Talk:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches/Archive 6

SpaceIL
https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-first-israeli-spacecraft-set-for-trip-to-the-moon/

Seems like Spaceflight Industries rideshare. Is the SSO relayed to December? Nergaal (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added the entry. The source says that Sparrow will piggy back on a "much larger communications satellite", and also that the trajectory to the Moon will involve a two-month long voyage on an elliptical orbit. This can be achieved by giving several perigee kicks starting from a GTO or supersynchronous orbit. SpaceX has already launched several commsats supersynchronous, i.e. to a higher initial apogee than GTO, later circularized by the spacecraft with less fuel than usual. I can imagine that a GTO commsat operator would accept to host Sparrow as a co-passenger under these circumstances, and provided it does not in any way imperil the main mission. Now the conundrum is that very few commsats are scheduled in the late 2018/early 2019 time frame: ArabSat 6A is manifested on Falcon Heavy, but could conceivably be switched to a Falcon 9, as the current version is largely powerful enough (see Intelsat 35a or Inmarsat 5-F4 that were originally slated for Falcon Heavy too). AMOS-17 is scheduled for early 2019 and is also from Israel. I don't see any other candidates. Let's hope for new sources to confirm which satellite is on board with this clever trick. — JFG talk 13:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Spaceflight Industries was also advertising a "dedicated rideshare" to GTO, but we haven't heard of that in a long long time. Their own site is silent about it, although there's a "185 × 60,000 km" launch opportunity listed on their pricing page for Q4, 2018. Maybe this could be in play for Sparrow, but it does not sync with the SpaceIL announcement that they will share the launch with a large commsat. — JFG talk 13:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I remember seeing one of the links saying they use Spacefllight Industries rideshare but I can't find a serious source now. I guess they are most likely to do a piggyback on the Israeli satellite (for a discounted price, which this project heavily needed). Means that either AMOS-17 will be launched earlier (possible if B5 works), or that the SpaceIL are extray-hyping it (I think the former is more likely). Nergaal (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Haaretz article and a SpaceIL promotional video also mention a 60.000 km apogee at separation, which doesn't make sense because separation occurs way before reaching apogee, but the altitude is compatible with a supersync GTO orbit, and it matches the Spaceflight launch list. It may be that the launch was still brokered by Spaceflight as initially contracted, and that they recently agreed with SpaceX on a launch slot, just not revealing the piggyback bird yet. — JFG talk 18:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * There is suggestion here it might be with PSN-6 and that might still be Q4 2018. We have that as 2019 per Pietrobon. crandles (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Pietrobon has now changed page to put PSN-6 as Q4 2018.crandles (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

News: the Moon transfer from a supersynchronous GTO orbit is confirmed. Will add a note to the entry in the list. — JFG talk 12:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * For accuracy of the SpaceIL/Sparrow article, is there any indication the lunar lander will use its own power, or use the Falcon booster for the Moon transfer? Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe that Sparrow is fueled to handle the orbit-raising by itself, although that's from memory because I had no time to go back to detailed sources right now. Falcon 9 second stage definitely can't do it: it will have spent all its fuel on the perigee burn to raise the apogee as high as possible (minus a small margin to de-orbit itself at next perigee passage). — JFG talk 19:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sparrow needs an engine mostly to decelerate, and then to soft-land. Its article can benefit with info + ref on whether it will also use its own engine & fuel to reach the Moon, or will be injected by the booster followed by separation. Will leave Earth orbit and reach escape velocity through the F9 booster: . Because it will take it 2 months to reach the Moon, I smell a series of Earth gravity-assists by the F9 before its final burn and separation.  Still researching this. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not plausible at all. A Falcon 9 second stage is not deigned to remain active more than a few days, and even if it could, it would not have enough fuel to propel itself and the lander further after having delivered a massive satellite to GTO+. Actually, the 2015 source you cite says: Once Sparrow is alone, the Falcon 9 will reignite the engine in its upper stage, carrying the lander a significant way toward the Moon. The lander will then detach from the rocket and propel itself the rest of the way to the lunar surface. The first part of this sequence is likely wrong, while the second remains correct. We know from recent sources that Sparrow will be dropped from a supersync orbit at 60,000 km apogee, and will perform further burns by itself to gradually raise its orbit until it comes close enough to the Moon to perform orbital insertion there. — JFG talk 15:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I went back to the recent sources. It's clear that the SpaceIL spacecraft will power itself after supersync separation.
 * Haaretz, July 11: The spacecraft will separate from its two-stage launch rocket at a height of 60,000 kilometers above the earth, where it will enter an elliptical orbit around the earth, which will expand slowly until the craft is captured by lunar gravity.
 * Space News, July 13: SpaceIL announced July 10 that it is planning to launch its lunar lander as a secondary payload on a SpaceX Falcon 9 in December, deploying into a supersynchronous transfer orbit that it will gradually raise until it can maneuver into lunar orbit.
 * Times of Israel, July 10: Whereas other previous moonshot spacecraft have taken just days to reach their target, SpaceIL will be fired into an elliptical orbit to gradually bring it closer to the moon, a journey that will take two months but will save on carrying the fuel needed for a quicker passage. Even so, the craft will travel at a speed that is 13 times faster than the maximal speed of an F-15 fighter jet, steering itself to the moon, which is some 384,000 kilometers (239,000 miles) from Earth, about 10 times the distance between Earth and communication satellites orbiting it. Through its elliptical journey, the Israeli spacecraft will cover some 9 million kilometers, the project managers said.
 * Emphasis mine. All sources are already cited in our list entry, so it's easy to update. — JFG talk 17:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

This mentions an ACES/PHARAO, a Sherpa GTO, and a Eutelsat Quantum for 2018. Nergaal (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Trajectory Nergaal (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice graphic of the planned orbit, but no specifics on separation or propulsion to achieve it. — JFG talk 17:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Flights
I noticed some of the most recent flights are being added without any sources being cited. I would caution against claiming either 'unknown' or 'success' status without a reliable source, and would strongly advise editors to read WP is not a news paper.-- Eng. M.Bandara -Talk  12:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you watch any of their streams, they pretty much always say "nominal orbit" before ending their stream. Only time there was any sort of debate was Zuma, and months later it was revealed that their "success" status was actually correct.  That makes their cast as a reliable source until further publications come out.  Yes, wiki is not a paper so it can be modified at any point, including when updates show up. Nergaal (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There are some 2017 flights without refs for the date. I think most of the recent date refs confirm a successful launch. Perhaps we should go back through the date refs and ensure the ref confirms a successful launch or replace it with one that does? Streams don't seem particularly relevant unless we have them as a ref. I am not sure which flights "some of the most recent flights" refers to. crandles (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree to use proper citations for past successful missions. Live streams should not be used unless something special happens that is not mentioned in a journalistic article. Such articles are usually available within a couple hours of satellite deployment, so we can wait for a proper source instead of forgetting to update. — JFG talk 21:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I mentioned at some point that the refs need to be combed through and try to remove duplicatons if nothing else. But to me, that's a very boring job, feel free to jump in. Nergaal (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I was updating information as it came in as I was watching the livestream. Yes, refs do need to be added for verifiability, but there is WP:NODEADLINE and the information I added was accurate at the time I added it. I wasn't 'claiming' unknown or success, I was watching the SpaceX livestream of the launch and another editor had already called it 'success' (despite being in the coast phase and mid-mission), so I changed it to 'unknown'. I changed it back to 'success' when the final Iridium satellite was released and the mission declared a success by the announcer. I suspect there are plenty of reliable sources available now, but I was sleeping last night when they were published (Live stream ended around 1:30 AM here). Instead of complaining about us adding correct information (even if we didn't have a good source at the time), why not just add some references yourself? —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  22:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Orbit definitions
I updated the Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 Full Thrust pages to highlight that the Falcon 9 is now capable of launching 7,075 kg to GTO. This change was reverted by PSR B1937+21 claiming that "Telestar 19V was launched into a sub-GTO orbit". However no reference was made to this claim, nor any definition provided. All providers have different SECO (or further) orbits when providing a GTO launch, this is mostly due to where the rocket launched from. So we need a standard definition, even if on a provider by provider basis. Yes, the 19V had a larger deltav deficit to GEO than some other launches, but on the other hand it was very similar to the delatv deficit that the the Hispasat launch had, and that was classed as GTO. So going with PSR B1937+21's arbitrary undefined definition I have changed the Hispasat and 19V launch orbits to "Sub-GTO". Can we have a consistent objective definition please? 82.7.191.68 (talk) 08:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * says "making it the heaviest payload that Falcon 9 has carried to geostationary transfer orbit". Even if it isn't strictly quite a GTO orbit it is certainly more GTO like than MEO. We should show it as either "GTO" or "Approaching GTO" and the latter only if there is suitable ref to back up the claim. crandles (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * GTO is a type of MEO. Sub-GTO is just a jargon at this point. Nergaal (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Definitely not MEO: that would mean a quasi-circular orbit at an altitude above 2,000 km, or an elliptical one with perigee also in the MEO region. Transfer orbits have their perigee squarely in the LEO altitude range of 200–400 km. In fact, while supersynchronous transfer orbit is used more often, GTO transfers requiring higher Delta-V from the spacecraft are sometimes called subsynchronous transfer orbits. See this book reference from 1994 about orbital maneuvers to position geosynchronous satellites. Accordingly, I think we can safely call this a sub-GTO orbit; however we would need to expand our article on geosynchronous transfer orbits to explain this case, and to document some usual Delta-V requirements, which can be gathered from launch manuals of various rockets. — JFG talk 16:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * MEO means period b/w ~2h and 24h, which to me simply refers to the semi-major axis regardless of the ellipticity. GTO to me is a type of MEO, since it is between LEO and (G)SO. If we are going to be pedantic and not call this a GTO, then sub-GTO seems to not be an actual term either. sub-STO seems to be fine. Nergaal (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sub-STO?? — JFG talk 18:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * subsynchronous transfer orbits Nergaal (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Never seen this abbreviated as "STO", and that would potentially be confused with "supersynchronous transfer orbit". Sub-GTO is much clearer; we could add a footnote to explain how it is defined. — JFG talk 19:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The link you gave does not use sub-GTO. Is this a term used by journalists taking creative freedom? Nergaal (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It can be explained as a shortcut for "subsynchronous GTO", which is used. On the other hand "STO" is not used, and "MEO" is wrong. — JFG talk 21:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Where does it say "subsynchronous GTO". AFAICT it's subsynch, synch/GTO, supersynch. Am I missing something? Isn't gestationary just a special synchronous orbit? Nergaal (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, geostationary is a geosynchronous orbit in the equatorial plane. Subsync and supersync are generic terms about the orbital period under/over 24h. Subsync transfer and especially supersync transfer are transfer orbits from LEO to GEO which have a lower or higher apogee than a "perfect" GTO. Anything under 25,000 km is extremely substandard for a transfer orbit, requiring lots of delta-v from the satellite. Apparently that's a tradeoff that Telesat and SpaceX agreed to; we don't know yet if contractual performance was reached. The Intelsat 35e launch, at 6,761 kg with an expended booster, was notable for exceeding the minimum target apogee specification by Intelsat. — JFG talk 21:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In industry articles I have seen when describing the difference between various GTO insertions they describe them as GTO, GTO- (subsynchronous) and GTO+ (supersynchronous). The big differentiator between these is the $$\Delta v$$ requirement; -1,800 m/s to GEO being typical, -2,200 m/s to GEO being a typical GTO- (subsynchronous transfer orbit) and -1,500 m/s to GEO being a typical GTO+ (supersynchronous transfer orbit). What that looks like orbit wise depends a great deal on launch latitude / inclination, rocket staging and launch profile.
 * All I am trying to say that there is no G in subsynch, so saying sub-GTO seems to be a made-up journalistic term. If we are going to be rigurous and not call this a GTO, I don't see why we should call it a made-up term instead. Is there an actual difference between a MEO and a subsynch transfer other than one implying more clearly the temporary status? Nergaal (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but professional sources do call this kind of orbit a "subsynchronous geostationary transfer orbit" and abbreviate it as "sub-GTO". Respected journalistic sources use the same term with the same meaning, including for this particular flight. That's the most precise we can do, and our article on transfer orbits should be updated to explain the sub-GTO and super-GTO regimes. — JFG talk 10:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "U.S. military tracking data published after Sunday’s launch indicated Telstar 19 VANTAGE was released into an orbit with a perigee of 151 miles (244 kilometers), an apogee of around 11,100 miles (17,871 kilometers), and an inclination of 27 degrees to the equator." OK, 11,100 mile apogee is under half of the 22,300 mile Geosynchronous orbit, so well short of the target destination. GTO article says "A geosynchronous transfer orbit or geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) is a Hohmann transfer orbit—an elliptical orbit used to transfer between two circular orbits of different radii in the same plane—used to reach geosynchronous or geostationary orbit using high-thrust chemical engines." This doesn't seem to require the elliptical orbit to have apogee at or near to 22,300 miles merely that it is an 'elliptical orbit used to reach geosynchronous orbit. Clearly this 151*11,100 mile orbit is elliptical and is being used to reach geosynchronous orbit. I don't think we should add extra requirement to definition of GTO unless there is a better definition defined somewhere authoritative. So this orbit seems to meet definition of GTO. Adding Sub-GTO and Super-GTO subdivisions of GTO term may well be possible. In the meantime, MEO is wrong and I think this article should go back to being GTO until we have Sub-GTO defined. crandles (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't fathom how is this not a MEO. The apogee is even below a typical MEO orbit, and there doesn't seem to me to be any relevance of eccentricity to what kind of orbit it is. Most HEO have giant eccentricities so I don't see why a MEO wouldn't be similar.  Nergaal (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Medium Earth orbit "sometimes called intermediate circular orbit (ICO), is the region of space around Earth above low Earth orbit (altitude of 2,000 km (1,243 mi) above sea level) and below geostationary orbit (altitude of 35,786 km (22,236 mi) above sea level)" Not circular, 151 mile perigee is not above 2000km. Does it have to be above 2000km at all times as my interpretation or does it just have to have period of more than 128 minutes? The alternative ICO name suggests my interpretation, but maybe LEO MEO and HEO are meant to be not only mutually exclusive but also cover all highly elliptical orbits rather than just cover near circular orbits. Anyway, I could be wrong. crandles (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In the industry non-typical GTOs are called either GTO- for orbits that have a larger than "normal" delta v to GEO deficit, and GTO+ for orbits that have a smaller delta v deficit to GTO. It's all about the amount of energy that needs to be supplied by the satellite to get it into a circularised 0 degree inclination orbit; if a satellite doesn't need to provide more energy to get to GEO then it can be made smaller and/or stay on station for a longer period of time. ~1,500 m/s delta v => GTO+, ~1,800 m/s delta v => GTO, ~2,200 m/s delta v => GTO- (like the Telstar 19V second SECO orbit). 82.7.191.68 (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The parking orbit is 250 * 17869 km. https://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=43562#results

