is just a shell; whether I was a clean catch or splashdown it does not matter. BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

It depends on what they were trying to do. If they just want a piece of metal to put on display somewhere (or even to inspect to identify future improvements), fishing it out of the water would be fine. But if they want to recover it to reuse on another launch, then success might require a clean catch. It's just a shell, but a bent or dented shell wouldn't be something they'd want to refly. I'm afraid I'm saying that "success" means they accomplished their goals, and we just don't know what those goals were. Fcrary (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

SpaceX would like to be able to reuse a fairing since it costs millions of dollars to create. However, if it lands in the ocean the fairing is most likely unusable due to the damage salt water does to things. I am fairly sure Mr. Stevens needs to catch the fairing before it hits the water. --Frmorrison (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'd lean on holding fire on putting another column in for fairing recover, wait a bit and record it in the text for now and we will sort it out in a few months when everything is more clear. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The early fairing recovery tests are harder to track than the first stage landing attempts. Once we have a confirmed fairing recovery (of one half, probably) we can add a column (or row below the booster?) and see for which launches we can get accurate data. This might mean we start with the most recent launch ("failure" - landing on the boat is the only recovery method SpaceX plans to use). --mfb (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Since we counted an unintended ocean landing of a booster as a "success" instead of "no attempt", maybe it would be better to count ones the survive and don't survive instead of desired goals. Or label it as a "partial failure" UnknownM1 (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

'unintended ocean landing'=GovSat-1? That booster ocean landing was intended, just its survival intact was unexpected. crandles (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

We could make an "ocean landing" category for fairings, so far we only know of one attempt of an ocean landing (and one that accidentally landed in the ocean). I expect all future landings to attempt to hit the ship. That category would be quite empty. --mfb (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The fairing recovery graph indicates we already have made an "ocean landing" category with two so far. I think that should be 1? 'Ocean landing' and 1 'Boat miss/failure' or more likely we don't have sufficient suitable information for such a graph yet. And/or need some clearer definition of success, is it just 'recovery', or is it 'recovery in a state that can be reused' or is it 'recovery without hitting sea water', or ...? crandles (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Now I think about it, is Mr Steven a 'support ship' so ship rather than boat? crandles (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

[8] uses ship more frequently than boat. However mainly including here for commentary: First test was KoreaSat, object recovered resembled part of fairing but never confirmed. No equipment for attempt at catch. Iridium 4 no net attached, just a dress rehearsal. Paz attempt at catch "Missed by a few hundred meters, but fairing landed intact in water. Should be able catch it with slightly bigger chutes to slow down descent." crandles (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Steven is a boat. Basically, the way to tell is if the vessel is classified as a "boat" is if it can be loaded on a container ship easily. Also, it is registered as a "crewboat". --Frmorrison (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks for corrections that it is a boat and SES 10 (Mar 30 17) was successful intact ocean landing. So KoreaSat (Oct 30 17) just a Mr Stevens test but it did recover something. 'Never confirmed' part seems at least suggestive of a failed ocean landing test. Seems likely there have been other ocean landing attempts that have not been reported (except where there is some success to report) such that the 'no attempt's number in the fairing recovery graph is likely wrongly overstated. Can we really justify saying there has only been two attempts? crandles (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to get better information rn. There isn't much about testing failures so rn two is all we know. UnknownM1 (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone find anymore information about Inmarsat-5 F4 (Flight 34). I think they attempted a fairing recovery or at least tried for data, but I can't find exact details to prove. UnknownM1 (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should not attempt to build a graph of fairing recovery stats until some of the usual spaceflight sources publish a review of SpaceX's efforts. We are drifting into WP:OR and WP:Synthesis territory. — JFG ^talk 01:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Removed graph for now. — JFG ^talk 02:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I would not remove the graph. If we were speculating on which fairing were recovered, that would be one thing. The fairings recovered on the graph are the two known ones, already documented with sources in the article. If more accurate information becomes available, then we can edit the graph to be accurate, but deleting it serves no purpose right now. UnknownM1 (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree with JFG. Getting into OR territory, not OK for a FL. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Until we have more information to document, this graph looks more like WP:FANCRUFT to me. I do hope we get some good coverage, though. Too early at the moment. — JFG ^talk 05:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• someone added it again to listing number 49, very awkwardly. Can we please remove this extra row. A fairing is not a version or booster, and doesn't belong in that column. report it in the text, not everything needs a separate table box. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 13:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

TESS launch

Date conflct: TESS mission home page is listing a March 2018 launch (and no later than June 2018) TESS Launch Readiness Date. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't look like an issue. The TESS official site has probably not been updated. We do have an exact launch date and time sourced from SpaceX via Cooper and SFN. Besides, April 16 does fall between March and June, so the NASA launch window is still correct. — JFG ^talk 06:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Make this about all Falcon launches

This list should include the 5 Falcon 1 launches, and be renamed to "List of Falcon rocket launches". Otherwise remove FH from this list. 188.24.148.21 (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussed above and earlier, this suggestion does not have consensus of editors. — JFG ^talk 11:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we should put a note at the top of the talk page about this? Not sure if it would actually help though. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

We could add an edit notice, something like this: A consensus of editors has agreed to keep Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy flights together, and list Falcon 1 flights separately, because that was an entirely different rocket. (and link to relevant discussions from talk page archives). What do you think? — JFG ^talk 08:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Notable launches section

Seems to be a bit disjointed. Why not mostly replace it with some kind of timeline diagram, put all the bulk text into the table, and have a "failures" section after the table. Right now, the non-failure things discussed there seem a bit disjointed. Nergaal (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I would be happy with pushing the "Notable launches" section to the end of the article, so that this "list article" would start with launch statistics and the actual list. I would disagree with putting the prose in the table: the section was born partly out of concern that the list was encumbered by excessive text for some missions. It does not make a difference to me whether a mission is notable for an achievement (first landing), a failure (CRS-7) or for some exceptional circumstances (Zuma). Notability comes from the relative amount of coverage that such missions are getting compared with more "routine" launches. Could you elaborate on what you mean by "disjointed" and how we could improve accordingly? — JFG ^talk 15:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that "Notable missions" could be moved after the future launches section. --Frmorrison (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Moving it should be fine. I think it should stay a separate section. --mfb (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

 Moved — JFG ^talk 12:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Three more launch contracts

• http://spacenews.com/air-force-awards-big-launch-contracts-to-spacex-and-ula/, from USAF, for more GPS-III payloads, transported in late 2019 and 2020. N2e (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Overreferencing creep

I've tried to trim some of the fluff out of this 200k article, and I noticed there is a very large amount of reference creep, with very many redundancies. If somebody has the patience, it would be nice to trim down some of those numbers, since for launch times for example a single link to an online log could provide almost all of the 50+ times. Nergaal (talk) 11:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It it helpful to trim extra references, but this article is not that long. While the Wiki text is 195 kB, the prose size (text only) is 15 kB (2413 words). --Frmorrison (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Break up page?

