Talk:2015 in spaceflight

Should links be to launches or projects

I notice that MUOS-3 is linked to MUOS, while the template links to MUOS-3 instead. Are links on this page supposed to be to articles about the launch itself, or are links to projects at large as MUOS okay? Sumurai8 (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

If links to the specific payload exist, use that. If the payload is referenced in a page about a satellite project (SES S.A. #Upcoming launches, MUOS) because the payload itself is not specifically notable enough to merit a separate article, then links to the project page are welcomed. Astrofreak92 (talk) 06:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

March 2 launch postponed?

Has the March 2 launch at the Cape been postponed? This doesn't list it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

That site appears to only list government launches, rather than commercial ones. Positive confirmation of a delay would be needed to change the article, and no such evidence exists. SpaceX and other sources indicate the launch is on.Astrofreak92 (talk) 07:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

BRD on whether satellite orbital explosions are notable

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Requesting comment. Is an unplanned explosion of a spacecraft in Earth orbit, with reliable source coverage, sufficiently notable to be mentioned in the article 2015 in spaceflight? N2e (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I made the following Bold edit, adding this text to the article, with a citation from the most mainstream worldwide English-language space media publisher:

On 3 February 2015, a US-government Defense Meteorological Satellite—DMSP-F13, launched in 1995—exploded while in a sun-synchronous polar orbit leaving a debris field of at least 43 objects. As of 27 February 2015, the US Air Force Joint Space Operations Center at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California is monitoring the expanding debris field, and "will issue conjunction warnings if necessary."

User:Galactic Penguin SST Reverted, with the edit comment "(Undid revision 649274273 by N2e (talk) Needs more input from others to see if such events are notable enough (actually there are quite a few per year))

So, under WP:BRD, let's Discuss it here.

I propose that a satellite exploding in an Earth orbit is sufficiently notable to receive a mention in the 2015 in spaceflight article. Rationale: 1) it is notable; 2) the event adds a bunch of space debris to the existing debris in Earth orbit; and 3) it is rather obviously a spaceflight event that occurred in 2015, so is well within scope of the article title. Therefore, it should be mentioned in this article.N2e (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support—as nom, per the rationale provided above. N2e (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support It may not be necessary to create a new table or section to describe such events, but an active satellite exploding is notable. A decommissioned comsat in a graveyard orbit being damaged doesn't have a tremendous impact on space operations, and would not be notable as such events do happen constantly, but an operational satellite experiencing a catastrophic failure seems worthy of inclusion in an overview article like this one.Astrofreak92 (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment Galactic Penguin SST has a point, below. I still support adding this event to this page as per my reasoning above, but I think it should be done in a way that can be applied consistently to future occurrences of similar events in future years, as well as to similar events (Collisions, satellite explosions, stage explosions beyond LEO) that may have occurred in the past. There is typically at least one significant event per year, but not so many that they can't be managed, and cataloging them in the timeline articles might be a worthwhile endeavor.Astrofreak92 (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed! That is why the proposal was only "that a satellite exploding in an Earth orbit is sufficiently notable to receive a mention in the 2015 in spaceflight article.", and was not a proposal as to any sort of format. That is why the (second) revert by GalPengSST was such incorrect protocol. If the consensus was to add the info, then it is only left to figure out the formating of the matter, and the best way to do that is to incrementally modify the well-sourced and notable information into a format that those who care most about this article think best. N2e (talk)

• Support as per above due to space debris. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support. If the launching of a satellite is notable, so is its expiry. Maproom (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Not only, as said and repeated already, is it the case that "if the launching of a satellite is notable, so is its expiry", but I cannot imagine how anyone could hope to support the opposing idea rationally, let alone climb in and repeatedly revert. In the context of this article both types of item are intrinsically notable; WP is intended as an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid rag, in which whatever has happened before isn't newsworthy outside the silly season. If someone wants the timeline format altered to his taste, however rationally, (non)noteworthiness of that type is not a valid basis. JonRichfield (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Based on strong consensus on the above discussion, and based on User:Galactic Penguin SST's removal of his (earlier) "Weak oppose" to the question, I have added the paragraph back into the article.

I'm sure it can be made better. So edit away. N2e (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Neutral Well first of all I'm now not going to make a oppose vote ;), but I think I need to state my stance clearly.