It is common to use on board chemical or more and more popular, ion thrusters to provide a large delta-v to achieve GEO and we design flexible transfer orbits for different missions. We use sub-GTO, standard-GTO and super-GTO to maximize LV's capability. To better describe the performance we need a C3-payload function. For simplicity, it is a common practice to use some characteristic orbits for market purpose. US-based LSPs normally use GEO -1800 m/s for high orbit performance.

I think we need a clear definition of LEO and GTO for LV articles. like the Proton-M page. PSR B1937+21 (talk) 06:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC) But I could not find an official figure for the latest revision of F9 like this: p18.

Colours of stats graphs
Why so many similar colours in the stats graph? The first graph has 5 blue variations! Can we choose some different colours to make the graphs more legible without having to look at the tooltips (which are also not shown on mobiles)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PepitoSgazzebuti (talk • contribs) 09:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We used to have more distinct colors, but they were modified following tests for color-blind people. However we risk making things less readable for "normal" people. Perhaps some adjustments could satisfy both kinds of readers? — JFG talk 11:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I am starting to think ocean landings info should be phased out from the table S/F stuff. It can be in the blurb, but it doesn't really need color coding. It has to do more with the development program than with the current state of the landings. Nergaal (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There is some merit to the idea of just calling ocean landings 'no attempt' in the stats graphs., Please for the love of god lets not bring up the colours in the graphs again. Look in the archives of this page for the discussions that led to the current colour schemes, it has a lot to do with addressing accessibility for multiple different types of colourblindness at the same time. Specifically, the reason for all the shades of blue is that it is far easier to address colourblindness by differentiation using shade rather than colour. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  13:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The controlled ocean touchdowns were an important part of the reusability development program. As such, it would be totally inappropriate to call them "No attempt". — JFG talk 19:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That is fair, and such a graph might belong on that page. We could however rename the stats graph to something like "Booster Recovery" and then 'no attempt' for ocean landings would be appropriate. It depends on what data we want to display. I'm not married to the idea, but was just floating it as an option to simplify the graph somewhat. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  00:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was an important part of that program, but there are only 7/58+ entries dealing with ocean touchdowns. They aren't real landings, and for those 7 entries, a sentence or two inside the text is likely sufficient.  At this point we might be getting more "ocean" fairing recoveries than boosters, so one could argue that would be a more relevant thing to cover than ocean landings that led to no actual recovery and/or study of the boosters.  Nergaal (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ci sono millemila conversazioni sui colori. --Dwalin (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy leaving the 'ocean controlled' and 'ocean uncontrolled' in the list (to retain this information), but removing them from the chart (replace with 'no attempt'), and changing the name of the chart to "Booster recoveries". The purpose here would be to simplify the chart and display the most relevant data to most readers (whether the booster was recovered or not). Keen to see what thinks about this though. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  11:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The current chart clearly shows SpaceX's progress towards reusability, we would lose this information if we removed ocean "landings". However, I'd be happy to call them "controlled touchdowns" or something similar. Regarding colors, I'm still dissatisfied with the rendering of ground pad landings in a shade of blue: we should try a shade of green to better distinguish them from landings at sea. — JFG talk 21:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In terms of a green colour, I checked a few and SeaGreen is about the same as SteelBlue for contrast under various colourblindnesses, so I swapped them. Looks fine to me. 'ocean controlled' gives more info than 'controlled touchdown' as the later doesn't indicate where the touchdown occurred. Unfortunately it gets messy if changed to 'controlled ocean touchdown', due to needed a second line in the key. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  23:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looks much better. For the legend, how about "Ocean touchdown"? The parallel "Ocean uncontrolled" could be changed to "Ocean crash". — JFG talk 23:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

'touchdown' seems ok, but I don't like 'crash' at all. There is still some ambiguity with 'ocean' landing, as readers might confuse this with drone ship landings (i.e. a landing out on the ocean). I've always thought this was a bit awkward. 'water touchdown' suffers from a similar problem, as does 'sea touchdown'. 'Sea surface touchdown' is just short enough to work, and is probably the least ambiguous that I can think of. 'Sea surface uncontrolled' is too long but 'Sea surface failure' would work. What do you think of 'Sea surface touchdown' and 'Sea surface failure'? —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  00:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea to lift some anbiguity. — JFG talk 00:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Should we also change 'ocean' to 'sea surface' in the list for the same reason? (and for consistency) —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  01:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The "landing status" in the list states whether it was a success or failure, or in the case of ocean landings, a controlled or uncontrolled touchdown. I would leave those labels as is, but I'd like to read opinions from colleagues. — JFG talk 02:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * On further reflection, I think the chart legends could be simply "Ocean failure" and "Ocean touchdown". There is no ambiguity because the entries immediately above are "Drone ship failure" and "Drone ship success", so that "Ocean" in this context can only mean attempting to land on the ocean surface without a drone ship to provide a platform. "Sea surface" sounds less natural. — JFG talk 02:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅, unless somebody objects and has a better idea. — JFG talk 03:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * All good. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  04:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think "ocean touchdown" and "ocean failure" colors could be merged in that graph, and perhaps even in the table. Nergaal (talk) 08:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't really know what you mean. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  09:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I find current color for ocean touchdown to be confusing as it is placed on top of landing and droneship recoveries. From a recovery point of view, controlled or uncontrolled touchdowns in the ocean are indistinguishable between themselves or from no attempt. Nergaal (talk) 09:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The graph is 'Booster landings' not 'Booster recoveries'. The ocean landings are 'practice landings', meant to test landing situations even when the booster doesn't need to be recovered, and without the need to risk damaging hardware on a drone ship. There is a clear difference in the success or failure of an ocean surface practice landing, and this is different from a 'no attempt' scenario where a landing isn't even attempted (or in many cases might not even be possible). —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  10:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