I am sure that now would probably not be the best time to do it, but at some point it seems that this page needs to get broken up by decade, like many other launches pages. Especially with the volume of SpaceX launches, it makes sense to have a main page that links out to two smaller pages, say List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches (2010-2019) and List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches (2020-202X). I can however see the problem of BFR replacing the Falcon 9 meaning that the second page is much smaller than the first. Thoughts? Cheers! UnknownM1 (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The 2020-2029 list would be nearly empty at the moment, breaking it up wouldn't make a difference in terms of length, no need to do that now. If we want lengths similar to Ariane, Atlas and so on we need 2010-2017, 2018-2019 and afterwards it depends on BFR. --mfb (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Vandenberg launches

Aren't all launches from California in a polar orbit? 188.24.148.21 (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes but the satellite may then be maneuvered to a different orbit. That was the case with CASSIOPE, as mentioned recently by Frmorrison. This satellite operates from an elliptical orbit of 330 to 1,400 km, inclined by 81 degrees. — JFG ^talk 08:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Considering that all CA launches seem to be heading strictly South, away from land, it might be relevant to leave a note that all these launches are a version of a polar orbit. Nergaal (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a 81-degree inclination is nearly polar. Not sure whether we should call it polar, though. @Frmorrison: what did you think it was better to call it just LEO? — JFG ^talk 15:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. LEO is more specific than just saying it was launched into a polar orbit. --Frmorrison (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. There are many spacecraft using non-polar LEO orbits, and and many spacecraft on higher, lower inclination orbits. But I can't think of very many spacecraft on orbits which are on near polar and substantially higher than LEO (yes, Molniya and GPS orbits are in that category, as well as some scientific satellites, but not much else.) So "polar" implies "probably LEO" in a way "LEO" does not imply "probably polar". Fcrary (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that "Polar orbit" is more specific than generic LEO. In turn SSO is more specific than generic polar. Given it's 81-degree inclination, CASSIOPE's orbit could probably be called "quasi-polar"? Or shall we say "Polar elliptical"? — JFG ^talk 21:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Just like the weirdass orbit the ISS is in, I'd say it's just a LEO orbit. Some orbits are non-standard, and just can't be classified as anything other than "Orbit. Around Earth. Pretty low." — Gopher65_talk 00:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

LEO requires less del-v than a polar orbit. Nergaal (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

"LEO" includes a huge variety of orbits and altitudes, including very high delta-V retrograde orbits. Polar orbits are also LEO orbits, for that matter. A LEO polar orbit requires more delta-V than a LEO orbit without any inclination change, sure. But how many LEO launches of major sats (not cubesats) have zero inclination change? LEO is a very generic term, simply meaning "below medium earth orbit", or "below 1000 miles altitude". Everything below that altitude, regardless of other orbital characteristics, is in LEO. You can think of it as meaning "near Earth space", rather than any specific orbit. — Gopher65_talk 01:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

For something with an inclination close to, but not exactly, 90 degrees, the most common term I've heard is "near-polar." So, I think CASSIOPE would probably be best described as being on a "near-polar Low Earth orbit."Fcrary (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Weird mission not in table

http://spacenews.com/spaceil-making-final-fundraising-push-for-lunar-lander-mission/

Nergaal (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Not much information in there besides the company name and planned orbit. Is there another source? UnknownM1 (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, must be under the Aug 2018 x90 cubesat launch. Nergaal (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

That article is from December 2017. Do we even know if they raised the needed funds? Considering the GLXP has ended, is SpaceIL still even under contract with SpaceX? I've certainly heard of the company, but like almost all the GLXP competitors, they kind of just faded into obscurity. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

SpaceIL did not raise the needed $30 million USD and they are still trying. Any way, that launch is not scheduled. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The SpaceIL contract has always been unclear. Originally it seemed to be tied to the SSO-A / SHERPA launch by Spaceflight Industries, but the manifest for that one has changed often, and the launch is still not firmly scheduled, several years after the reservation. Besides, with the demise of the Lunar X-Prize, SpaceIL may have to seduce corporate sponsors, like PTScientists did with Audi and Nokia. Nothing to list here until an update emerges. — JFG ^talk 19:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Adding planned launches to chart

This doesn't seem like too big of a stretch but since most of the other launch pages include a "Planned" category in the launch outcomes chart in the launch statistics section, should it be added here as well? UnknownM1 (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, most of the other launch pages have "planned" launches in the chart because you put them there. It is a *terrible* idea, because these numbers are always in flux. A company may need to delay a launch, the launch provider will have delays, a priority customer may get inserted in the flow. Just stop, please. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Well first I actually didn't want to insert them but it helped with space issues on some of the pages and another editor started adding them to the charts I was working on. They do make sense as, yes they fluctuate, but the point is to show what is planned for the year at a glance, if the exact date is delayed, such as the JWST being delayed to 2020, then the figure can quickly be moved. UnknownM1 (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

They are biased by design. Future launch dates are NET, it is expected that some of them shift to the following year while nearly nothing shifts to an earlier date. You nearly always overestimate the number of launches that way. --mfb (talk) 05:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Now see that is a more interesting argument. While I agree that it is typically an overestimate, I do think that it means the page lacks a spot so see the current manifest. If the manifest shifts, those adjustments can be made. However, if I can't, as someone who edits this page, see that information clearly in an article already overcrowded, I know that the average reader can't either. They won't count each up. Its also good for an article for the general public to see the current expected trend lines of the usage of the rockets. I'm not really pushing it, I just think that it is something to consider to add. Cheers! UnknownM1 (talk) 06:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Although I agree that planned launches usually give a reasonable idea of the trend, I think that would be overkill in this particular graph, because the 2018 figures would drown out previous years, making the graph less legible. Perhaps SpaceX is just growing too fast… — JFG ^talk 11:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

To see what the numbers might look like in graphical form, see the mockups I put together up above to test out colour schemes (I put in the planned launch numbers). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Colours for booster versions

