This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
IMO, splitting off less than 60 launches that hapenned in 2020-2021 is a bit ridiculous - it would make a lot more sense to include 2023 launches there, and/or split of future/planned F9 launches (which take a decent part of this page).
As it is currently, this page will be back in the same situation in a matter of months. Rebell44 (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Starlink 6-32 partial failure
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
From my point of view, the landing was successful, as the failure was during the recovery. Are there any other missions where this has occurred from which we can draw precedent from? 152.78.0.242 (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
The column in the table is "Booster landing", so success or failure should be based on the landing itself, not whether the booster is subsequently damaged or lost in transport. I'd support changing this to "Success". GoPats (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
First 21st Launch and Landing
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
SpaceX tweeted yesterday that they completed their first 21st launch and landing which should be added. Erinspice (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Statistics tables
Latest comment: 14 days ago13 comments5 people in discussion
@Sofeshue Why do we need these extra tables that just repeat the information? The statistics come from the page itself. By duplicating it you've doubled the numbers that need updating it for no apparent benefit. Unless you can give a pretty good justification for them I'm going to go ahead and remove them. Ergzay (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
The bar charts are very rough visual representations and have at least 2 major drawbacks.
(A) It is very difficult to see clearly the color or put the mouse on the short bars that represent small numbers (1 or 2, say). When these short bars stack, they make it even more difficult to distinguish them: just look at booster landings chart '15, '16, '18, '21.
(B) The bar charts lack "horizontal" and "vertical" totals. One needs to manually add the bar numbers to get the total launch number for a year, or the total number in a certain category (e.g. drone-ship successes).
The bar charts may appear visually pleasing, but for anyone who wish to obtain acurate numbers in a quick way, the bar charts are much less convinient than tables. The tables also help double check the accuracy of the bar charts. You can see in the edit history that I corrected the number for F9 v1.1 in '15 from 5 to 6 for the bar charts, bacause I found an inconsistancy between the tables, and pinpointed the problem. I don't think one can discover such a problem by merely looking at the charts. For every new launch, the update effort goes from 4 to 8, and the update is just adding 1 to some numbers, so the extra effort is minimal. In fact, if only one should remain, I believe it's the tables, not the bar charts, as wikipedia should not prioritize fanciness over clearness, convinience. Sofeshue (talk) 04:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The mistake in the bar chart is actually a reason why we shouldn't further duplicate the information as it's an example of how even more mistakes can creep in. It doesn't fix the potential for mistakes to creep into the bar chart. If you want a table you should create a template that generates both from the same information.
As to the lacking of totals I don't see that as an issue as you can figure that out from looking at the launch tables. A quick bit of mental math tells you the total by looking at the starting and ending numbers.
You bring up points that are reasonable, but I don't plan to update the tables myself so you and others will be responsible for keeping them updated. And if anyone else wants to remove them I'll take their side. I still feel they are wasted extra effort that bring little additional information that can't be easily cleaned from just clicking "edit" on the page and looking at the chart data. Ergzay (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Listing the total number of launches in a year without the need to add things is nice, but overall I don't think we need the tables. Maybe keep one, or just a list of launches per year. --mfb (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
@Lazaro Fernandes I have explained above, that the bar charts are (1) difficult to browse, (2) highly prone to errors, (3) difficult to get precise data in a quick manner, all of which can be solved by simple tables. I also said above, that if one to remain, it should be the tables, not the bar charts. Could you explain why you remove the tables instead of the bar charts? Why should wikipedia appear so flamboyant with colors, while sacrificing the convenience to make data readily available? Sofeshue (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Just to clarify what @Lazaro Fernandes is saying. He's saying that all other rocket launch lists on wikipedia have bar graphs and don't have statistics tables like you added. I think an acceptable compromise is @Mfb's suggestion about just having lists of launches per year would be better. Ergzay (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
As to Wikipedia "making data readily available"; Wikipedia isn't really a source for data. It's not supposed to be readily available for use externally. It's to make things easily understandable. The exact precise numbers is only supposed to be useful for correctly displaying the graphs, not to be pulled out and used.