No there isn't a clear difference between success and failure. Several 2018 reentries that are currently listed as "no attempt" were used to study how much can the booster slow down by itself due to airdrag, and several others were presumably looked at how much can they be pushed, and the only one that made the news was the one that still floated. Heck, Hispasat had everything equiped for landing and I am 100% sure it used the pre-loaded fuel to run some scenario. But since such ocean landings are boring now, they don't make it into the news. Nergaal (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There are definitely legit issues with reporting of ocean landings, that being said, it doesn't mean that we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'm still leaning a bit in the direction of changing the chart to 'Booster recoveries', but is against it, and that section is also transcluded onto other pages (Falcon 9), so I don't see a consensus for that developing at the moment unless some other editors come out of the woodwork. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  12:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Telstar 19V (Falcon flight 58)
I think the "heaviest communications satellite" wording is problematic for an object in orbit - it really should say, "most MASSIVE communications satellite," particularly since kilograms are a measure of mass and not weight. --Benjamin Henry (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The wording used is "heaviest commercial communications satellite ever launched". 'Most massive' and 'heaviest' are largely synonymous at the time of launch. I don't think we need to change anything, but I'll let others 'weigh' in... —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  23:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I suppose we can wait for a consensus, even though, if the two words are "synonymous" but one is empirically more correct than the other, not only in that mass is constant and weight is variable (i.e. the satellite literally weighed more before the erection of the rocket to its vertical position pre-launch than after), but also that the so-called "weight" is specifically measured in kilograms (mass) and not newtons or pounds (weight), it shouldn't make a difference just to change it. But I'm a democratic guy, so we'll see what happens :) --Benjamin Henry (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Massive may be empirically or technically correct, unfortunately in normal usage people tend to think of massive as big not inertia so the term is potentially misunderstood by non experts. Note also that this article is about launches not the satellites in orbit. The refs provided say "satellite weighing 15,600 pounds, the heaviest spacecraft of its kind ever launched" and "It has a mass at launch of 7,080 kilograms (15,600 lb) – making it the heaviest payload that Falcon 9 has carried to geostationary transfer orbit". Both use the word heaviest rather than massive, possibly to avoid being misinterpreted as largest. The current wording is "heaviest commercial communications satellite ever launched". The inclusion of 'ever launched' to my mind makes it not incorrect due to the weight in orbit is zero problem and it avoids size misinterpretation if massive was used. This seems an acceptable way to do it, but am willing to be persuaded that there is better phrasing. 'Highest mass' might be a better term to use than 'massive'. crandles (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I could accept that as a solution. The other argument I had about this was the ambiguous meaning of the word "launch."  Since, had the rocket exploded or something 30 seconds into flight, 1 minute into flight, etc. (likely as long as the rocket was being propelled under power), it would have been labeled a "launch failure," as the "launch" is more than just the instantaneous, sea-level liftoff of the rocket (wherein the "weight" of the satellite and the rocket itself decrease until they are near zero at orbital velocity).  The real reason I want to start making this distinction is that in the not-too-far-off future, human beings will be interacting much more often with other bodies in the solar system where mass-to-weight ratios are unique for each one. --Benjamin Henry (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the weight of a satellite in LEO is almost same as on Earth, some 95% as on the surface. Weightlessness on ISS is an illusion. Nergaal (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll concede that, but it's irrelevant to the discussion. One, because "almost the same" is not "the same," and two, this satellite will eventually be in a geostationary orbit, which is over 80 times higher in altitude than the International Space Station, and it will have more gravitational forces acting on it than just that of the Earth, which is the whole point I'm trying to make. Weight is a vectored property with respect to an object's position and the position of relevant objects in space.  Mass is a property related to bound matter independent of other objects.  Sure, the conflation has made sense in the past since no one was really traveling away from the Earth, but that's changing. --Benjamin Henry (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * By your rationale, sending 1000 tonnes to the Moon would not be the heaviest shipment ever. Nergaal (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly, Benjamin hasn't said that. Just that the word heaviest is a problem when in orbit and there is conflation of units between showing kg measuring mass and heaviest implying weight. With a free falling frame of reference, it is quite possible to say weight is zero not just an illusion of weightlessness. 7080Kg mass at launch still makes the weight heaviest. OTOH "no one was really travelling away from the Earth, but that's changing" sort of stuff, well maybe but pretty slowly and such effects can be felt in lifts, cars etc., so is this a good reason to be pedantic or just a particular issue you feel is important but others don't? The problem I see with changing to 'heaviest' to 'highest mass' is that it might be frequently edited to heaviest as more natural language. As satellites do have weight at launch and this article is about launches, and with 'ever launched' included it isn't really wrong as it is. Therefore it doesn't seem to be something we need to be pedantic about getting it right and more natural language may well be the more important issue. crandles (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course it wouldn't be the "heaviest shipment ever." Cargoes far more massive than that are crossing the oceans all the time. It would, at the moment, be the MOST MASSIVE cargo ever delivered to the moon, but regardless, I'll bow to the majority here. --Benjamin Henry (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Heaviest is easier to understand and it is technically correct for the launch process as well. "Most massive", while correct for a larger span in time, is more likely to be misunderstood. "with the largest mass" would be unambiguous and correct all the time, but more clumsy. I prefer "heaviest" unless someone finds a nice way to say "with the largest mass". --mfb (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

GPS IIIA-05
Gunter has GPS IIIA-05 going on Falcon 9 as does Nasa Space flight forum. Pietrobon military has it on Atlas V411. Which is correct? and is Oct 2020 on Pietrobon reliable? suggests contract for 1 base and 2 options which seem likely to be #4, #5 and #6. Don't see anything subsequent suggesting anything different. crandles (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * do we know #5 is going on Atlas as per your entry description? Seems like SpaceX has #4 and a option for two more. List of Atlas launches (2020–2029) doesn't seem to have it nor does Gunter nor Nasa Space flight forum. (Sorry I thought I had undone my error re #3 but apparently not.) crandles (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I picked up the contradiction between Gunter and Pietrobon, so that even if we're not sure #5 will fly on Atlas, we can't reliably state that it will go on Falcon. I read the procurement primary sources again, and it looks like the Air Force is giving itself as much flexibility as possible now that they have two certified domestic launch providers. With the schedule changes that already happened for the first 3 satellites, I don't think we can say anything for the followup missions yet. — JFG talk 07:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Columns in 'Launch Statistics'
Uh... I don't know what happened here. The graphs in the Launch Statistics section are listing one after the other in one long line for me, even in older revisions of the page. I checked the three column templates, but there have been no recent changes to them. What is going on here? How can we fix it to display as two columns of two charts each? —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  23:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Must be a change of the template or the overall style. The old draft has the same issue. There were some changes for the vital article pages, maybe check how they work and what is different there? --mfb (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue with columns has been resolved independently of this article. Closing section. — JFG talk 07:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced schedule updates
What are your sources for the various schedule updates you just applied today? None of our usual "future launches" sources (Clark, Cooper, Pietrobon) include those changes. — JFG talk 21:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's mostly from the NASA spaceflight forum here https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=55.0
 * I had trouble adding the specific source pages, can anyone give me instructions if you can ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazen23 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Wikipedia cannot use discussion forums as sources, because they are mostly unverifiable opinions of anonymous people. We wait until WP:reliable sources publish something. Sometimes participants in those forums quote useful sources, and in that case we can use them. To insert sourced references, please read Help:References. Also, when writing on a talk page, please add " " at the end to sign your comment. — JFG talk 04:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Notable Launches NROL-76
Hi, I want to propose to add the launch #33 NROL-76 in the Notable launches section, because: --Oliversl (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Most people still don't know rockets can land back to land
 * As per description: "For the first time, SpaceX offered continuous livestream of first stage booster from liftoff to landing"
 * Back in the day this continuous livestream was a big deal, no-one from the general public has ever seen something like this(orbital rocket coming back to the launch site from space karman line/orbital velocity)


 * That sounds like something worth mentioning. NROL-76, if memory serves, was actually the only launch where we have video of the whole first stage trip (liftoff to landing.) It was a national security payload, and for some reason they weren't supposed to point the camera at the second stage. So they kept it on the first stage all the way. That does make it a notable launch, even though "Back in the day this continuous livestream was a big deal..." isn't quite the right way to put it. Fcrary (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

GTO vs sub-GTO
This edit introduced the concept of sub-GTO into our table of launches. This edit, which relied on the already introduced sub-GTO concept was reverted today by, with the justification 'We should really stop arbitrarily deciding what counts as "sub-GTO"'. So at this time, the concept of sub-GTO is disputed yet still (partially) present in the article. How do the editors think this should best be resolved? Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to see the entire term "sub-GTO" disappear. I don't think it's a commonly used term. In addition, every spacecraft launched to a geostationary transfer orbit needs some additional propulsion to get to a geostationary orbit. The amount of additional propulsion is different for "sub-GTO" and a pure, exact, GTO. But it's also different depending on the inclination of the transfer orbit, and we don't make a point of that. Actually, it's different if the launch vehicle does part of the plane change, and we don't make a point of that. Fcrary (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Besides this, several launches in the past have been "sub-GTO" like Hispasat earlier this year, but the only one referred to by that term in this article is Telstar 19V. Also, only one launch is explicitly listed as "super-GTO" (SES-12) but quite a few satellites in the past have launched to higher apogees (r/SpaceX on Reddit has a wiki page specifically devoted to tracking GTO launch performance.) I think we should either ditch the (somewhat arbitrary) prefixes or specify the specific Δv deficit, for example "GTO (-1800 m/s)". If we go with the second option, we also have to specify orbital parameters for other missions as well, otherwise we'd be putting an oddly specific emphasis on GTO missions. So in my opinion we should just call any elliptical orbit used to transfer from LEO to GEO a GTO. JustinTimeCuber (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This seems to be the way that these things are generally done, so I agree that we avoid prefixes. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  21:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. GTO is sufficient unless the orbit is clearly far away from the usual transfer orbits. Details can be mentioned in the text. --mfb (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sub-GTO is gone.--Frmorrison (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Collapsible tables
Can we make the launch tables collapsible? As in, the pre-2013 table collapses, the 2017 tables collapses, the future launches table collapses etc? It would go a long way to making the article more reader friendly. Right now there is just a huge amount of scrolling involved. &mdash; Gopher65talk 04:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm seconding this request. The article in its current state is rather unwieldy. Sario528 (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a list... what is the use of the list if everything in it is collapsed? Per this proposal, what wouldn't be collapsed? There is a table of contents if you want to avoid "a huge amount of scrolling". —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  15:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Except it's several lists. Adding the option to collapse them would make page navigation easier. We can leave them defaulted to uncollapsed, for those who like things the way they are now. Sario528 (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There would be no problem with making them collapsible, I was objecting to 'default collapsed'. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  16:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Currently it is a single table, I would be surprised if we can collapse parts of tables. We could make several tables out of it, however. --mfb (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Separating out the years into different tables is apparently beyond my skill this morning. If someone would be so kind as to split each year into it's own table, I would appreciate it. Sario528 (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I made a version with separate, collapsible tables. Thoughts? --mfb (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks OK, works as expected. The question is, whether these tables should be initially expanded or collapsed? I am not sure... And shouldn't the same be done to the future launches table? Igor Krein (talk) 05:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , Initially collapsed tables are not going to happen, per MOS:DONTHIDE and WP:ACCESS. It is against Wikipedia policy guidelines. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  09:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that is not the case. You are referring to a manual of style, which starts off with the statement that it is, "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." That is not an absolute rule or policy. It also says that collapsed tables can be used for many years of past statistics. I think that applies in this case. (And, I'll also not that, at least as displayed on my smartphone rather than my laptop, collapsed tables seem to be extremely common. Fcrary (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine, MOS:DONTHIDE isn't 'policy' (corrected above), but it is a guideline. It is very good advice. This page is a list of launches, hiding the list is the last thing we should do. The past years' statistics are just as important as the current years, and it isn't just statistics, it is the content of the article! You can easily navigate to the current year stats via the table of contents if you just want info on the latest launch. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  20:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