Basically my main point is that:

1. The number of orbital debris creation events is actually a lot more than many expected - at least quite a few per year actually. This is the first time I remember a satellite "internal explosive event" has been such widely reported (e.g. there were several Breeze-M upper stage tanks from Proton launches that eventually blew up over the past few years), and I worried that this may actually be not noteworthy to be added here (well maybe not, see below).

2. This is the most important point that I wanted to nitpick - keeping all the Timeline of spaceflight tables coherent. You see, I usually have no problem if such a table is added to, say, the articles about orbital debris - I would even encourage others to do so. But for such a large and important set of tables like the Timeline of spaceflight, my stance is that addition of tables should be taken much more strictly. This is the overview tables for spaceflight events here, and while I think orbital debris creation events are probably a good addition to here, I think it should be done if and only if each and every major orbital debris shedding since 1957 is added to the tables. This can actually be done (NORAD has good tracking data since the dawn of the space era, and I know that places like the NASA Orbital Debris Program Office, or people like Jonathan McDowell have keep a comprehensive database of such events from NORAD tracking data), but someone needs to do it here. I just don't want to see this becoming an "oddball/trivia-like event" added to the list that ruined many other lists on Wikipedia....

Actually, thinking about it, the Timeline of Spaceflight has been here for many years, and while there are much more notable events of this category (Iridium 33 - Kosmos 2251 collision in 2009, for example), the original author of the lists never attempted to add them. There must be a reason behind this...

3. What really ticked me off to revert is the format of the addition. What is an "in-space satellite event" anyway? Do satellite failures, intentional contact between satellites and satellite abduction by aliens fit into that section too, since they fit into the "in-space satellite event" category too? ;) A better section title is needed (maybe "Major Orbital Debris Creation Events"?).

And come on, this is a list article for (insert your local deity) sake. ;) There are enough data to make such a section in list form.

So what I think it needs to be done is to call up someone who have the will and stamina to group together all the data from 1957 onward and add the Major Orbital Debris Creation Events section to each article as discerned in a table form (some parameters that could be added includes the type of event, orbit of the object that caused the event, number of debris tracked by NORAD and if known the cause of such shedding), within a few months from today. I used to be someone who may be able to do that (I added hundreds of launches to the list of R-7 series launches to complete the list with all 1800+ launches some years earlier ;)); unfortunately I don't think I have enough willpower to do this one, at least not in the next month or two.

I really hope that this addition could be modified in such a way that it could be a standard and useful fixture in the Timeline of Spaceflight articles, not an oddball addition to the 2015 list that, if no further action is made, would make it a "trivial-like" section - which by then I would have to scrap it away from here again. With the wealth of data available, I'm sure someone here would be able to do this. :)

P.S. I think less than 3 days and just 3-4 people responding is just not enough for making a Wiki consensus, but maybe I'm just too inexperienced here and have not seen enough arguments like this... ;)

Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Galactic Penguin—I think it is generally bad form to multiply revert, especially a second time, after a BRD discussion (and one in which you had even completely removed your "weak oppose" statement), a discussion in which unanimous support over six days was to include the information. Instead, assuming you want something a bit different from the plausibly-written and well-sourced couple of sentences of prose I wrote, you should be editing the info/statements to make the article better. When I added the text back, I said "edit away", and encouraged other editors to improve on it. This is an invitation to collaboration. To which your response was "REVERT."

Pure reverting, and generally carrying on as if you own the article, or have some particularly special authority, is bad form, and will hurt your reputation on this encyclopedia.

But I'll not play tit for tat with you and revert back just now. I think you should, or someone else should, and then the encyclopedia can be improved, making forward progress, in the great emergent way that is a Wikipedia strength.

I'll comment on some of your other substantive points at a later time, when I'm not (to use your phrase) "ticked off" by an editor who is too quick to use the revert button. N2e (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if this turned up that way, but isn't that, erm, part of the discussion process - and that if that section isn't going to work in the current format, trying to remove it temporarily is "B" in BRD? I'm not trying to start an edit war BTW - I was just trying to make sense how to discuss content on Wiki, as in the years before I usually work on content that never stirs up anything. ;) Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

OK I have put that section back up in a completely new format - see if you all have any questions with that. :) Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. We can all go and update older articles with this new section if we find significant debris events. Thank you Galactic Penguin SST and N2e for resolving this peacefully in a mutually agreeable way.Astrofreak92 (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Galactic Penguin SST: Thank you for restoring the material and editing it to improve the article, as I had suggested you do: "I think you should [restore the material], or someone else should, and then the encyclopedia can be improved, making forward progress, in the great emergent way that is a Wikipedia strength." This seems a better way to improve articles than excessive reverting.