Discussion on colours in the table for booster versions (removed), and discussion on a new colour scheme for the rocket configuration chart (implemented)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The colours for the version/booster column and in the falcon heavy row are terrible. Looks awful and adds nothing to the table except eyesore clutter. Can someone please strip the colours back off? — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC) Agreed. They are waaaaay too noisy and distracting. I don't mind the recycled symbol to mark reused boosters, but the colors have to go. Cheers! UnknownM1 (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)  Done – I have removed the background for re-used boosters, while keeping the "recycled" symbol. I felt like keeping the special background for Heavy flights, because they are rare and distinctive. Other opinions welcome. — JFG talk 00:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Can we at least pick a color that is better than olive? UnknownM1 (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC) I dropped by to say I liked the color for the reused boosters, easier to see! -Castellanet (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC) H:Color Nergaal (talk) 06:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC) I like the colors Aquamarine and BlueViolet from Web colors. Aquamarine sort of fits the other colors while also signaling its different and BlueViolet is a totally different color scheme to also show its different. Both of those or similar would work for me. Cheers! UnknownM1 (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC) I see no particular reason to colour code that column at all. It seems like decoration for the sake of decorating. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC) I mean for the graph. I agree, the colors in the column have to go. UnknownM1 (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC) For example: Rocket configurations 5 10 15 20 2010 '11 '12 '13 '14 2015 '16 '17 '18   Falcon 9 v1.0   Falcon 9 v1.1   Falcon 9 Full Thrust   Falcon 9 FT (reused)   Falcon 9 Block 5   Falcon Heavy Or: Rocket configurations 5 10 15 20 2010 '11 '12 '13 '14 2015 '16 '17 '18   Falcon 9 v1.0   Falcon 9 v1.1   Falcon 9 Full Thrust   Falcon 9 FT (reused)   Falcon 9 Block 5   Falcon Heavy UnknownM1 (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Aha, in that case, definitely BlueViolet. Much easier on the eyes than Aquamarine. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC) What's wrong with the current "Olive" color? Clearly distinguished from the blue hues of Falcon 9, and not similar to any color in the other graphs (BlueViolet looks like the Vandenberg color). — JFG talk 11:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC) It kind of looks ugly and doesn't match with the blue at all. I don't think each graph has to have distinctive colors (the Outcomes chart and Booster Recovery chart don't). I think that the purplish color is a equally good distinguished color from the blue hues while also fitting the blue colors better than Olive. Cheers! UnknownM1 (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC) I find it slightly strange that the main distinguishing feature for this rocket class, the reusability, is frowned upon. I am confused how a color in a specific location, visually pointing out the main distinguishing feature of this class from all the thousand of launches before, is "terrible". To a certain degree, this list should feature the highlights of the F9 launches, and if you think having a soft color to point that out is terrible, you might have strange preferences. Nergaal (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC) The point of this article is to enumerate launches of this rocket, not to specifically highlight certain features. Leave that to the main article of the subject. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC) It’s not a matter of preferences, it’s more about readability. If two rows at the end have color, it’s a bit crowded but fine. When you get to three or four, it becomes far too overwhelming for the average reader. Cheers! UnknownM1 (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC) Why aren't we removing all colors from the table then? Why we need success in green and failure in red? Nergaal (talk) 06:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC) The point of launch articles is to document and show how the rocket has performed. The most important information, from the LSP's perspective, is the success and failure rate. The outcome being in color is there to easily signal those outcomes. In this particular article, the vehicles also have an individual mission outcome for landing. I agree that the article should highlight reusability, which is done through the clear "recycle" signal. The article on the boosters themselves have the blue colors to highlight them. While I don't agree with those colors either, they are highlighted. For readability, the important information in the article is highlighted. If there is a better way to show reusability, maybe highlight the whole row except the end blue, then that's a different question. However each booster column individually colored cannot be the final solution. Cheers! UnknownM1 (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Long term version graph colours The main concern is accessibility. I ran the two options above through a colour blind detector and the aquamarine doesn't work for a couple of conditions so that is out. The blue violet is easily distinguishable from the others, but not so much as the olive is. I'd prefer to save the violet colour for a future falcon 9 category (falcon 9 block 5 reused?). The falcon heavy will also have multiple versions, with the next flight slated to have a significantly different build to the previous one (based more on the B5 architecture) so we will need a different colour scheme from the falcon 9 versions eventually. It is also so different than the falcon 9 that it warrants looking 'out of place' to me. In short, there are soon going to be too many different models for all of them to fit as shades of blueish colours. There will also be multiple falcon heavy versions. Therefore we should use shades of another primary colour for the Falcon heavy versions. Some examples of what the chart could eventually look like by the end of 2018 (based on the 'future launches' schedule): 10 20 30 40 2010 '11 '12 '13 '14 2015 '16 '17 '18   Falcon 9 v1.0   Falcon 9 v1.1   Falcon 9 Full Thrust   Falcon 9 FT (reused)   Falcon 9 Block 5   Falcon 9 B5 (reused)   Falcon Heavy   Falcon Heavy v2 10 20 30 40 2010 '11 '12 '13 '14 2015 '16 '17 '18   Falcon 9 v1.0   Falcon 9 v1.1   Falcon 9 Full Thrust   Falcon 9 FT (reused)   Falcon 9 Block 5   Falcon 9 B5 (reused)   Falcon Heavy   Falcon Heavy v2 10 20 30 40 2010 '11 '12 '13 '14 2015 '16 '17 '18   Falcon 9 v1.0   Falcon 9 v1.1   Falcon 9 Full Thrust   Falcon 9 FT (reused)   Falcon 9 Block 5   Falcon 9 B5 (reused)   Falcon Heavy   Falcon Heavy v2 10 20 30 40 2010 '11 '12 '13 '14 2015 '16 '17 '18   Falcon 9 v1.0   Falcon 9 v1.1   Falcon 9 Full Thrust   Falcon 9 FT (reused)   Falcon 9 Block 5   Falcon 9 B5 (reused)   Falcon Heavy   Falcon Heavy v2 What do you guys think? and which do you prefer? All work for colour blindness accessibility (though the yellow-orange is possibly the most distinctive) and this scheme gives us additional room to grow in terms of adding more falcon heavy versions (I suspect that the falcon heavy will probably have 2-4 different versions eventually). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC) I really like 1 and 3. I would give a bit of an edge to 1, but maybe flip the colors of the Block 5. I agree that we will have some down the road additions so those would work. I'm not as fond of 2 with the green. Good choices! UnknownM1 (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC) I've flipped the colours with Block 5, as I think I agree. Given that long term the (reused) one will be far more common and I like the Dark Blue as the final F9 colour as it gives better contrast to the FH colours. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC) I prefer version 3.Earthandmoon (talk) 04:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC) in Rocket configurations, isn't better to use the same color for first stage and reused stage? for the reused, use the prior color with a matrix or an overlap for a common colour of reused rockets. soon we will have FT B5 FH and BFR for reused, and it is a bit too much for a quick comprension. for example, use sqares or lines in diagonal. we will have all blues for the differend falcons, and the same green dots or lines over the reused.--Dwalin (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC) I'm not entirely certain what you are trying to say, but If I am understanding you: We can't use any sort of checkerboard or other pattern, because that isn't a feature of the chart module. Also note that the BFR launches wont ever be recorded on this page, ans this page is only for falcon 9 variants (the heavy is included because it is fundamentally a variant of the F9). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 19:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC) ok, no BFR. but for others.....let me explain in other matter. use (for example) blue bar for B5 and B5 reused, but in reused one you put a dot, so you recognize that they are B5 and wich of them are reused. --Dwalin (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC) What is Heavy v2?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nergaal (talk • contribs) Elon has stated that the next Heavy will be a different version based more on the block 5 architecture, I can only assume that this will have a different version number and hence will be recorded with a new colour in this graph. There are two further heavy launches planned this year, so I added them here with a made up 'v2' tag just for demonstration purposes. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC) I've just realised that a Bright 'Blue' also works for accessibility, so we don't have to resort to BlueViolet (although this also precludes using BlueViolet at all, as it is indistinguishable from 'Blue' with red anomaly colour blindness). I've added an additional option with pink colours, but this one really isn't that great in the colour blindness simulator (its ok but doesn't pop well with red colour blindness, as violet becomes blue when you take out the red). I'm leaning toward the red or yellow options, with yellow as a favorite. The yellow just has an advantage in that it pops regardless of whether you have green cone or red cone issues, because yellow is a combination of both. This makes sense as Blue-Yellow is a complementary colour pair. If no one has any objections, I am going to implement the yellow option later today as it appears the best in terms of accessibility. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC) I agree that yellow gives good contrast. I also agree that we should stick to shades of blue as much as possible for Falcon 9s, without switching an arbitrary rocket version to violet. In keeping with the color scheme for new vs reused "Full Thrust" boosters, I would suggest using the darker blue for first flights and the lighter one for further flights. Also switched the Heavy variants to slightly less aggressive shades of yellow. Added another tweak with lighter shades of blue for block 5. See result below. — JFG talk 22:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC) #1 Block 5 colors swapped; toned down Heavy colors 10 20 30 40 2010 '11 '12 '13 '14 2015 '16 '17 '18   Falcon 9 v1.0   Falcon 9 v1.1   Falcon 9 Full Thrust   Falcon 9 FT (reused)   Falcon 9 Block 5   Falcon 9 B5 (reused)   Falcon Heavy   Falcon Heavy v2 #2 Lighter shades of blue for block 5 10 20 30 40 2010 '11 '12 '13 '14 2015 '16 '17 '18   Falcon 9 v1.0   Falcon 9 v1.1   Falcon 9 Full Thrust   Falcon 9 FT (reused)   Falcon 9 Block 5   Falcon 9 B5 (reused)   Falcon Heavy   Falcon Heavy v2 I really like 2. Its a bit better on the eye and the color tones work better. Cheers! UnknownM1 (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC) ​​I like the changes to the yellow and the colour swap for the B5 is fine. While #2 looks good to my eyes, it doesn't work well for Tritanopia (File:Tritanopia_charts.png), so I prefer #1 from an accessibility standpoint. I've tried SkyBlue before and run into the same problem. I'd support implimentation of JFG's first option. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC) @Insertcleverphrasehere: I don't understand how #2 "doesn't work well for Tritanopia". Quite the opposite: looking at the graphs there, shades of blue in #2 have actually more contrast than in #1. Especially the distinction between block 5 new and reused is much stronger. Can you double check? — JFG talk 08:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC) ​I should have been more specific. I was referring to the 'Falcon 9 full thrust' vs 'Falcon 9 B5 (reused)'. They are indistinguishable on the right graph (#2) with Tritanopia. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC) Oh I see. How about these new schemes then? — JFG talk 10:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC) #3 Pretty and accessible? 10 20 30 40 2010 '11 '12 '13 '14 2015 '16 '17 '18   Falcon 9 v1.0   Falcon 9 v1.1   Falcon 9 Full Thrust   Falcon 9 FT (reused)   Falcon 9 Block 5   Falcon 9 B5 (reused)   Falcon Heavy   Falcon Heavy v2 #4 Better-paired shades of blue 10 20 30 40 2010 '11 '12 '13 '14 2015 '16 '17 '18   Falcon 9 v1.0   Falcon 9 v1.1   Falcon 9 Full Thrust   Falcon 9 FT (reused)   Falcon 9 Block 5   Falcon 9 B5 (reused)   Falcon Heavy   Falcon Heavy v2 If 3 and 4 is more accessible than 1 or 2, 4 is my choice Its a bit cleaner. The darker look on FT (reused) in 4 gives it more of a flow that the other charts, and the current one, lack. While mine are definitely not perfect and need to be fixed, I have been trying to use chart on some of the other pages that flow in a particular way. I still maybe support 2 a bit stronger, if the Full Thrust colors are flipped and are changed to work. Otherwise 3 has my support. Cheers! UnknownM1 (talk) 11:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC) Not working great, both #3 and #4 have a colour pair that is near impossible to distinguish with both tritanopia and protanopia (SkyBlue being the culprit again). We've pretty much exhausted the lighter shades of blue, so using darker shades helps the most because it doesn't rely on colour but how dark the shade is. If the 'Blue' is too jarring for you guys, we could go darker with both shades, using 'MediumBlue' and 'MidnightBlue' instead of 'Blue and 'Deep Blue'. I did a bit of trial and error and #5 below works well for accessibility. I still think that #1 looks better though... — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 14:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC) #5 with MediumBlue and MidnightBlue (Now with more shuffle!) 10 20 30 40 2010 '11 '12 '13 '14 2015 '16 '17 '18   Falcon 9 v1.0   Falcon 9 v1.1   Falcon 9 Full Thrust   Falcon 9 FT (reused)   Falcon 9 Block 5   Falcon 9 B5 (reused)   Falcon Heavy   Falcon Heavy v2 #6 One more try 10 20 30 40 2010 '11 '12 '13 '14 2015 '16 '17 '18   Falcon 9 v1.0   Falcon 9 v1.1   Falcon 9 Full Thrust   Falcon 9 FT (reused)   Falcon 9 Block 5   Falcon 9 B5 (reused)   Falcon Heavy   Falcon Heavy v2 @Insertcleverphrasehere: Could you post the filtered versions of schemes #3, #4 and #5 please? — JFG talk 19:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC) Too many different images to post, if you want to check it out, take a screenshot and put it through Coblis. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC) Well, indeed there are many sight issues to test against, and I'm not sure we must cater to everybody perfectly. To me, the most important feature of this color scheme is to provide enough contrast between successive versions of the rocket, so that even if two shades looks similar for certain people, their chronological separation makes it clear which is which. Also, it's nicer to have matching color pairs for new and reused launches of the same rocket version, with the reflown boosters sporting a lighter shade in the same tone. That's the logic behind #4, which looks best to me. — JFG talk 20:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC) The only chronological feature of the graph is the year separation, and the #4 chart clearly has an indistinguishable colour pair for two versions that are both going to be in the 2018 column. While it is possible to work them out from the order in the legend being the same as the stacking order in the graph, this wont necessarily be obvious to someone who can't see the colours to notice this trend in the first place. We should cater to as many people as possible and it clearly is possible to do as the #1 and #5 charts. If you want more contrast, How about the shuffle I have done for #5, or do some testing yourself with the Coblis simulator to find another shade of blue that works (I tried for over an hour last night to no avail) There is no reason to accept a lack of accessibility, we have the colours available to us. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC) While I like #4 the best, #5 should be the best set of colors to pick so that more readers can view the colors. I dislike how #1 appears. --Frmorrison (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC) @Insertcleverphrasehere: In #4, which two colors are too close to each other in the 2018 series? — JFG talk 21:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC) @JFG: For #4; Skyblue is indistinguishable from LightSteelBlue with Protanopia (and very nearly so under Deuteranopia), RoyalBlue is indistinguishable from SteelBlue with Tritanopia. #3 obviously has the same colour pair issues. Basically anyone with any of the three Diachromatic conditions is going to have an issue with #3 and #4. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC) Thanks. Take a look at #6. Good matching pairs for v1.0/1.1, FT new/reused, and Block 5 new/reused. Enough contrast between all neighboring colors. Easy on the eyes, nothing too light or too dark. — JFG talk 22:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC) The only conflict pair is SteelBlue and Teal under Tritanopia. Though considering that these are used for the 'Falcon 9 1.0' and the 'Block 5', respectively, this probably isn't a main concern as they couldn't be much further apart in the graph. #6 works so long as people are ok with some teal in the mix, I'm happy with it personally. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC) Great, thanks. @UnknownM1, Earthandmoon, Dwalin, Nergaal, and Frmorrison: Would you approve color scheme #6? — JFG talk 22:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC) YSupport Thumbs up from me. I'm still a little iffy about the FH V2 color but honestly that can be fixed later if necessary. Good work! UnknownM1 (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC) YSupport. but, as i whrote earlier, i would prefer same color for same roket, and a dot/mark for reused ones (common mark). --Dwalin (talk) 08:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC) YSupport. --Frmorrison (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC) Where does the name "Falcon Heavy v2" come from? Is this coming from an external source or did we make that up? I would describe it as "FH Block 5" or something like that. --mfb (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC) Mfb I made up that particular name so that I could use it for colour demonstration purposes. The next FH definitely will be a different version, so we needed to take that into account when planning the future colours, which is why I added the FH v2 listing. To take a leaf out of my username, consider it to be "insert future Falcon Heavy version title here". It wont be added to the current chart, as we have no confirmation of a future FH version name at the moment. We do have confirmation that the configuration of future FHs will be considerably different from the maiden flight, based more on the block 5 architecture (Elon's post launch press conference), so perhaps I will add "next Falcon Heavy version title to be inserted here" and the colour but have both hidden for the time being until confirmation of a version # (along with hiding the legend item and colour for the "Falcon 9 B5 (reused)" until it is needed). The current chart to be implemented with the new colours would look something like the chart below (take note of the hidden text in code view).  We are essentially planning long term so that we don't have to debate over each colour addition as it happens and then reinvent the accessibility wheel each time that we have to add another colour. #6 colour scheme is perfect because it has good contrast and we can use whatever shades of yellow and/or orange that we want for future Falcon Heavy versions without conflicting with the falcon 9 variants on accessibility (something that wouldn't be possible if we had gone with shades of blue for all, which isn't feasible long term). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC) (Current flight statistics with colours from #6. To be implemented if we have consensus). 5 10 15 20 2010 '11 '12 '13 '14 2015 '16 '17 '18   Falcon 9 v1.0   Falcon 9 v1.1   Falcon 9 Full Thrust   Falcon 9 FT (reused)   Falcon 9 Block 5   Falcon Heavy The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Orbit types