At some point, lists just get too long to be practical without collapsable tables (and collapsed by default) or something. For a related one, consider the R-7 family of launch vehicles. With over 1800 launches, that list is currently split up into separate pages, one for every year from 1957 to 2018. To my mind, that's much worse than making tables collapsable and defaulting to collapsed. Fcrary (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , This article is nowhere near long enough to justify needing to make a decision like that at the present time. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  00:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless of policy, the ground truth here is that the lists in this article are long enough that collapsible tables are welcome. They are all related and separated by the year, so splitting the article is an overkill. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , Collapsible, yes, Default collapsed, no. I'm fine with the collapsible option to hide each table being added. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  21:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That is the current status now. --mfb (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not as displayed by the Wikipedia app on a smartphone (Android.) That does show the tables collapsed by default. If someone cares profoundly about that, that person ought to look into this... Fcrary (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't test that now. I think on mobile devices I prefer the tables collapsed. --mfb (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I think all collapsible tables are collapsed by default on mobile? It needs to be that way though, because of the mobile Wikipedia format. That's not a decision we can (or should) try to undo. On desktop it is presently fine to make all the tables collapsible but leave them expanded IMO; we should revisit this again in a year or three when the article is much longer. My suggestion is that we eventually create a collapsible table for "2008-2016", which were all light years, and then create separate tables for each year after that, until the Falcon line starts to wind down in favour of other launchers (at which point we can group the final few years together). By that point we'll likely *need* to collapse by default on desktop just to make the page navigable. But, as I said, that isn't a decision we need to make yet. For now collapsible tables which default to expanded is good enough. &mdash; Gopher65talk 02:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I expect the end of Falcon 9 to be rather rapid. Once BFR flies reliably it will take over all LEO and GTO flights, once orbital refueling works there is no point in building more F9. --mfb (talk) 07:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't this all be viewed from the READERS point of view? Let's keep it easy for the Readers. Now it looks like the collapsible "hide" button has been removed from all the past history tables.  "Why not" ALLOW a reader to collapse a table if they desire??  I don't get it.--Ben (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * User:JFG removed them without commenting here. Maybe unaware of the discussion? --mfb (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, I had not noticed this discussion, sorry. I removed the collapsible option because the "show/hide" switch was creating trouble with the layout of the "Flight №" column. We went through a pretty intense review when the list earned the Featured label, and this particular option was not debated. Looking at contributions above, it seems there is consensus for making tables collapsible, although I would personally be opposed. This article is not especially long compared to many others, so I don't really see the point in adding this option. Most of the rendered page length is due to extensive sourcing, which is usually considered a good thing. Finally, on the mobile app, all tables are collapsed by default, so this argument is moot; we can only debate the effects of the collapsible option on desktop views. — JFG talk 15:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Flight numbers
I find your new format with XX/YY confusing. Is this really necessary, and if yes can we find a better format to count within a year? --mfb (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I was about to post the same thing. This is very confusing and unprecedented on other lists of rocket launches (Soyuz, Ariane, etc.) Mind if we revert to straight numbering? — JFG talk 12:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree completely. Doesn't really matter what rank the launch is for that year. The number of launches per year is covered in the charts well enough, and simple arithmetic will get you there if you are just looking at the tables. This is confusing and unneeded. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  12:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have removed the dual numbering. — JFG talk 01:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh dear... I really liked it :-( Chris Jefferies (talk) 08:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunate... This is Wikipedia, It is for easy info access for readers. Lots of things don't "matter" but are helpful for readers.  Some hate counting one by one to figure out what launch number that was in that year. --Ben (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, the number of launches that SpaceX does is unprecedented among other lists of rocket launches (Soyuz, Ariane, etc.)  Others don't even split their tables by year.  What is best for info access for the READER is the Goal.  These launch tables require scrolling to count through.  "Need" should be based upon the number of helped REaders. TEST: What flight of the year was Flight# 54 in May, First Block 5 launch vehicle booster to fly? Stop counting and give an answer now please.--Ben (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to quickly look up how many flights happened each year, the handy List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches slices that data every which way one might conceive. If you're interested in knowing the 2018 flight count on the day of Bangabandhu-1, I'm afraid you're in a tiny tiny minority of readers, and you'll have to make do with counting from 47 to 54. Regarding other rockets, I don't see how "unprecedented" the SpaceX launch cadence is, when Soyuz routinely flew 50 missions a year in the 1980s, and the Long March family this year performed about twice as many launches as SpaceX. The only unprecedented event is the level of detail that this list provides for each launch, due to the readership's strong interest in SpaceX. Yes, I agree that readers must be our first priority, and in terms of convenience, the other launch lists need more work than this one. — JFG talk 13:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

SEDS reliable source for ISS calendar?
is a more up to date ISS calendar than currently used. Last updates are October 12 vs May 9th respectively. Is "SEDS Students for the Exploration and Development of Space" a suitable reliable source? crandles (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe the first is more reliable than the other, but as for me, it is too outdated by itself and, therefore, not very reliable. BTW, maybe you better ask this question at the Talk:International Space Station page? Igor Krein (talk) 05:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks asked there now. FWIW Wayback machine has an update of SEDS page on Aug 28 2018 but then it is back to 2016. Anyway two updates since May 9th seems better to me than no updates. crandles (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Spaceflight 101 went radio silent after publishing its last article back in May, as its maintainer explained he could no longer put so much effort into it. Sadly we need to switch to other sources. The SEDS source looks well-maintained (last update December 8), I'd be in favour of using it. — JFG talk 15:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ — JFG talk 13:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

CRS 16
Watched the video feed. Looks like the booster failed the landing (at least as intended, it still might be recoverable). See this feed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2R9o6hzB3M there is some footage that a guy on the ground took of it coming in to land. Apparently it landed in the water then tipped over. Possible grid fin failure? In the video linked before it looks like one of the grid fins got stuck fully to the side on 45 degrees and the rocket had to compensate, and nearly managed it. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  18:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Grid fin hydraulic pump got stalled, tweet by Musk: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1070386062164283392 Booster "Appears to be undamaged & is transmitting data. Recovery ship dispatched." —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  18:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

"Water landing but recoverable". Rowan Forest (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , People are inserting 'partial failure' for the landing because it 'might' be recoverable. Honestly it didn't land where it was supposed to. I saw a video of it coming in and it landed off to the side and tipped into the water. Until such time as we have confirmation that it is re-flyable, I'd argue that we should call it a failure. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  19:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Concur with explicating it as a failure in the article; until such time as the thing is refurbished and reflown. N2e (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Anyway,the launch pad is CCAFS SLC - 40. Kfujito (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion somewhere in WP regarding the conflictive use of "Partial failure/Partial success". Anyway, it did not land as intended, and that is the purpose of that column "Booster landing", so it is definitely a failure. Whether they can retrieve it and fix it, is another issue that has nothing to do with the failure to land at the pad as intended. But I have no energy to enter the rumble on this chronic issue. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * While I think "failure" fits for now: A rocket ending up in the wrong orbit is typically called "partial failure" if the spacecraft is not lost. A booster landing at the wrong spot is similar. If it turns out that the booster is recoverable we might change it to partial failure in the future. --mfb (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Almost. I think we'd have to see if it is reflyable not recoverable. They may just be able to recover and inspect it, to determine the cause of the failure. Also, if an airplane landed off the runway, I'm fairly sure the FAA (and the passengers) would consider that a failed landing, regardless of the condition of the aircraft. Fcrary (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I consider "recoverable" and "reflyable" to be the same. If it can't fly again then the previous state couldn't be recovered. --mfb (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , That is a good point, but some sources have said that they are "recovering" the booster from the ocean. Whether it is re-flyable after that remains to be seen. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  12:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus to call this a straight failure. FWIW I agree. I'll update the article accordingly. — JFG talk 01:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean, it is damned impressive that the thing managed to right itself at the last minute even with it spinning out of control. I suppose it helps that the rocket was spinning in the first place (accidental gyroscopic stabilisation) and also that the out-of-alignment grid fins become less of an issue as the velocity of the rocket decreases. Gimbaling rocket motors managed to get it almost righted before it touched down on the water; enough to make a soft landing anyway. See this vid: . Seriously good software on that thing. There was a total failure to perform the landing as intended though. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  09:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was a landing failure, but it is amazing how the booster worked it out to the end. Vertically. Its gimbaling is an amazing engineering. The telemetry and video will only improve this awesome system. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Failure is a loss of rocket or payload. It's went beyond of its flight program, but still made a successful ocean landing without loss of rocket. It's partial success. Elk Salmon (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A landing failure is a failure to land in the intended place and manner. This flight was a successful launch and a failed ground landing. If they had been trying to get the booster wet, it could have been called a successful ocean landing, but that's not what they were trying to do. Fcrary (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Failure is a total loss of vehicle. The primary mission is not to land, but to return the core stage. The similar way is when you launch the payload, it's still partial success, if vehicle is damaged and delivered payload into wrong orbit, where it's still able to work. Failure is a total loss of payload. Elk Salmon (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Take a flight to Chicago and crash somewhere in Illinois. You will not say it was a partially successful landing. Its landing failed when it crash-landed in the ocean; some of its parts will be salvaged. 2) Its launch and payload deployment are already marked as "successful". Rowan Forest (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Except it didn't crash and performed successful ocean landing. And it's not total loss. Elk Salmon (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no way engine gimbaling nulled the roll, especially riding on just the center engine for touchdown. Rather, cold gas thrusters at the bottom of the rocket are seen firing pretty hard in the last seconds before legs deploy. Also, extended legs automatically slow down the roll because they move some spinning mass further from the rotation axis (like a skater extending her arms and free leg during a spin). Gyroscopic stabilization thanks to the spinning certainly played a role, though. Whatever the means, great job on the control software! — JFG talk 15:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , Yeah, as the craft slowed down, the fins had less air on them, so exerted less pressure, and the cold gas thrusters stopped it spinning. When I was talking about the gimbaling, I was referring to how tipped over the rocket was, and how it managed to get itself vertical again. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  15:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The fins would not have had a significant effect at low speeds. The booster did not stop spinning until right before it touched down.  It quickly stopped spinning right when the landing legs deployed.  The landing legs stopped the spinning, with their inertia. Angel Cupid (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , That's a good point actually, arms of a spinning ballerina and all that. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  13:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * You're right about that! — JFG talk 15:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The booster was severely damaged. It won't be flown again.  They probably will salvage parts from it.  See this article. Angel Cupid (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , The interstage is a write-off, but it doesn't really say much else beyond speculation. I added "Subsequent photos taken of the booster revealed severe damage to the interstage section, raising questions as to whether it could be refurbished", which is about all we can say from the sources available at the moment. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  13:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , Note that there is also a separate article specifically on this particular booster B1050, so if you uncover any other sources, please add future info there as it becomes available (this source was already there, but more stuff is likely to come). —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  13:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

GiSAT-1
The cited reference show that the GiSAT-1 won't be fabricated since the Chinese defaulted payments for Boeing and their contract was cancelled. Since the company now has nothing for SpaceX to launch, I think this launch should be deleted. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have placed it in comments, ready to be revived if ever… — JFG talk 23:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

(potentially) sloppy sourcing
When we use amateur sources that change frequently (many times per month, or quarter), as to future launch date details for example, and then use that source multiple times in the article via a refname that has no information in the refname about when the source was consulted, it is quite likely that, over time, as multiple editors make changes, that not all of them are valid.