And do note that, all I asked for in the original discussion was, a limited mention in the article of the explosion's occurrence: "I propose that a satellite exploding in an Earth orbit is sufficiently notable to receive a mention in the 2015 in spaceflight article." This does that. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support - It seems the issue has been discussed and the content re-included into the article. I would support such an inclusion based on the reasoning given by above editors who declared support. Could someone close this discussion if consensus has been reached. Mbcap (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support, per WP:Pokémon test. An explosion is more notable than a routine launch, so an article that lists dozens of launches and several deep-space rendezvous' can contain one unusual incident. “WarKosign” 10:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sounding rockets

I think it's not a good idea whatsoever to include sounding rockets and missile tests not on the page. Not only does it clutter the page, but it defies precedent and erodes the credibility of the page. It's impossible to compile a reputable list of sounding rocket launches and missile tests, seeing as how the vast majority of these events are conducted unannounced by governments. I'd focus on orbital spaceflight - and while I understand that these events do technically take place over the Karman line, it's a slippery slope. Qardys (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Well there are people who tries to collect a database for BOTH (e.g. http://www.planet4589.org/space/) ....and I can't see if any of them can be verified, how would the list be made "less reputable"? The incompleteness of the list would not made it less reputable either, as far as I can see.

I have once asked to separate the orbital launches from the sub-orbital ones, but the idea was shot down. Maybe there's a better way to make it less cluttered? Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

At least in my opinion, a complete list of orbital events is better than an incomplete list of both, in terms of reputability, although I suppose that could just be me. Why was your suggestion shot down? Qardys (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about spaceflight in general, not orbital launches specifically. If we were to exclude suborbital launches from these sorts of pages, and apply that logic retroactively, Alan Shepard's Mercury flight to become the first American in space wouldn't be included, nor would the groundbreaking SpaceShipOne flights. Those are spaceflight events, and they are definitely notable. The fact that not all suborbital launches can be verified does not make the ones that can be verified not spaceflight events, nor does it detract from their notability. Splitting them into a separate simplified section, especially once frequent flight tests of XCOR's Lynx and the second SpaceShipTwo begin, might be a reasonable idea, though.Astrofreak92 (talk) 05:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I also think the suborbital attempts clutter the list. It would at least be nicer to make the orbital and suborbital launches visually distinct. Maybe a different background color? --IanOsgood (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Completely white? We could also split the whole table into orbital and suborbital launches. Then we still have all spaceflight, but we don't have all those poorly sourced sounding rockets of unclear apogee in the list next to orbital launches any more. --mfb (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I have actually put out this exact proposal a year or so ago, but it was shot down by the creator of the page (which sadly isn't active here anymore). I'll have to dig around to see why. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Opinion: missile tests and suborbital flights should be listed separately from the main launch table. I would even argue they should be farmed out to a different page. This is "year xxxx in spaceflight", not "year xxxx in rocketry"; let's focus on describing what happens in space or with the intent to go there. — JFG ^talk 06:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The suborbital flights listed here did (or tried to) go to space (100 km altitude) - typically just for a few minutes, but this is not "2015 in orbital and beyond spaceflight". We could split the list, but removing the suborbital flights would be wrong. I suggest to discuss that on the 2016 talk page for 2016. Older years are less important. --mfb (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Per consensus here, I have now split the list for 2015 and 2016 into separate tables for orbital launches and suborbital flights; will do previous years too unless the move is contested.

I still believe that sounding rockets and missile tests do not belong in the "20xx in spaceflight" page series, and would be best served by having their separate page linked with "see also", but I'm not doing that move without consensus. Note that the original creator of the series, WDGraham, had started such separate page for suborbital flights in 2008 and 2009; it would be interesting to look at those for guidance and perhaps apply this approach to more recent years. — JFG ^talk 06:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 article?

A number of TBD launches clumped towards the end of this article now have NET dates in 2016 as per SpaceflightNow. Now that we're nearly halfway through 2015, is it appropriate to create the 2016 article and populate it with those entries? The launches dated for 2016 no longer belong in this article, but I want to have a new article for them to go to rather than just deleting the entries altogether. Astrofreak92 (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Should be fine. The 2015 page was started in September 2014, the 2014 page in December 2012 (!). --mfb (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Why isn't Blue Origin's suborbital (4 miles short of "space") listed?