The LEO/GTO categorization right now is a bit boring. All/most CA launches are in polar, or near-polar LEO ones. I think PLEO would be a fine change. Also, SSO is a specific type of polar orbit. Polar orbits require more del-v than regular LEOs, so I do think they ought to be marked down accordingly. Nergaal (talk) 08:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd rather not use "PLEO". "LEO", "GTO" and "SSO" are commonly used acronyms in the field. "PLEO" isn't. This column in the table isn't limited to three letters, so we could say "Polar LEO". Along similar lines, I'd like the see "HCO" expanded to "Heliocentric" since that's more commonly used than the acronym. I also think "SSO" is worth including, since it adds more information, but "LEO/SSO" would be fine with me. Fcrary (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

"Polar <br> LEO" ought to work though. Nergaal (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Or "Polar (LEO)" for space reasons UnknownM1 (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I would support using more precise orbit designations, such as SSO, LEO (ISS) and Polar LEO. Also agree with expanding "HCO" to "Heliocentric", "TLI" to "Moon transfer" and "TMI" to "Mars transfer". — JFG ^talk 19:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with JFG's suggestion. We can keep it precise and understandable for the casual reader. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done[9] — JFG ^talk 21:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hispasat 30W-6 ocean landing

With the Hispasat 30W-6 mission, because of unfavorable weather conditions in the landing area, SpaceX was not able to use the droneship. They attempted a landing on the surface of the ocean. But it appears that attempt was a failure. In the launch webcast, after the shutdown of the entry burn, John Insprucker said that the landing burn would occur in about a minute and a half. But the landing burn was never reported on the countdown net. Neither was the splashdown.

Should we list the landing outcome as "Unknown"? Angel Cupid (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I understand that they did not want to recover this old booster, but that they would test some guidance recovery technology on it having it "land" on the ocean and discard it there without risking damage to a sea platform. [10]. I'm sure there are more references to this test previous to the launch. So I would call it "recovery not attempted". BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I missed this bit from the reference above: "Following a deterioration in sea conditions, the recovery ships and ASDS have since returned to port and SpaceX have confirmed that Tuesday’s launch was fully expendable." So that is the reason it was not attempted. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I see you have a separate class for Ocean landings. Disregard my comment above on "not attempted". Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

SpaceX previously had a fast landing attempt (using three engines instead of one for shorter period to save fuel) with GovSat-1 and it worked, and for this launch a fast landing was also done. However, I see no report saying the first stage had a controlled ocean landing. The bad weather's poor visibility and the fact that the support boats were far away may mean no one knows. --Frmorrison (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if the booster transmitted telemetry in real-time to the boats nearby. I reckon that since they tested some aspects of it, they should have a way to obtain the data, other than visual. SpaceX may declare something in the near future. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

It is known that a controlled landing on the surface of the ocean was attempted. John Insprucker said so in the webcast, and the NSF article also says so. The quote from the NSF article is misleading. BatteryIncluded omitted the next sentence:

"Following a deterioration in sea conditions, the recovery ships and ASDS have since returned to port and SpaceX have confirmed that Tuesday’s launch was fully expendable. This late decision means that Falcon 9 still flew with full recovery hardware, including landing legs and titanium grid fins and conducted the regular re-entry and landing burns."

What isn't known is if the landing was successful. I don't think it was. But there is absolutely no dispute that they attempted an ocean landing. The NSF article says they did. And John Insprucker said they were doing that several times during the launch webcast. They also reported on the countdown net when the entry burn started, and when it was shut down.