For example, as of 30 Dec 2018 the refname "name=pietrobon" is used some 15 times in the article. When some editor wants to update a launch date in the article, and the pietrobon website/source happens to show a changed date for that particular launch, it would be quite normal to just update the launch date in the table for that one flight and move on. If the other 14 uses of that citation in the Wikipedia article are not checked and reconfirmed by the editor (which would be the norm, since I'm pretty sure that's how I'd do it; too many things to do with my volunteer time), then the other 14 "citations" are now, potentially, incorrect.

This is true even if the |accessdate=dd mmmm yyyy field in the citation is updated.

So the current "ref name=pietrobon" in the article has a |accessdate=29 December 2018 timestamp on it. That is good. It was updated by some editor yesterday. But did that editor do the extra manual step of checking all 14 other current uses of that citation in the article? I would think that is highly unlikely.

This can be addressed if we were to develop a practice to include the ISO date in the refname for the particular''' refname we are fixing when we update the article.

For example, if the editor who used the pietrobon source on 29 Dec were to have copied the full citation of the pietrobon source, and labeled the refname "pietrobon20181229", then there would be an explicit record of the date the (frequently changing source) was consulted and that more explicit citation refname would be used on any of the claims in the article that that editor also checked/confirmed on that date; that MIGHT help other subsequent editors be more careful. Then the other 14 uses of the pietrobon source, from older/previous consults of that source, would not be made (inadvertently) incorrect.

I'd be open to other ideas. But I'm pretty sure that a lot of our current sourcing is suspect as a result of this error vector. And it is hard to believe this article can consistently meet the Featured List criteria with the sort of erroneous citations that will creep in this way. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We had that discussion a while ago already. Ideally people check all the occurrences of the reference. If that doesn't work we could make individual references and stop grouping. Adding the access date would probably lead to that anyway, editing the name in 14 places is more annoying than checking the website for updates. --mfb (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'd want to have 15 different (and almost identical) references to one pietrobon source, especially when currently, there are almost 5 hundreds of references total in the article. This is against my nature, actually. Also, I personally try to find all the differences between previous and current versions of this (and a couple of other) source before making changes.Igor Krein (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of the usual maintainers of this article and the "20xx in spaceflight" series have been careful enough to check changes in the Pietrobon sources as they happen. My practice is to always cite the most recent source available, so for example if Cooper modifies a launch date cited to Pietrobon, I replace the Pietrobon cite by the Cooper cite. If later Pietrobon changes another flight which used to be cited to a press release, I ditch the PR because we have new information. I usually double check all launches marked "#" by Pietrobon, in order to catch any changes not yet seen by another editor. I see the potential benefit in having several dated citations to the same source, but that would cause too much trouble here. That's however a good strategy when referring for example to SpaceX pages where specs of rockets have changed without warning over the years. — JFG talk 23:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I definitely wouldn't want 15 almost identical references. Adding hidden notes of date last checked might be better than 15 almost identical references, but then you have to find them all and change the date as well as actually checking them and that is more likely to cause people to be lazy. If most of the regulars check them all most of the time, then I don't see that there is a problem. If there isn't a problem changing to have a annoying fix seems a bad idea so I suggest leave as is. (In checking Pietrobon refs, one diff I found was 'Dragon 2 (USCV 3, Crew 2)' down for 2019 whereas we have them all grouped as "likely from 2020. I am inclined to leave this until after DM1.) crandles (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I get that it may seem odd to have the same website that is consulted on different dates actually reflect that date it was consulted be correct in the citation, and it may seem like overkill if it were the same website/citation otherwise. I care only about the result. That is, if a source that supports some particular statement (the kumquat sat is projected to launch on xyz date) says that it was "accessed" on some date dd, then that particular website, on that particular day, should support the statement. If it does not, it is an incorrect source, and would be reason for this article to fail the Featured list criteria on a re-review and reassessment.

If those of you who are regular editors to this article have good process in place to see that doesn't happen, even when some editor may happen along and change the "|access-date= ..." parm on a cite, without confirming the other 10, 20 or 30 times that source is used to cite some other statement in this article, then there will never be a citations problem if a reassessment were to be done. So I'd be good with that.

If on the other hand, the sloppy sourcing leads to incorrect citations, then this article would be, quite simply, not in fact, a Featured List-worthy article at the time that someone discovers the issue.

So how it turns out is entirely up to frequent editors of this article. I just took that time to endeavor to explicate the problem to all editors who see this. The remedy for this potential problem is up to frequent editors, or those who want the list to retain Featured List status over the long term. N2e (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Spaceflightnow lists recent changes at the top, that makes it easy to keep track of the status of other flights. If there is no disagreement between sources we could prefer SFN, less risk to have some mis-citation. --mfb (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

ALINA lunar lander
I came across the Starter Payload User Guide (2018) by PTScientists regarding their ALINA lunar lander. On page 32 it states: So this is a ride-share launch with an unspecified GEO satellite. I did not want to add it without touching base with you so I don't mess the table format and verifiability. I'll leave this "on your desk". Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Launch vehicle: SpaceX Falcon 9
 * Launch configuration: Rideshare atop a GEO Satellite.
 * Launch injection parameters: GTO 35786 x 185km, 28.5° inclination, AOP 180° (requirements of rideshare agreement)
 * I put it into the table, thanks. --mfb (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just one note: The two Audi rovers will communicate with ALINA lander through 4G, but ALINA will communicate with Earth with either S band or L band through the European deep space network. I don't know if the two communication systems are worth mentioning in this particular table. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Launch statistics
I noted that Falcon 9 Full Thrust didn't have its statistics updated after the GPS launch, but doing so I got confused. It claimed 43 launches of FT. Our statistics here say 45, suggesting that we missed one more launch. But if I add the FT numbers in the "rocket configuration" statistics, I get 1+8+13+5+3+7+6+4=47. Not enough confusion yet? On Gunter's page I count 46. Can we collect the statistics on a common template page so we can keep track of what has been updated when? Needs careful re-counting. The bar charts can be moved to a separate page as well, then it is easier to keep track of updates. --mfb (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting stats at the Full Thrust article. In the stats charts here, we include the 2016 ka-boom of Amos-6 on the pad, which does not count as a launch. So it makes sense that Gunter counts 46 FT launches and our chart counts 47 FT configurations. The "45 times" in our prose is probably just an overlook from whoever updated stats in one of the latest launches. I'll fix it now.
 * The whole "Launch statistics" section is transcluded on several other pages, so that it is already updated in just one place. Moving it to a separate template would actually make things a little harder to edit, leading to more frequent discrepancies (speaking from experience with the Ariane table, which once used a separate template).
 * This reminds me that it's high time we created a dedicated article for Falcon 9 Block 5, and leave the Falcon 9 Full Thrust article to describe the "v1.2" and "block 4" variants, both retired. — JFG talk 01:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Note that the total family launch count was also off by one, at 66 instead of 67 (must include Falcon Heavy). — JFG talk 01:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We have numbers that change after each flight here, in Falcon 9 Full Thrust, in Falcon 9 (infobox and text each) and in List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters (text only, plus table obviously). Plus maybe other articles I don't know about. And then we have the more general lists: Comparison of orbital launch systems, Comparison of orbital launchers families, maybe more A single place for updates would help. --mfb (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, in the prose there's a lot of redundancy. We need a database. Oh wait, we have one, but nobody likes to use it. — JFG talk 04:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and propose number of launches, number of landings and so on as Wikidata properties. Unless you can show that Wikidata will collapse without it you'll have a hard time getting it added. I was thinking about a much smaller solution. with a template that picks the right number based on a switch statement. --mfb (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting idea. I'll give it some thought. There are many data points involved, but that would help synchronize a bunch of figures scattered in the prose of various articles. — JFG talk 12:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Things I found (12-16): F9 launches/successes, FH launches/successes, F9 Full Thrust launches/successes, maybe F9 FT Block 5 launches/successes, total landing attempts/successes, Full Thrust landing attempts/successes, maybe Block 5 landing attempts/successes, number of boosters with more than one flight, date of the last flight. Failures are so rare that they get discussed individually. --mfb (talk) 06:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't know the capabilities of the Wikidata yet, but in general, an article(s)-to-DB connection is what I started to think about the first time I had to update several different Wikipedia articles with the same data (like the planned launch date of some particular flight). Currently, such changes look more like a monkey job to me, or, in other words, the kind of job a computer is supposed to do better than a human being. Even if it is possible to get only statistical data from the DB, it would be much better than nothing. Igor Krein (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Getting a launch date from Wikidata would be easier - if we would have people to make a Wikidata entry for every launch. --mfb (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I made a first draft how such a template can look like. Everything can be changed, of course. As the template won't have many inclusions we can leave it unprotected. A single place to edit, easy to maintain. Graphs on this page are independent of it. --mfb (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

ElaNa CubeSat Launches
Should we add "ElaNa CubeSat Launches", as some were launched by SpaceX (on the Falcon 9), on there CRS missions?

Sources : https://www.nasa.gov/content/past-elana-cubesat-launches https://www.nasa.gov/content/upcoming-elana-cubesat-launches

It's possible that we can just say "This CRS mission launced the ElaNa so and so mission" and link to the Educational Launch of Nanosatellites page.

Also launch 64 of the Falcon 9, on this page, does mention "ELaNa" mission.