The flight took place on April 30th launching the New Shepard spacecraft which later return to earth by parachute. Other suborbital flights are listed on these pages. Why would this one not be listed?

user:mnw2000 12:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You answered your own question. Only flights crossing (or intending to cross but failing) the Karman line (100 km) are listed on this page. Blue Origin's test flight stopped a few kilometers short of that line, and was not announced as being intended to cross the line. Astrofreak92 (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC).

I would agree, but we DO include suborbital flights. For example, we included the Rocksat-X flight that was launched in April. Why do we include some suborbital flights and not others?

user:mnw2000 22:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Rocksat-X reached 174 kilometers, the Blue Origin test went to 93 kilometers. By international standards, space starts at 100 kilometers. Rocksat-X was a suborbital spaceflight, Blue Origin's test did not go to space, and so it is not a spaceflight. Astrofreak92 (talk) 02:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess we need a objective rule on what is included. Launches that make to 100km are listed even if they are simply missile launches. . BTW, we do include launches that do not reach the 100km mark due to failures. So if the flight plan was not to enter space, the flight is not included. Too bad. The Blue Origin launch was historic.

user:mnw2000 13:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

We do have an objective rule. If a flight doesn't go to space, and wasn't intended to go to space, it's not a spaceflight. End of discussion. The Antares failure last year was an intended spaceflight, and so it was included as a spaceflight attempt. If a previously announced missile test had a published apogee above 100km, and it failed, it would be listed as a spaceflight attempt. The Blue Origin test was not an intended spaceflight, and it didn't go to space, so it will not be included on this page. If you would like to change the definition of space to allow the Blue Origin test to be included, the authorities you'd need to contact are at the FAI, not here on Wikipedia. Astrofreak92 (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Titan flyby designations

The numbers used for the Titan flybys in this article don't match their corresponding designations given by JPL. The inconsistency arose, when the distant flyby in December 2012 was listed in the 2012 article, even though it wasn't counted by JPL. But then again, the flyby names are not in sync with the actual count of the flybys. So either the numbers should be fixed, beginning in 2004, or instead the official JPL designations be used or none at all. 213.47.33.44 (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

This is incorrect. T-111, which occurred on May 7, is actually the 112th flyby of Titan performed by Cassini because of the trajectory change you referenced above that made T-3 the fourth flyby. The numbering listed on this page is correct. The numbering on the 2013 page is also correct, with the first flyby being named the 90th for T-89. You are correct that there is an issue with the 2012 page, but the error extends backwards from there, rather than forwards. I can try to fix older articles later, or you can, but the flyby numbers on this page are correct.Astrofreak92 (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

You are correct. I got confused there. I will fix the older articles when I find time. 213.47.33.44 (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Soyuz 2-1 A caused Progress M-27M failure

An article on the webpage:" http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/05/soyuz-2-1a-third-stage-progress-m-27m-iss-changes/" writes about how the Soyuz 2-1A third stage caused the failure of the Progress M-27M. Why on "2015 in spaceflight" it isn't considered that the Soyuz 2-1A failed? It's obvious that the Soyuz 2-1A third stage caused the initial spin of the Progress M-27M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.121.159.99 (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

That article (and the original Russian sources from Roscosmos et al.) did show that there was something wrong in the seconds around spacecraft separation, but currently it is still unclear whether the culprit is the third stage, even if the circumstances are suggestive of it (e.g. an explosion from the spacecraft has yet to be dismissed as the cause). Hence I suggest that the statistics should not be changed until the final report is out, then the statistics can be re-assessed. Until then, it's "not guilty until proven". Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Presentation error

In the "Launches" section [1] an extra "{{T" string is shown between the monthly calendar and the next table header. Can anybody fix it ? Thanks. --FabC (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite fixed it. --mfb (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Scud missiles?