At T+7:00, when the entry burn was shut down, Insprucker said that the landing burn would occur in about a minute and a half.

No further reports were made regarding the booster, either on the countdown net or from Insprucker. Later, Insprucker just said that the booster had "done it's mission" (deliver the satellite to orbit).

With all of the landing attempts SpaceX has done, they have reported on the countdown net when the landing burn started, and when it has landed. Including GovSat-1, which also was a GTO mission where the booster did a fast ocean landing. Except when there was a failure; for example, with the failed SES-9 landing attempt, the landing burn and the landing were not reported on the countdown net. In the blooper reel, Elon Musk said that the landing burn had failed.

Again, it is known that there was a landing attempt. Since there is no official word on whether or not it succeeded, I've labeled it "Unknown". Angel Cupid (talk) 07:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Going back to labeling the ocean landing as unknown, the rocket was in an expendable configuration and various tests was done. So I think "no attempt" is the best thing to say, since the rockets were intended to be destroyed (since it is the old block 3/4 that can only be reused a few times) so a slow ocean landing was not the plan. This should apply to the next few "landings" as well.--Frmorrison (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Frmorrison: Agree, and sources are clear that there were no attempts.  Done[11] — JFG ^talk 16:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

That's slightly inaccurate. Until SpaceX released the video with all the explosions a few months ago, nobody really knew if half of those were failed ocean landings or expended boosters. Is there a honest way to distinguish between a discarded booster and an attempt to see if they can do a soft touch with X% less fuel? Hispasat in particular had a drawn-out landing plan and it even had landing legs, so I am absolutely sure they tried a "risky" mock landing. Nergaal (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure, they probably did try a mock landing with B1044.1, but as you say until more information is released, the "no attempt" stance is all we have to work with. And in this particular case, the source article clearly said the droneship landing attempt was cancelled at the last minute, which explains the landing gear. — JFG ^talk 17:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something, it says that SpaceX may do a pretend-landing (aka ocean landing). Nergaal (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you talking about that source? Can't see that claim in there, all it says is: Following a deterioration in sea conditions, the recovery ships and ASDS have since returned to port and SpaceX have confirmed that Tuesday’s launch was fully expendable. This late decision means that Falcon 9 still flew with full recovery hardware, including landing legs and titanium grid fins and conducted the regular re-entry and landing burns. — JFG ^talk 19:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh I see, the source also says: …although SpaceX may use this as an opportunity to test recovery procedures by guiding the booster to a splashdown, rather than a landing, but frankly that's speculation. — JFG ^talk 19:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

CRS manifest

If anybody cares to get an account here is a supposed manifest of the remaining CRS: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/11/spacex-external-cargo-20th-revealed/ Nergaal (talk) 08:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

That is an article from 2016. --mfb (talk) 10:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Block 5 sub-version of Full Thrust

(in reference to the #Colours for booster versions thread) — JFG ^talk 11:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

One thing nobody raised is that Block 5 is one of the sub-versions of the 'Full Thrust' version (I've seen explicit mentioning that Block 4 is). Block 5 is probably just the "no more upgrades" subversion. Explicitly taking B5 out of all the other ?4? subversions might prove rather misleading. Nergaal (talk) 09:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I think I did that when Block 4 was added and then not added in the graphs. While technically true, the high reusability should make it so different from the rest that a separate category is useful. The Full Thrust category would technically be "Full Thrust Block1-4 (new block naming scheme)" but that is too long for the caption. --mfb (talk) 09:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Also the Block 5 is the 'final' version. SpaceX has stated that there will be no more iterative upgrades, primarily due to NASA's seven-flight requirement before manned flights for any rocket model (a new rocket model would have to go through the review process for manned flight all over again) but also because all of theier design staff are switching over to the Falcon Heavy and especially the BFR. I think it makes sense to separate the Block 5 from the other blocks. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 10:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I concur with my fellow editors that Block 5 is a significant-enough upgrade to warrant listing it separately. It should even have its own article when it starts flying and full specs are disclosed. We went through a similar process when transitioning from v1.1 to v1.2 "Full Thrust", which was originally listed as an evolution of v1.1, but obtained its own article when more details became public.[12] Conversely, the incremental upgrades to the FT variant have not been groundbreaking enough to justify another article. Granted, all of this may sound a bit subjective, but most sources characterize Block 5 as a larger step up than Block 4 was. SpaceX naming shenanigans haven't helped make sense of it all… — JFG ^talk 11:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I concur as well. Block 5 is significant for multiple reasons; I suspect we'll learn more about it's substantive changes in press articles at or around the first launch. Also, agree with JFG about how SpaceX' odd and irregular naming conventions (often connected to the "thinking out loud" part of Elon's brain) have not helped with keeping straight the F9 and FH versions, and the same thing is extant with MCT, ITS, and (now) BFR. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

SpaceX called Block 4 a small improvement over Block 3 (basically implementing a small set of the Block 5 changes earlier). Oh, and the planned human-rating of Block 5 makes it stand out as well. --mfb (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

DAMN ELON! Looks like we should call this thing "Falcon 9 V7" now.[13] Was this your "thinking aloud mode" again? Elon, stop toying with your faithful fans, please !! — JFG ^talk 23:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Nah, you have it all wrong. It's called "Falcon 9 1.2.5 Full Thrust Block 5 V7". Nergaal (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh man, I laughed way harder at this than I should have. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 15:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

launch statistics in template

now we have new launch statistics colours. so, because this infobar is used in this page and in this, isn't better to convert all in a template, put the link of the template in this two page, and modify only the template. we can avoid the problem: "one updated and the other not". --Dwalin (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Currently other pages include them from this page. Not directly a template but template-like, a single point to edit it and you can edit the whole article here instead of editing the article plus a separate template. There are still many numbers elsewhere that need updating after each launch. --mfb (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

well, we understood. now i try to make it. dunnow the other pages that includes that dates. --Dwalin (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

This above comment doesn't make sense... Could you clarify? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

well, we understood. => we understood each other.

see that it was yet made. delete all topic.....--Dwalin (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

"2018" headings

@Insertcleverphrasehere: I liked the idea of User:Nergaal to give the planned 2018 launches a different name. Much easier to navigate to the right section e.g. from the watchlist if headings are unique. --mfb (talk) 04:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

​The concept doesn't bother me, but the wording "Remaining of 2018" doesn't work. Perhaps "Future 2018 launches" or "Remaining 2018 launches"? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 04:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

"Future 2018 launches" sounds good. --mfb (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 04:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Need a new table column: video

SpaceX has been really good at archiving their internal camerawork and mission progress even from Falcon 1 era. I think, considering the scope of this list, a link to (their own) webcasts is appropriate. Not sure what is the best format to use though. I am thinking something akin to the video format at Maximum break. Nergaal (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Nobody wants direct links to launch videos? Nergaal (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Too much effort for something that ultimately isn't really the point of this article. If you want, I'm fairly sure that a note linking where one could find them if they wanted to can be somewhere on the page without much issue, but adding a new column isn't really necessary. Cheers! UnknownM1 (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

How about putting it in the "Success" columns inside the launch outcome. Nergaal (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

add number of flight left for the year

could be interesting to add number of incoming flights left for the year? we can see that AS NOW there are 23 flight scheduled for 2018 and 11 for 2019 and 15 for 2020+.