I'm not really sure if this list article focuses on the "launch" or the "payload" though. Does anybody think these could be added under the CRS missions? Thanks! OkayKenji (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * CRS-12 (flight 39) mentions ISS-CREAM to be launched from ISS, so ELaNa 22 seems similar or perhaps it is ASTERIA, Dellingr, and OSIRIS-3U that are similar? I would say the article does focus on the launches but most payloads are well worth a mention. The problem comes when there are launches with something like 64 cubesats/nano sats. In that SSO-A case we have mentioned several but not all, so some limits to prevent things getting out of hand may be appropriate. Indeed in such a case it may be useful to mention and link ELaNa 22 as a way to avoid having to mention all the cubesats funded that way. I don't see a problem with including mention of ELaNa 15, 27, 28 and others when we know what flight they were/will be on. crandles (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of mentioning ELaNa 15, 27, 28, etc. instead of every CubeSat in that particular mission. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that's the right way to cover it. This is a launch list, not a payload list. The payload is worth reporting, but not in excessive detail. So noting that CubeSats were launched as a secondary payload seems reasonable, as well as mentioning they were part of NASA's ELaNa program. But listing each and every one would be excessive. Fcrary (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks! Only added ElaNa launches confirmed as launched by this list: https://www.nasa.gov/content/past-elana-cubesat-launches as it is more accurate. Once this list is updated, will add them here. OkayKenji (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , Yeah that sounds like the right way to do it. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    04:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Put "Also launched the ElaNa 22 mission." <-mentions cubesat and its a ELaNa mission, without getting to specific. OkayKenji (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

3 more in 2021
https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1760766/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.106.165 (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * AFSPC-44, NROL-85 and NROL-87 added crandles (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

https://www.astronautinews.it/calendario-spaziale-vista-lista/
Is this a reliable source for Falcon Heavy booster numbers being 1055, and sides being 1052 & 1053? crandles (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Dragon CRS launch mass
This list does not include the dry mass of the Dragon capsule, which is 4,200 kg at least for the 2008 version. (See SpaceX_Dragon article) -PSR B1937+21 (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't really see how to include this without making our mass column more cramped than it already is. Perhaps we can add a common footnote for all Dragon flights, specifying the dry mass in addition to the useful payload? — JFG talk 01:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea PSR B1937+21 (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ — JFG talk 04:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Customers for Nusantara Satu mission
Currently we have: SSL / PSN SpaceIL / IAI Spaceflight Industries

It appears to me 'SSL designed and built Nusantara Satu for PSN', so SSL is PSN's supplier and PSN is SpaceX's customer. It is SpaceX's customer that should be shown and not SSL?

S5 is Air Force Research Laboratories satellite, but the ride may have been arranged by Spaceflight Industries. Who goes down as the customer in such a situation? Space IL appears to be the project with IAI a much broader organisation collaborating/providing assistance so is it just SpaceIL that should be shown? (Or is this another case where Spaceflight Industries is SpaceX's customer?)

Thoughts? crandles (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * SSL should not be mentioned. Manufacturers of satellites often sell the full package of bird + flight, but we always refer to the final client as the customer. PSN is also the operator of the spacecraft. Regarding Beresheet, it is indeed a tight collaboration between SpaceIL and IAI, so I would keep both. On the S5 payload, the end client is the AFRL. I would list Spaceflight Industries in the comments about the flight, because they are typically contracted to bring a payload to orbit, no matter on which rocket. The fact they chose SpaceX is worth mentioning. — JFG talk 14:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Whom are we writing for?
The global audience of Wikipedia readers could drop into this article now, wondering what the next SpaceX launch is, and not find it is a Falcon Heavy. Seems we might want to fix this.

We've done such a "good job" of filling the table with low-level detail of interest to space enthusiasts, and the group of us (me included) who write this article, that we may have forgotten that we must provide high-level summary info, before low-level esoteric arcana.

The current row for the Falcon Heavy launch in 3 weeks says:

April 7, 2019 22:36[407][410] Block 5 side B1052.1 KSC LC-39A Arabsat-6A[411] GTO ArabSat

Heavy core B1055.1[412]

Block 5 side B1053.1

...but nowhere does it say Falcon Heavy.

What's worse, the table columns seems to have been designed for the low-level info and not the high-level, so it's unclear how best to fix it. So would like to get the major editors thinking about the matter. As the Falcon 9 vs Falcon Heavy info is not clear in many other rows as well. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I am just curious what you mean by “low-level info”. That clarification would help. Cheers! UnknownM1 (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The word "Heavy" does link to Falcon Heavy. However, I can see an argument for this being insufficient. Are you thinking there should be 4 boxes vertically; top one saying Falcon Heavy B5 then one each for the 3 boosters? Can we double underline such a top box to show it is a title box so as not give the impression that there are 4 boosters? Or are you suggesting something like a paragraph in the lede saying what the next launch is? Or, maybe next two launches? Or maybe only include in lede when next launch (or 2) contains something unusual like Falcon heavy or first manned dragon 2? Just throwing some ideas around to see what others think. crandles (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, F9 is clear enough, especially because it is always linked, but Falcon Heavy has to be spelled out. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, when it comes to "low-level" details, I think listing the serial number of the boosters (e.g. B1052.1) is a fair example. I don't think that's of great interest to the general audience. Don't get me wrong. I like having that information there. But as far as I can tell, we don't even say the ".1" part of the number means it's that booster's first flight. That is something the general audience would be interested in, but it's essentially stated in code. Fcrary (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In the "Version/Booster" column headers at the top of each yearly table, there's a footnote explaining the numbering convention: Falcon 9 first-stage boosters are designated with a construction serial number and an optional flight number when reused, e.g. B1021.1 and B1021.2 represent the two flights of booster B1021. Launches using reused boosters are denoted with a recycled symbol ♺. Do you see a better way of explaining it? — JFG talk 17:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't think of a better way off the top of my head. But I did look for an explanation of the numbering, and missed that footnote. I'm afraid this will be a little obscure for many readers. That may be unavoidable. But someone asked for an example of how the article included "low level" details and I think that's one. As long as it doesn't obscure the higher level content (it doesn't in this case), that's not a problem. Fcrary (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I have added an explicit mention of Falcon Heavy in the launch details field. Columns are about the Falcon version, so really no need to repeat "Falcon" there every time. — JFG talk 15:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , So long as we have 'Falcon Heavy' in the details field I think we are ok. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    18:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it is definitely improved, with at least some mention of Falcon Heavy. But for my purposes, this specific info, and only this info, in the Version column is taking the global reader into detail, without quite the correct high level answer to the question: "What is launching?"

This is what is in that column at the end of the day UTC 21 March 2019: Block 5 side B1052.1

Heavy core B1055.1[412]

Block 5 side B1053.1

In plain English, to a non-esoteric reader (unlike those of us who care enough about this arcane topic to work diligently to keep it up), this simply read that the answer to "What is launching" is "Version Block 5 side Heavy core Block 5 side" That is best case, and assumes they somehow know enough to know to ignore the numerical detail that follows the upper case "B".

I'd argue that it ought to primarily say that the version is Falcon Heavy, and the other stuff is mere details, even though we space nerds like to see it. And that is simply 'cause that's what the global reader will have "heard about" or read in some other media article before they got here. Only space nerd insiders refer to "Falcon Heavy" as "Heavy." N2e (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Currently, I see several ways to improve this situation. The most user-friendly one is to add one more column where there will be explicitly written either "Falcon 9" or "Falcon Heavy" (variation: optional sub-column of the Version/Booster column for FH flights only). Disadvantage: proper layout changes in the tables. Another option: add one more footnote to the Version/Booster column explaining the meaning of the side/core/side entries. No layout changes, but also not very user-friendly, since, it seems, people tend not to read footnotes. So, maybe, we should consider the third option: to add this explanation (as well as other explanations currently put in footnotes) at the beginning of the Future launches section. It still isn't a very intuitive solution, but it could help, especially in the cases when people are "wondering what the next SpaceX launch is", because they would look for the entry at the top, i.e. close to the beginning of the section. Igor Krein (talk) 09:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

How about renaming the second column "Launch vehicle". There we leave the F9 entries alone but allows us to write Falcon Heavy for those launches. A SpaceX fan would say "they all are F9", but the complete vehicle in question is named Falcon Heavy. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The confusing factor is the ordering of side/core/side boosters on three separate rows. This was introduced to enable reports of booster recovery outcomes in three cells to the right of the table, and to reflect the physical ordering of boosters. I wonder whether we could clarify the vehicle column, by simply stating in a single cell "Falcon Heavy" followed by the three booster IDs, while leaving the three separate rows only for the landing column. Or perhaps if we keep the current layout and just place the Heavy core first; I'd support trying that. — JFG talk 14:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , Why don't we just put the 'Heavy core' line first, rather than the block 5 side as the first column? that should clear up some confusion. I don't think we need another line. We could also say "Falcon Heavy core" instead of "Heavy core" if we need more clarification. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    21:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I like that idea. It isn't as if the booster 1/core/booster 2 order has any real meaning. I mean I don't think we have any references on which booster is on the right or the left, so the order we're currently using isn't necessarily the physical configuration. Listing the core first would make it clearer that it's a Falcon Heavy. Fcrary (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What is on the left depends on your point of view ;). I liked the side/center/side alignment but putting the "Heavy" at a more prominent place is more important. --mfb (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Seems we reached consensus; I have applied the changes. — JFG talk 18:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I also changed 'Heavy' to 'Falcon Heavy'.It fits with no issue so there isn't any reason not to unabbreviate this if it will help aleviate confusion. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    21:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

What's with the emoji?
As a reader, how am I supposed to have any clue with this "♺" is supposed to mean? Our standard article markup would use call out symbols like † to represent things on a chart - but more importantly would also include a chart legend. Any special reason that this article should be different? — xaosflux  Talk 00:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, that’s the world-wide symbol for recycling, surely it’s not that esoteric? A key is a great idea though. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Because depending on how a reader is looking at this, they may not see that symbol, they could just see an emjoi-failed box, and at many resolutions it looks more like a cloud than the recycling symbol (the sides of the arrows are too narrow) — xaosflux  Talk 01:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see your point. I think it looks kinda fly, but I’d support a change to something more standard. Grey Wanderer (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * On my 4k laptop screen it's just a weird triangle, but then everyone tells me that literally nothing is legible on my screen, so could just be me. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not that good in computers but, the '♺' symbol used on this page "was approved as part of Unicode 3.2 in 2002.", so presumably many computers should be able to display it since its 'text' and not an emoji (like ones from phones like this '♻️'). Again you are probably right that some computers might not display '♺' properly. Thanks! 173.52.238.41 (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We have a legend already, it is note (b): "Launches using reused boosters are denoted with a recycled symbol ♺" --mfb (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * that is a footnote, not a legend. Legends should appear at the bottom of the table where symbols are used. —  xaosflux  Talk 04:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding it at the bottom of each year would be needless duplication. We could put that note at the end of the table section. Wouldn't make a difference to people following the link to it. --mfb (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can do this (either every time ♺ is used or the first time) -> "♺ ". When doing this hovering over the symbol "indicates reused booster" should come up. Only works in browser version of Wikipedia though, not sure if mobile versions display properly. Also it should address the concern that symbol does not display properly since the "abbr" tag is supported by many browsers, if someone does not know what symbol is, hovering over it may give them the idea what it was meant for since they see 'indicates reused booster'. What do you think? 173.52.238.41 (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Also the reason why "♺" might be used in this page is because of this page, although I can't confirm which page started to use "♺" first, it seems possible that since the SpaceX reddit manifest (list of launches) had "♺", Wikipedia may have adopted it. Also it could be deemed unnecessary to have "♺" since the Bxxx.1 or Bxxx.2 which is used on this page already indicates that the booster is reused. It might be nicer to explain more on what the .1 or .2 means. (for readers who may not know). 173.52.238.41 (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, sorry last comment, just a note, we started to use these symbols in March 2018, by this edit. The user has since seems to be blocked from editing wikipedia, I know the user meant well when adding the "♺". 173.52.238.41 (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Help with a related table?
The SpaceX next-generation rocket, the 9-meter behemoth, has reached flight test this week with the first test article. With the second test in two days last evening US time, it would appear that there will be quite a number of test flights of multiple protoypes (one already built; one under construction) in the next few months.