And as to your point "(2) highly prone to errors", your change actually makes things _more_ prone to errors because there are more pieces of information that all need to be kept in sync with each other. Ergzay (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
I don’t edit much, but it’d be nice to be able to keep both. It’s useful and accessible data for laypeople and enthusiasts alike. 86.15.33.109 (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Starlink 9-3 failure
Latest comment: 5 hours ago22 comments10 people in discussion
Failure if they all reenter, as it's a complete loss of spacecraft caused by rocket failure. Partial if they can recover them. That would fit perfectly in line with the rest of spaceflight Wikipedia. Good example would be Mars-96 launch failure. Lower than planned isn't inherently full failure, but it absolutely is if the satellites rapidly deorbit, without a doubt. Lets give it a few days & see what happens. --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 06:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
This sounds like good criteria, since these are primary payloads. Jonathan McDowell's criteria would have it a 0.4 on the scoring scale (described at https://www.planet4589.org/space/jsr/notes/fail.txt) if the orbits aren't raised; 0.75 if they are. A lot of 0.75s are listed as partial fails, most 0.4s are listed as failures on here. Sub31k (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. IMO, best thing for a discussion is to pause this topic for a few days, when the starlinks either have reentered or made it to LEO. Redacted II (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think there's a need to pause the thread when SpaceX communications say:
The team worked overnight to make contact with the satellites in order to send early burn commands, but the satellites were left in an enormously high-drag environment only 135 km above the Earth (each pass through perigee removed 5+ km of altitude from the orbit’s apogee, or the highest point in the satellite orbit). At this level of drag, our maximum available thrust is unlikely to be enough to successfully raise the satellites. As such, the satellites will re-enter Earth’s atmosphere and fully demise. They do not pose a threat to other satellites in orbit or to public safety.[1]https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=sl-9-3
One of the sats made it to 191 km. So its still possible (if unlikely) that it'll make it to a usable orbit. We'll know what happens to it in a few days. Redacted II (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
A perigee of 140 km would mean they didn't get any thrust in the second burn. In that case SpaceX could stop trying to raise them... so maybe they did get a bit of thrust out of the engine. For now I think it makes sense to call it partial failure, once we know more about the fate of the satellites and sources cover that we can re-visit that. --mfb (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
@Mfb@Jrcraft Yt@Osunpokeh should we count streak from Amos 6 or crs 7 as List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches (2010–2019) says Since it was a pre-flight test, SpaceX does not count this scheduled attempt in their launch totals. Some sources do consider this planned flight into the counting schemes, and as a result, some sources might list launch totals after 2016 with one additional launch.
When it is not in records how can we count it's next mission as start of success streak rather than the mission succeeding crs 7? —🪦NΛSΛB1058 (TALK)09:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
We can wait and see what sources use as streak length. My personal preference would be to start at flight 29, i.e. after Amos, or give both. Amos doesn't need a flight number to interrupt a streak of successful missions. --mfb (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
List as Failure. The vehicle deployed only 25% of its payloads, and those it did deploy were into an orbit so low the company admits they are likely un-recoverable. RickyCourtney (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
The Federal Aviation Administration is now calling this a failure. “The incident involved the failure of the upper stage rocket while it was in space.” They are also requiring an investigation, which will suspend Falcon 9 launches until further notice. RickyCourtney (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
If it was 100% up to sources, then IFT-1 would be a success, and IFT-2 would remain a failure, despite being far more successful than IFT-1. Redacted II (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Sigh. This again. This is the talk page for the Falcon 9, not Starship. Yes, other stuff exists. Please stay on topic. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Established precedent. Other stuff exists, and the precedent established by it impacts this.
Seriously, what would be a launch failure? Did the rocket performed it's primary mission and deployed it's payload on the intended orbit? Not at all. Did it become a grounded rocket? Yes? Did the events triggered an mishap investigation? Yes. Not long ago I've seen a graph on Twitter, only one satellite's perigee is above 190 km.
It is likely going to be a failure, but should some of the payloads be able to enter a usable orbit, that is a partial failure. Redacted II (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=small}
