Talk:2009 in spaceflight

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ares I-X[edit]

Please note that this is not a spaceflight, as it will not reach the Karman line. Therefore, please do not add it to the list. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 13:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian propaganda[edit]

Russia may be claiming that their 39 planned launches is a "world record", but this is only propaganda. The record actually stands at 100 orbital launches, set by the USSR in 1982.[1] Can we remove this nonsense? --GW… 21:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Offliner (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Next scheduled launch[edit]

I think we should this part from the lead, since it's so rarely up to date. Most of the time the statement is simply misinformation. Offliner (talk) 11:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you think we could get away with transcluding Portal:Spaceflight/Next launch? That is usually up-to-date. --GW… 17:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because I'm keeping it up to date. I keep forgetting that we have the same information on this page in the lead. if it is possible to transclude without drastically modifying the appearance that would make it easier for us (i.e. me). -MBK004 18:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phobos-Grunt[edit]

Looks like someone has removed Phobos-Grunt from the list. Why? There is speculation about a postponement to 2011, but no official announcement yet. The current launch date is still October, 2009. Offliner (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Almost all reputable third party sources agree that it has been delayed. It has never been the policy of WP:TLS to favour "official" statements over reputable third-party sources. If we did we'd be listing the Unha launch as a success (when it quite clearly failed), and we'd have a serious POV problem with the article. I think I've seen confirmation that the first flight of the rocket that will launch it (with a different payload) is scheduled for December, which makes launch in October impossible. --GW… 01:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which reliable third-party sources are you talking about? I'm only aware of this and this. Neither of them says that the mission has been delayed. They only speculate that a delay is likely. Offliner (talk) 08:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added it back as its launch date is still October, 2009. In the end, it really is the official launch date that matters; third-party maganizes do not launch the missions. Offliner (talk) 03:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still feel that this is giving inappropriate weight to an "official" point of view. You forget that "offical" sources may be reluctant to release "bad news", forget or neglect to update their websites, or simply be lying. By your logic we should list the North Korean launch as a success because that is what North Korean propaganda is saying even though it is blatantly obvious to the rest of the world that it failed. Should be list Sumbandila (currently scheduled for launch on a Soyuz in July) as being "scheduled" for launch in May 2007 on a Shtil', simply because its operators haven't updated their website? --GW… 07:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still disagree. The North Korean missile launch has absolutely nothing to do with this. Here, we are talking only about the launch date. Officials cannot decide if a mission is succesful or not, but they certainly can decide when to launch. It is the officials who decide when to launch, not third-party magazines. Thus, it is the official date that matters. The Shtil launch also has absolutely nothing to do with this. A Lavochkin spokesman recently confirmed that the mission is still on schedule, so it's not a case of "information hasn't been updated." A question: if NASA says that they will launch something on 2009-10-01 and third-party magazines speculate that a delay to next year is likely (NASA however still insisting that the launch will be on schedule), then we won't list the launch here? By your logic we wouldn't. Offliner (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the fact that said launch is currently placed on the 2010 list speaks for itself. I might also note that even NASA's own Mission Set Database (MSDB) website acknowledges that delay. --GW… 19:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The French participant's speculation about a delay announcement to be made "soon" seems to have been unfounded: "However, despite all unofficial reports about the inevitable delay of the mission, Russian space agency was adamant about the launch of Phobos-Grunt on time. Instead of a widely anticipated announcement about the postponement of the mission in April, Roskosmos and NPO Lavochkin published press-releases on May 5, confirming the launch in 2009."[2] Of course, there is still a lot of uncertainty, but I think we should really keep it on the list for now. If we drop it, our readers might get surprised if it launches in October after all, and angry because they did not have any info here. Offliner (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think its that serious an issue, but if you want to leave it here for now then fine. It seems the Russians want to try and launch it this year, even if it is not ready, rather than delay the launch. You also raised the issue of Glory. NASA are now showing that as January 2010 on their official schedule as well as their technical schedules, so I would recommend leaving it where it is, in the 2010 list. --GW… 07:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference[3]. It seems that China is going to launch in this year. --Gwano (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let the whole thing be in the October, 2009 schedule. I think if the spacecraft is truly not ready then the Russians themselves will come up with a press release in a month or two. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meridian-2[edit]