Would any of you master table-editors who work on this article, and got it to a Featured List (a significant accomplishment, IMHO) like to try your hand at stubbing out a table to keep minimally track of the various and sundry Starship test flights? The previous two SpaceX prototype rockets have such test flight tables here and here.

There is already a prose section started for the testing phase, here: Starship_(rocket). Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Just the same table as for F9R Dev1, maybe without the location as long as it is always Boca Chica? That could be copied easily. Or do you have something else in mind? --mfb (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not that good with tables but I added a basic table here. Check it out an please edit the format of the table though. Also thinking out loud, in the BFR also has a testing section which mentions the recent tests. In the discussions on the Starship page it was created as it was notable. For me and other readers maybe confused about the fact that there are two articles mentioning the same tests. It maybe wise to remove the testing sections from the BFR article as it really refers to the testing of the Starship. (but maybe just mention it and link to the Starship page?) Thanks. 173.52.238.41 (talk) 04:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Concur with 173.52.238.41. The Starship article would seem to be "the" place for details on Starship, and related Starship test article testing.  The entire launch vehicle will eventually be tested, and that would seem to be the place for tests of the entire BFR.  N2e (talk) 05:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi! I was relooking at the BFR testing section, I found that what was already mentioning the tests of the hopper was already a summery. Instead of removing information (simplified it though), I made it clear which paragraphs refer to the Starship tests, and linked to that article. (also added to a note by saying "please put further tests in the Starship page")173.52.238.41 (talk) 02:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who looked at that, and to 173.52.238.41 who stubbed out a table section for those Starship tests!

Now, as the first Super Heavy test launches get scheduled, we'll have to figure out what article those will fit in, until such time as we have a series of them and we create a "List of Super Heavy launches" article. :) Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Fairing Reuse
How should we indicate fairing reuse? Per tweet by CEO of SpaceX here it looks like they are going to reuse the fairing that they successfully recovered during the Falcon Heavy 2 flight. Maybe creating a separate column for fairing might be too much, but still its something worthwhile to indicate, Maybe just put in in the description of the launch? (well once they actually reuse the fairings) Thanks! 173.52.238.41 (talk) 04:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't expect that we will routinely get information about which fairing has been reused where. The description should be fine. --mfb (talk) 07:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, that makes sense, Thanks for responding! 173.52.238.41 (talk) 10:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The operation was successful but the patient died
It seems dubious to me to call the recovery of the FH2 core booster successful. Yes, the booster landed on the drone ship, but then it then slid off, because it hadn't been properly secured. It wasn't secured (from what I've read) because the "octagrabber" wasn't configured to secure it, and because human crews were unable to get aboard safely in time to secure it manually, due to the rough sea conditions. In other words, the loss of the booster was, at least in part, an engineering failure, rather than simply a random "act of god" that occurred during transport. At least that's the way an impartial AIB would classify it, I think.

However, I don't know what the criteria for "success" are in this article. Do we defer to SpaceX or some other authority to make the determination? Or is it a judgment that is subject to consensus, like most other things on Wikipedia? In the latter case, I think some more discussion of the question may be appropriate here. Eleuther (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * , The column is 'Booster landing'. The landing was a success, but was later lost at sea before being able to be secured. This definitely constitutes a landing success, but it should be noted in the prose of that launch that the booster was later lost at sea. I'll add something. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    06:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi,, thanks, but I think you've missed my point. You say that this "definitely constitutes a landing sucess", but I disagree. I think it should be considered at least a partial failure. If I land a plane and it slides off the end of the runway, is that a success? At least one previous landing was followed by the booster tipping over, and that was considered a failure. How is this case different from that? What criteria are we using, besides just saying "definitely"? Eleuther (talk) 06:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , look at the sources in the news. They all describe it as a successful landing and then a loss in transport thereafter. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    07:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Tipping over immediately because of a problem with leg fixings is definitely a landing failure (entirely engineering issue). This Arabsat mission centre core stood for some time and fell over due to the sea state. Main cause is act of God and only partially an engineering issue with recovery equipment not landing equipment. If a plane slid off the runway that is a landing failure. This is more akin to: landed safely but while taxiing on way back to airport stand, something collides with the plane. It seems to me to be more appropriate and correct to say it landed safely then had a problem. I think the note i is appropriate and possibly sufficient so I think dubious tag should be removed. I wouldn't object if others wanted to clarify situation with "Recovery failure [i]" note. crandles (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I second that (all but the last sentence, because I, personally, will object to any mentioning of "failure" with respect to FH core landing). It is difficult to add anything to 's arguments. To touch down and immediately fell over as a result of not perfect landing is one thing, to fell over as a result of applying of completely different forces--is another. The booster could fell into the sea because of storm, could be destroyed in the fire in hangar, could fly once more and fail to land again--it wouldn't negate the fact that it did land successfully the first time. The landing was successful, the recovery was not. The operation was successful but the patient died because the ceiling fell on him on his way back from the operating room. Current solution (footnote) is adequate. Igor Krein (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * To keep things simple, the definition of landing is when it touches dry land. When you look up the word, that's what you see. That's why when ships come into harbor, they say the ship has landed, but no one on board has landed until they get off the ship. The booster didn't successfully land if it didn't make it back to land without damage. When it touches down on the rocket, it still hasn't landed yet, as it is at sea. Similarly, you would not say that a container on a cargo ship has landed until it is moved onto dry land, even when the ship has docked, the successful landing of thee containers requires the removal of the containers from the ship, as a number of things can go wrong in that step. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.239.21.42 (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Some definitions support that eg "an instance of coming or bringing something to land, either from the air or from water" but some less so eg "the fact of an aircraft arriving on the ground or a boat reaching land". However, what you are arguing here is that an aircraft cannot "land" on an aircraft carrier. I suggest ordinary usage is that that is a landing.crandles (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * English is not my native language, as you may have noticed already, but I am aware of the Oxford dictionary definition of "landing". I think this definition does not cover all usage cases of this term, as we can easily see in the comment above. But even if there were no aircraft carriers, and the Falcon booster arriving on the drone ship was something entirely new, what term would you suggest to use in this case other than "landing"? "Shipping"? Hardly. More than that, there is such thing as an aircraft water landing... As for your example of the cargo ship container, it has a very little in common with a Falcon booster case. Booster lands on a drone ship, drone ship lands when it arrives to port, but a cargo doesn't land when it arrives to port on a ship, as well as it doesn't land when it is unloaded. You try to combine two different "landing" processes into one, which is not correct. Igor Krein (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * We went through something very similar to this with the Amos-6 pre-launch failure. The consensus was, if memory serves, that it was definitely a mission failure, but it was not a "launch" failure. Similarly, the loss of the Falcon Heavy core is definitely a recovery failure. But the landing phase ended long before it tipped over. So it isn't a "landing" failure. Fcrary (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * A previous F9 landed in the ocean but it was recovered; that was a landing failure. This one had a successful landing, with subsequent loss at sea, but the landing remains successful.  Rowan Forest (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, I went to sleep for the night, and consensus was reached before I was able to get back to the discussion the next day, by which time my dubious tag had already been removed. That's fine, and it also answers my basic question, which was: what is the criterion for success? Clearly, it is: classify the landing as a success if at all possible, by whatever lame reasoning you can find, ignoring the obvious fact that it failed. Good night, Falcon fan enforcers. Eleuther (talk) 08:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please WP:AGF: most editors here are not "Falcon fan enforcers", rather they try to document events in the most accurate way possible, while following usual practice all across spaceflight articles, and naturally following what reliable journalistic sources are saying. This event was considered by all sources a landing success, followed by a loss at sea. The booster did not entirely fall into the ocean and its engines may be recovered. That was independent from the landing. As other editors have noted, we do not shy to describe failures when they happen. — JFG talk 13:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks. Most sources indeed reported that the landing was a success, because the loss of the booster was not disclosed until a day or two later. My basic feeling is that a booster landing is not just a spectacle, i.e., it's not just an entertainment event, which should be scored like an ice-skating jump, or whatever. It's an operation that's intended to return a potentially reusable booster. If it doesn't do that, it has failed. Eleuther (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC).


 * My basic feeling is that each word has its meaning. In case of Falcon booster this is the process of returning a booster safely either to the ground pad or to the autonomous spaceport drone ship. Well, yes, landing on a drone ship is not actually a "landing", because the ship is not a land; maybe this is what confuses you, though I have a feeling it's something else. Recovery of a booster is a more complex process that includes, but not limited to, the landing itself. The [partial] loss of the FH core booster occurred at the time of the drone ship returning to the port. This part of the recovery process was not successful, the whole recovery process, consequently, was not successful, but the landing [on a drone ship] has nothing to do with this. As it was mentioned in the very first comment, the table column that contains the information in question is called Booster landing, not a Booster recovery, so the "Success" status is adequate. More than that, this status is followed by a footnote link with the recovery issue, which is more than enough in my opinion. The table does not contain a special column dedicated to the booster recovery, so the information about recovery issues, if any, goes into remarks subrow. You can raise a question about a special recovery column if you like, but actually we have a special booster's list with the Status column for these needs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igor Krein (talk • contribs) 10:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I do appolgise for bringing back up the issue, but I feel the best way to put this to bed is to note that SpaceX counted the Falcon Heavy as a landing as they said during CRS-17 webcast, it would be the 39th landing if they succeed. The only way you can have 39 landings is if you count B1055 landing. There are other ways such as counting CRS-16 as a successful landing, but I believe we can all agree Centre Core is a better definition of successul landing than CRS-16 as B1055 landed on target and stayed upright for quite a while after landing. AndrewRG10 (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC).

Starlink mass does not add up
At 227kg per satellite, they cannot be a total mass of 18.5 mormal tons. The general consensus going around was that 18.5 tons was US tons and the payload mass was actually 16.78 normal (metric) tons. This is a more realistic number because it means the satellites are 227kg dry mass and have 50 kg of Krypton onboard. 277kg per satellite when fueled up, is roughly 16.7 tons. I do think that is the number that should be there, as we try to state masses in metric tons. Also to add, 18.5 metric tons is pushing it on if a Falcon 9 can actually be recovered. Still, I want people's input on that. AndrewRG10 (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC).


 * There is also the issue that stating the satellites are 227kg and then stating that 60 of them makes 18.5 tons, is misleading and at the very least, should be addressed. AndrewRG10 (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC).