Bangabandhu-1 the 23rd, Iridium NEXT 51–55 GRACE-FO 1, 2 the 22nd and so on, in reverse numeration. --Dwalin (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

It commonly changes so no I don't think this is a great idea. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

length of page

216kb isn't too much? may be good to split the page in several others? we don't cut info but make all smaller and with only key info.

• EXAMPLE: year 2017 in a new page. here will remains only the table without references and one line of essential notes.
• launch to make will remain here complete of all--Dwalin (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The prose size (readable text only) is 15 kB (2366 words). When there is over 40 kB of text then it could be split. One reason why this page is so large is that it has over 400 references. A few of these could be removed, but most are necessary. This page is fine to be one page for the next four years of launches. --Frmorrison (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

No issue at all with current page length, and even with 400+ citations. Given that the list is comprehensive and already includes all planned launches until 2020, it will only expand slowly. Splitting the list would be detrimental to ease of reference for our readers. Never forget: WP:Readers first! — JFG ^talk 20:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

no, not to delete citations! but in this page we take all data in short version (and no citations). than every year has a his own page with full references. and we whrite a general note in the front that explain that all references are in the year's table page.

let me explain with a bad, but not as bad example. i made nuclear power in france, in this i made a table of nuclear plant in short version here, and extended here (the criteria for the split is > 50NPP).

i propose something here. table with no references for lauches made, full note and table for lauches to make. than we copy all the yeas in other page. --Dwalin (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Negative mate. This is a featured list and definitely not appropriate to move the references to another page. The page is not currently too long, and at such time that it does become too long we can split the 'notable launches' section to List of notable Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches or something. Splitting the list into different years is the thing we should avoid at all costs but I don't think we need to resort to removing references. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

fine. tnx for your time--Dwalin (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Splitting the list in some way will become necessary in the future. SpaceX expects 300-400 launches of F9/FH in total. With the current level of detail a list with 300-400 launches (and even 200 if that number turns out to be lower) would be extremely long, and I don't think we should shorten the entries without keeping the current version somewhere. All other rocket families with a large number of launches have their lists split up by decade. --mfb (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

We'll cross that bridge when we reach it. Many of the 300–400 launches will likely be routine repetitions of launching a batch of their Starlink fleet, so they would not take much space. — JFG ^talk 05:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Changed Green/Red to Blue/Red for landing chart

As much as I like the red/green aesthetic, the blue/red is a thousand times better for accessibility:

The results speak for themselves. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I also changed the Launch 'success' colour to the same light green as in the table/list, as this could do better as well. The charts should now be very obvious to anyone with any colour blindness disorder. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

No, not that color. I'm ok with brightening it, but that color would not work. Cheers! UnknownM1 (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

All good, I'll look for another one that works a little later. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 04:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok I ran through a few options with the colour blindness simulator, but the OrangeRed was conflicting with the ForestGreen and hard to tell apart with RED/GR blind. While changing the green was an option that didn't pan out (and I like the current green), I changed the two 'failure' options to different shades of darker red. This works for accessibility now. UnknownM1, let me know if this works for you. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Y Looks better! Cheers UnknownM1 (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Wait... why do we now have a red-like color (brown) for ground pad success while the failures have shades of red? Can't we make that a very dark blue to keep a red/blue scheme? @JFG: --mfb (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Dark blue looked too much like the ocean, I thought some brown would evoke the ground. Somebody just turned it light green[14], that looks even better to me. — JFG ^talk 14:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Green gives very little contrast to the red/orange colours of the failure ones. How does borwn make sense? We aren't colour coding them to make them look likt the things they are, it is to easily distinguish a failure group from the success group, and then be able to easily distinguish between different modes of failure and success by shade. As the current version is worse on contrast I'm reverting it back. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I've restored back to the blues, please don't add new colours without consensus, as colorblind accessability needs to be checked before anything is added. I swapped the colours for ground pad success with drone ship success to address JFG's concern that the 'medium blue' colour for the ground pad was too oceanlike (it is now the greyish 'steel blue' colour). Hope that works. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I made the same swap on the failure side. --mfb (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I checked it, that looks fine. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Booster landing - Ocean Success vs. Ocean Failure

I trawled the archives to see if this had been discussed, but not all that well, so might have missed it (pointers gratefully accepted). Are we using SpaceX's categorization of success versus failure to label these? I confess I'd not heard ocean landings binned this way before, but after crawling the individual mission descriptions I got the distinction. Would it make sense to explain this distinction somewhere? The other types of success vs. failure are rather more obvious, I think and not needing explanation. ++Lar: t/c 20:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Ocean failures are not that well documented. The "failed ocean landings" are listed by SpX in a self-deprecating video, and the remaining ones have some articles saying they were "successful". Only the more recent ocean landings have received less coverage, because they are boring. I think the latest ones are not-attempted by default. Nergaal (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

An ocean failure is when SpaceX or multiple 3rd parties say the rocket stage failed to land on the ocean. This could happen if the "landing" attempt was uncontrolled. The first few times a rocket stage tried to land on the ocean it was going too fast and blew up (there is a neat video showing these rockets blowing up) so those are referred to as ocean failures by many sources. The 2018 ocean landings are called "No attempt" since SpaceX did not want to recover the rockets so instead of having a controlled "landing", they have been collecting data on different landing scenarios and not worrying about having a controlled ocean landing. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Dates - should we display latest info? eg Telstar 19 Vantage June 17, 2018

I believe the June 17th date for Telstar 19V comes from the launch permit which dates back to April. Ben Cooper's Launch photography on May 23rd changed from late June to likely after June 28. Which info should be displayed? June 17th because it is specific, or 'likely after June 28' being much more recent info? ( [15] shows June 17 and changed in last month but I suspect it only changed this month because it only became clear that the permit was for Telstar 19V this month.) Any comments on whether date information should be latest reliable info or some other criteria? My reaction is I would prefer latest reliable info even if vague in preference to specific but out of date info. crandles (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

If in doubt I would prefer the latest reliable source. Sometimes launch dates get less certain over time, especially when there is a delay. --mfb (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