According to the manufacturer, the launch was a success and the satellite is operational: [4]. Offliner (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • They would. To quote you, "Officials cannot decide if a mission is succesful or not, but they certainly can decide when to launch.". --GW… 23:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Operator and launcher (military) says it's operational. Manufacturer says it's operational. What more do you want? If this was an american launch - if NASA said it's operational, manufacturer said it's operational, operator said it's operational (although a bit lower orbit than expected) - then you wouldn't hesitate a second to list is as a success. But only because this is Russian, you cannot trust anything they say. Offliner (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never disputed that it was operational. There was a launch shortfall, therefore it is a "partial launch failure". There are several different categories of "success" in terms of launches. In this case, it "successfully" reached orbit, and will probably be able to "successfully" complete most of its mission once it has raised its orbit. It was not "successfully" placed into the orbit which it was intended to be placed, however. This is the same logic that is applied to virtually all partial launch failures. And for the record, I'm British, and have no pro-American or pro-Western bias. I was one of the strongest supporters of listing the second SpaceX launch as a failure (despite their claims that it was a success), the same logic is applied to the NRO L-30 launch, and the Indian Insat-4CR satellite. --GW… 23:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, to ensure consistency, definitions of "success", "failure" and "partial failure" were set out at WP:TLS: "A mission is considered a partial failure if...The carrier rocket places the payload into an incorrect orbit, but the spacecraft can still operate in the incorrect orbit, or the spacecraft can correct its own orbit". I also note that from your previous edits and comments on your talk page that you seem to have a strong pro-Russian bias, which I feel may be affecting your judgement on this issue. --GW… 00:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, the definition seems clear. I agree that we can list it as partial failure. Sorry about wrongly assuming bias. Offliner (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In Orbit"[edit]

The recent July 31 ABM test claims that the interceptor is "in orbit". I am pretty sure that this is a mistake, but I couldn't figure out how to change it.--SkiDragon (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First orbital launch section[edit]

I feel that South Korea should not be added to the first orbital launch section of the infobox due to the fact that the first stage of the Naro-1 rocket is Russian. --GW… 08:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SDO[edit]

According to The NASA lanuch schedule, SDO will be lanuch on Feburary 3 2010. [1]

References

  1. ^ http://www.nasa.gov/missions/highlights/schedule.html

IGS launched by H-2A-16 on Nov 28[edit]

Regarding the IGS launched by H-2A-16 on Nov. 28, the article states it is "IGS-4". Information Gathering Satellite claims it is "IGS 5". ja:情報収集衛星 doesn't have identifier code for this one, but it looks like IGS-5 (maybe IGS-5A) seems more probable. --Fukumoto (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A New Zealand rocket[edit]

http://www.3news.co.nz/NZs-first-space-launch-saved-by-6-part/tabid/412/articleID/131980/cat/1084/Default.aspx states a sounding rocket reached 100 km. http://www.rocketlab.co.nz/ --Fukumoto (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just heard about this and was going to post the same thing until I saw you beat me to it, this should definitely be included. I'm just not sure whether it should be on this page or in Suborbital spaceflight in 2009, but that page doesn't have much on it and there are many suborbital launches listed here. Any opinions? --Hibernian (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It gets included on Suborbital spaceflight in 2009 and since it reached the Kármán line, it also meets the inclusion requirements to be listed here as well. The suborbital page needs to be expanded and we've fell behind on it, and consciously chose to keep this one more up-to-date. -MBK004 06:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was Ātea-1 New Zealand's first sounding rocket? Weren't there rockets launched in the 1960's?JohnC (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • There were, but they were all American rockets, none of them reached space, and most of them were launched by NASA anyway. --GW… 06:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

amazing page[edit]

kudos to the authors (although it is a tad long...) Decora (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2009 in spaceflight. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on 2009 in spaceflight. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on 2009 in spaceflight. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2009 in spaceflight. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_in_spaceflight&oldid=1213410039"