Author have to clarify/correct and define all the necessary


 * I have not read the source(s) but in addition of the satellites, there are the deployment mechanisms called dispensers, which must have a significant mass. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * That's correct, and I'm surprised it isn't more. 60, 227 kg satellites and a total mass of 18.5 tonnes means the deployment mechanisms are only 26% of the total. For CubeSats, I think it's closer to 50%. Fcrary (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool calculations. Was sort of thinking that there may be extra mass included with the satellite as well. The only issue is that we don’t know if its 18.5 metric tons or US tons. (Like AndrewRG10 stated) Metric and US tons have about a 2000 kg difference so...yeah. I’m sure SpaceX would go into more detail on their launch day. OkayKenji (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , Except Elon said there was no dispenser, perhaps this is semantics? (no dispenser but a 'retention mechanism'?) —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    06:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, regarding the launch of the 60 Starlink satellites Elon Musk has tweeted: "It is flat-packed. No dispenser." That the payload is "flat-packed" could in principle mean that each satellite has a mechanism for locking on to the one below it allowing them to be stacked similar to legos without any additional structure and then be deployed one at a time, starting from the top. While this is pure speculation, we cannot rule out that there is no dispenser or similar structure that is not part of the satellites. Lklundin (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It may be semantics, but some mechanical structure and moving parts are definitely required, and that means mass. I read one interview with Mr. Musk yesterday, and he said that the would all be released at once (or in large batches, his wording was a little vague), there wouldn't be individual, spring-loaded dispensers and spinning the whole thing would be involved. To me, that suggests some sort of hold, spin up, release and let centrifugal forces do the dispersion. That's probably why the mass was lower than I'd expect for conventional dispensers. He also mentioned some of the spacecraft might bump into each other (!) but that it would be at such a low speed that wasn't a problem. Fcrary (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Space Norway orbit
I’m unsure what type of orbit the recently announced 2022 Space Norway launch will be headed too. Could someone who knows better take a look? Is this just a normal polar orbit? The source discusses it. Grey Wanderer (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's almost certainly a Molniya orbit, but the reference just says it's for a very eccentric orbit and will be used for communications at high latitudes. Molniya orbits were invented for that, and there aren't a whole lot of possibilities. But we can't put an educated guess in the article. Fcrary (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Molniya-like but with a much higher perigee (original source here but might go away based on the unspecific URL). Falcon 9 will likely leave the spacecraft in an orbit with lower perigee. I added the orbit to the article. --mfb (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Archived link of the original source in case it does go away. OkayKenji (talk page) 23:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Broken references
Currently, we've got a few broken named references in the article. As far as I understand, somebody have just added them some time ago, so there is no previous version to restore them from. Can somebody add some proper references? Or we should just replace them with "citation needed" template? Igor Krein (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Could come from a copy of another article. Is there a tool to check in which revision they were added? --mfb (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, using the "Blame" feature of XTools, for, it was added in this dif as just the name and not defined. Also the "define" was most likely this   from GPS Block IIIA. OkayKenji (talk page) 19:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also here are the links the the rest the "blames" (the dif where the undefined refs were added)
 * For
 * For
 * For
 * For
 * Most of the undefined refs seem to be added by User talk:71.197.186.255 who has been blocked until "14:10, 29 July 2019". OkayKenji (talk page) 20:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Rescued the first from what you found, the second from my own revision (someone removed the definition later but kept the reference elsewhere) and the remaining three from List of GPS satellites. A search for insource:"referencename" is useful. --mfb (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was pretty sure the links are from other articles, I just failed to find them with my bare hands, and hadn't realized there is a tool ready to do the right job. Thanks! Igor Krein (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like thanks to User:Mfb all the the broken refs have been fixed. OkayKenji (talk page) 20:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Launch Statistics
Is there a case for extending the Launch Statistics charts out to at least 2020? Please excuse me if this topic has been discussed before. AncientBrit (talk) 10:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We could do that for the planned launches, not for other graphs. Feel free to go ahead. — JFG talk 10:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm not practiced at this so feel free to let me know if my edits are below par. AncientBrit (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Good job, thx. — JFG talk 14:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 21 August 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) ~SS49~   {talk}  14:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches → List of Falcon launches – Proposing a relatively minor scope change to include the five launches of the Falcon 1 in a new "2006 to 2009" section. The Falcon 1 is already featured in the list's lead image, and a corresponding move to "List of Falcon launches" would help harmonise the list's title with others, e.g. List of Ariane launches, List of Atlas launches, List of R-7 launches, List of Scout launches, List of Thor and Delta launches, ect. List title consistency by only adding five more launches to a list of 77 launches is quite the bang-for-your-buck deal you don't see everyday with a move request, just sayin'! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 13:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The only component that Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 have in common is the Merlin engine, and it was a rather primitive version of it. Different body, different upper stage, different fairing, different launch site. Conversely, Falcon Heavy is a clear derivative of Falcon 9 : same body ×3, same upper stage, same fairing, same launch site. There is just no case for merging information about these vastly different launch vehicles. The only consistency would be their branding. — JFG talk 13:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, the lead image should not include Falcon 1: that's the only place in the article where it is mentioned. — JFG talk 13:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "The only consistency would be their branding"... which is the reason for this proposal. It's not our fault the two rockets are part of the same family. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 19:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , The image should be without the falcon 1 and should read "the Falcon 9 rocket family..." —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    03:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose The Falcon 1 launched 5 times so it could be confusing with a rename (or it would make this article even longer!) and what is there is a Falcon 10? Then the article certainly could be confusing. --Frmorrison (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Falcon Heavy is a launch vehicle on its own, and nicely covered in this list. Rowan Forest (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - do we really need this request every year? It has been discussed a few times and always been opposed. --mfb (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can use  on this talk page and link to those discussions? OkayKenji (talk page) 19:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Briefly discussed here, then in detail here and again here, again, yet another time. This is the fourth discussion since May 2016. --mfb (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't even an argument for or against the change and just a complaint about the discussion... – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 19:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Could the notification of previous discussions be like the above, is it okay to add? (thanks to Mfb for providing the links to the discussions). OkayKenji (talk page) 20:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC) Nevermind, another user has already added it. OkayKenji (talk page) 05:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The fact that the Falcon 1 is in the header picture is fairly stupid. I saw the picture in wikipedia commons when on a search for Block 5 Falcon 9 but didn't add it because the Falcon 1 is in there. Unfortunately someone decided to put it in despte a Falcon 1 being in there. Heck we should remove that picture and revert to the old picture until there is a similar picture without the Falcon 1 is in there. Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 are completely different vehicles, the Falcon Heavy was added to the list a few years ago because they are basically the same vehicle and it makese sense to put them in here seeing it will only have a couple or few handfulls of flights before Falcon retirement in the 2030's or earlier. AndrewRG10 (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC).
 * Pinging and  as participants in previous discussions. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 19:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Interpret it as reference to all the previous discussions and the arguments brought up there. No need to repeat all this again. The status of Falcon 1 hasn't changed since then. --mfb (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose this has been discussed before and rejected. The Falcon 1 is a different vehicle altogether. The image in the lede didn't used to have the falcon 1 in it, and really shouldn't, ideally. The only reason it does is because nobody has been bothered to make a new image. The Svg was originally a fork of the one used on other pages outlining all spaceX vehicles, where it is useful to have the falcon 1 as well, but when the new versions of the block 5 were added nobody made a fork without the falcon 1. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    03:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I support this version of the lead image because it includes the Block 5 version of the Falcon Heavy and the Block 5 expendable. In fact the original editor who added lead image added it because it includes the Block 5 Falcon Heavy (looking though the edit summery). As mentioned above, the issue this caused was introducing a version with the Falcon 1. (note, the lead image we had before, does not have the Block 5 Falcon Heavy but it does have the Block 5 Falcon 9s). (know that I think of this, this comment may be more like a summery of the comments about the image). Also I noticed that the current version does not have the expendable version of the Falcon 9 Block 5. OkayKenji (talk page) 06:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I fixed the Falcon 9 rocket family image to include the missing block 5 versions and replaced the lede image with it. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    20:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! OkayKenji (talk page) 23:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per above. The Falcon 9 and Heavy are similar enough to be in 1 article, but the Falcon 1 is different enough. OkayKenji (talk page) 06:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above. Re image, have tried requesting image maker . crandles (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you think (the one we have now) is the best version to use ("to remove the Falcon 1 from"), as it includes both the Block 5 Falcon 9 expendable and Block 5 FH? (looking at the other versions of the image, they do not have the expendable Block 5 Falcon 9 or B5 FH, both of which have flown) OkayKenji (talk page) 17:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would have thought perhaps family7 removing both falcon 1 and two partially expendable B5 FH furthest right that haven't flown yet would be best as this does have black interstage of B5 FH. But I could be mistaken. Yes, I'm mistaken B5 FH interstage has looked white so far, so yes family6 image looks best. 18:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong support: Per nom. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (contributions • subpages) 05:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:Snowball candidate, but we can also wait 5 more days if that makes people happy. --mfb (talk) 07:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Falcon 1 is such a very different launch vehicle, that flew all of its flights in an entirely different epoch. Making this very large article even larger would not be helpful for clarity to the reader.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Smallsat Rideshare Program
Keeping in mind this is a primary source, and was announced recently, the site lists 29 "Smallsat Rideshare Program" launches which have months and inclinations listed, with the earliest in March of 2020. As adding 29 more launches (3 are listed here, from a previous announcement) to this page could potentially be a major change, what could be the best course of action? As of now the best thing could be to wait until more more secondary reliable sources coverage on this. Although Wikipedia already has lot of coverage about SpaceX already. OkayKenji (talk page) 01:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I was just thinking about that and the source from SpaceX does say the mid-inclination missions will be onboard Starlink flights. There are 9 of these flights in 2020 and other sources say there are 7 starlink flights in H1 2020 and likely 7 more in H2 2020. I reckon what we should do is label the missions like this.


 * And I don't think we need to wait for another source, SpaceX is a perfectly reliable source. However, we can always wait for a NasaSpaceflight article, however, In my opinion, we should look to adding them as soon as possible. AndrewRG10 (talk page) 02:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Are you sure all (or even any of) these mid inclination launches are Starlink? It is only mentioned once while the rest of the page focuses on dedicated rideshare missions. We can certainly add the dedicated SSO rideshare missions. --mfb (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Also would mentioning the payloads of each launch be okay? Assuming it will not be a "SSO-A (SmallSat Express)" like mission with 60+ different payloads, it might be notable to mention each payload (once and if they are announced). OkayKenji (talk page) 05:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * with rideshare adding we reached 300kb of this page. isn't the time to split in some sub-pages or list here (when lauches happened) only a small summary of repeated lauches? (AKA rideshare & starklink)--Dwalin (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The page's prose size (including all HTML code) is only 28 kB. Around 60 kB is when a split may be a good idea. So, no need for split for a while. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We currently have about 150 past and future launches listed. Elon Musk gave a prediction that the Falcon 9 will do 300 missions before retirement. I don't know too much about how wikipedia sizes work but even if the table makes up most of the size, we should be able to keep this as one page throughout the life of the Falcon 9. AndrewRG10 (talk page) 20:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 28k is size of this discussion page. main page is 309kb. --Dwalin (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, 28 kb is the prose size of the text. The tables take up a lot of kilobytes, but they are formatting things and not text people see. The page can handle another 100 launches and be an acceptable size. --Frmorrison (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)