When faced with a decision to pick a date from conflicting sources, I usually go by "which source was updated most recently?", while working with well-respected sources that are updated regularly by their maintainers. The Telstar 19V sourcing is tricky because we had two sources getting updated on the same day, with Pietrobon listing 17 June in his 23 May update, and Cooper saying "likely after 28 June" in his own 23 May update. Meanwhile, Clark (sfn) played it safe by keeping the vague "June 2018", unchanged from his 8 April update. In my edit I chose to use the 17 June date because "new at Pietrobon" is usually reliable and because Cooper was apparently speculating by writing "likely". I have no idea of the primary sourcing behind either of their claims. As a personal observation, with both Telstar 19V and CRS-15 launching from pad 40, it is very unlikely that Telstar could happen "in June" if it occurs after the June 28 flight of CRS-15, so it's either a week+ earlier or a week+ later (or one of those gets moved to pad 39A). Finally, all of our prospective launch dates are specified as "no earlier than", so that June 17 is still acceptable even if the actual launch only happens in July. Hopefully new information will come to light shortly. We don't even know whether Telstar will fly a new B5 or the last B4 booster yet. — JFG ^talk 08:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

For discussion see nasaspaceflight forums my post dated 24th May 2018 discussing likely primary sources seems to have been accepted there with June 17th being changed to "Early July". I can't be sure that the same has happened at Pietrobon as at Nasaspaceflight forums but it does seems likely June 17th derives from the launch permit that was available on 27th April. Thank you for explaining your reasoning. Didn't want to revert if you had better info than me. I am inclined to think 'Likely after June 28' is more up to date info and more appropriate but am also happy to leave if you prefer to wait for something more up to date or definitive. crandles (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

We now have May 29th update from Cooper which has dropped the 'likely after' and replaced with July TBD so I assume that does it. crandles (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, with other launches bumped to August, Cooper's schedule totally makes sense. — JFG ^talk 13:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Sketch from the Falcon Heavy is wrong

In the picture "Falcon9 rocket family.svg" is the sketch from the Falcon Heavy wrong. In real the fairing halves on the top are turned 90 degrees and so there is no gap in die middle.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/spacex/38583829815/in/photostream

https://cdn.teslarati.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/space-falcon-heaving-fairing-payload.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:F1:FBC1:AD76:FD45:EC7:B2E1:5A16 (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Insertcleverphrasehere as creator of this drawing. — JFG ^talk 12:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe the fairing are turned 90 degrees to show that it comes in two pieces. The family picture looks fine to me. --Frmorrison (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I didn't create the original drawing, just the block 5 addition. Even if the fairing is meant to be rotated 90 degrees, It is probably mor demonstrable to have it the way it is now. Happy to modify the drawing if people want it changed though. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Fairing Recovery column

As fairing recovery appears to be SpaceX's next major reusability goal, I think we should consider adding a fairing recovery column to the table so we can more easily track the recovery attempts. Sario528 (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

This has been discussed a few months ago, and there was consensus not to add such a column. See Talk:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches/Archive 5#Fairing Recovery. Maybe some editors would support it now; I feel it would add unnecessary clutter. The first few fairing recoveries will be notable, and can be mentioned in the remarks for the relevant flights, just like past attempts have been documented. After a few flights, this will hopefully become a routine operation and will not deserve special mention. — JFG ^talk 13:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. After reading through the previous discussion, I think our best option would be to fairing recovery info (if known) to the text box for each flight. Sario528 (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. — JFG ^talk 19:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed to keep it in the text. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Crewed Dragon 2 Flight

The listed flight of a crewed Dragon 2, scheduled for January 17, 2019, seems highly problematic and should probably be deleted. The source given for the date is a private web page maintained by an Australian businessman with no known connections to NASA or SpaceX. The Space Flight Now schedule list does not include any such flight up to 2020. I wish the flight were going to be then, but nothing official confirms it, and there have been several news items in recent days saying early 2020 is a more likely date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4070:6240:8DA3:945D:599D:3F0F (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

That 17 Jan 2019 is also on http://spaceflight101.com/iss/iss-calendar/ . That says "(Date in Work)" whatever that means. Could switch to that ref if it is preferred. However note 31 December 2018 is also listed as a possibility so following that ref might mean having to move it forward rather than back. Pietrobon source does seem to me to be more problematic than Ben Cooper's Launch photography but currently is used 15 times so lots of alternative refs would have to be found. What refs do you have for likely delay to 2020? crandles (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

This dated 3 Jul 2018 says "Now, we are– they’re both getting ready for their uncrewed demonstrations and they’re both shooting for this fall for the uncrewed demonstrations. And then, within three of four months, both of them are planning to fly their crewed demonstration missions after the uncrewed demonstration missions…" That is the most recent I have found. crandles (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Good Lord, what kind of blathering is this interview of Kathy Lueders; is she on drugs?? Can't make sense of anything she says. I mean, look at this: There’s definitely been a lot of digging and pulling data and pulling everything. You know, the companies will come in and say, hey, we’re having this kind of a problem and having people that have been out there and have learned and said, hey, I had that problem, you know, this is what we did, but most importantly, Probably the journalist just dumped the transcript of his tape and did zero editorial work or followup, but I can't blame him if the original content is so hard to understand! No way we should use this as a source for anything. — JFG ^talk 12:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Answering the OP's question, Steve Pietrobon is usually reliable. I remember he was the first source who pushed SpX-DM2 to 2019 when everybody else was still toeing the SpaceX line of August for DM-1 and October for DM-2. That is now totally out of the question: DM-1 is now mid-September at best, then the same capsule will perform the in-flight abort test in October or November, and finally they need to get NASA approval to fly DM-2 after the results from DM-1 and flight abort are in. January 2019 is still feasible if they're fast; probably the "17 January" date is a bit too precise but matches a slot in the ISS operations schedule. Boeing claims 31 December for their crewed demo but that also sounds far-fetched. You never know, one of the companies could pull a surprise, as I'm sure both teams are eager to claim the crown of "first US spacecraft back to the ISS", which means some obfuscation on both sides is expected. — JFG ^talk 12:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

See also Stephen Clark's article from yesterday: basically "no comment" from NASA on SpaceX on any exact schedule.[16] — JFG ^talk 12:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Re Pietrobon, just changed AMOS-17 to Q2 2019 per AMOS. Nov 2017 press release said Early 2019 so maybe just Pietrobon not up to date with this change but not sure where Q1 came from. Also not sure about PSN-6 which Pietrobon had as 2019 but has now been changed to 4qt 2018. How many errors have to be observed before we consider it not reliable? Or is it a matter of RS or not? Is there any reputation at risk? With Ben Cooper's Launch Photography, I believe people use that to view launches and wouldn't be happy with misinformation. Consequently happier with LP as a RS than Pietrobon. crandles (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

We can't really compare those sources. Cooper is focusing on the next upcoming 3–4 flights, and he is often the first to get the scoop on an exact launch window for Florida launches. Pietrobon deals with all launch announcements, up to three years ahead. For planned launches within 3 to 12 months, he is often the first to report changes from earlier outdated announcements. Accordingly, both sources have their place to build our comprehensive manifest. Longer-term flights are naturally more subject to change than shorter-term flights, that doesn't make Pietrobon any less reliable. — JFG ^talk 19:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)