Do we include operational military launches in this chart? According to Jonathan McDowell, a Yemeni scud missile went on a suborbital flight to hit a target in Saudi Arabia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrofreak92 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

SPARK: inconsistency

SPARK is listed as launch for an ORS satellite on October 29. Should that be marked as maiden flight? The payload is in disagreement with SPARK (rocket) where HawaiiSat-1 is listed as payload for the maiden flight. --mfb (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I've added the maiden flight note. The overall mission of SPARK's maiden flight is known as ORS-4, but there are multiple satellites involved. If you can find a definitive list of the different payloads, you can re-work the entry to describe each payload separately.Astrofreak92 (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

)

ABS/APStar flag Designations

When I initially added ABS-3A to the list of launches, I used "Bermuda", a semi-autonomous British territory, as the flag, because ABS is headquartered there. It also has a headquarters in Hong Kong, which is a similarly semi-autonomous Chinese territory. However, neither of these flags was used later, and it was replaced with the Chinese flag. APSTAR, which is also headquartered in Hong Kong, launched a satellite this month on a Chinese launcher, and has had the Chinese flag it originally had replaced with a Hong Kong one by an anonymous user. What is the protocol for things like this? Do satellites from autonomous territories use the flag of the territory or the parent country? O3b, which is based on the isle of Jersey, has that territory's flag listed next to their launches on the lists from previous years. Should that be changed to a British flag, or is the situation of Jersey sufficiently unique to mean that its flag should be listed, but Hong Kong's should not? Astrofreak92 (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I do wonder how can some of the operators be accurately classified. Your examples are already hard to determine, but I know of even worse ones like Intelsat, which has its HQ in the US but is more or less the ultimate "international comsat operator".

I'll probably need to defer to some expert in this matter to answer the question.

P.S. I live just 10 km on the fly from the main satellite control centers of ABS and APT Satellite (which are right next to each other). ;)

Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Since you're a Hong Kong resident, I trust you to be able to figure out what to do with these two operators in particular, or to figure out who to ask to find out. I'd like to be able to create a definitive rule for how the nationality of the operator can be determined, and which flags should be used for operators with multiple or no nationalities. Astrofreak92 (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Add repeated wikilinks

I recently had a revision undone in this article, it was for adding wikilinks to repeated instances of SSO, and it was undone on the basis that wikilinks should only be added for the first instance. I found this somewhat odd, since the manual of style states in WP:OVERLINKING, "Duplicate linking in lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader. This is most often the case when the list is presenting information that could just as aptly be formatted in a table, and is expected to be parsed for particular bits of data, not read from top to bottom."

A large list formatted as a table, not meant to be read top to bottom but rather for particular bits of data. That description fits all of the YYYY in spaceflight pages perfectly, and these articles have plenty of examples as to why the MOS states that lists like this should have repeated wikilinks. People that actually use this article would rarely read it from top to bottom, more likely is they're looking for specific information.

For example, if I was looking for the most recent rocket launch I'd end up at the Long March 4C launch from November 26th. If I wanted to learn more about Long March 4C, it would be nice to just click a link, but I could always just type it in if there was no link (as there isn't). Inconvenient, but I'd still learn what I wanted to know; this doesn't work in all cases, such as acronyms. If I wanted to learn more about the type of orbit that the Long March 4C put the Yaogan 29 satellite into, I'd have to enter SSO into the search box, which results in a large-ish disambiguation page that could lead me to SSO or SSO, and many readers won't be able to figure out the difference between the two orbit types without reading both.

So my point here is, YYYY in spaceflight articles need to be changed so that they include repeated wikilinks. I was told that this has traditionally not been done because it was discussed previously. But that discussion could not be found, and in my mind, the previous discussion doesn't matter. There's a manual for a reason, and this article (and the others) which ignores it is hard to find more information from. If you disagree, then go ahead and try for yourself, act like a person unfamiliar with spaceflight. Go to April 28th and wonder what Roskosmos is, then be slightly annoyed and demotivated when there's no link for you to click on. Of course it doesn't need links, but by that logic wikilinks wouldn't even exist.

Please give your stance, if there is no opposition then this will be changed. UnitTwo (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I support repeated links, if it is not excessive. Once per month should be fine, more if the month has many long entries. --mfb (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Full support for direct links on all entries. Let the computer do the cumbersome work! — JFG ^talk 22:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Zenit retirement?

As Russia has announced that the partnership with Ukraine on Zenit is over, and the only remaining rocket is no longer under warranty, does that mean tomorrow's Zenit launch will be its final launch for the purposes of this article? Or maybe we can mark it as the retirement, and if production starts again revert that indicator? I'd venture to say the preliminary action should be to mark it "retired" after tomorrow's launch. Astrofreak92 (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I would probably indicate that it's only likely to be the final flight, until a more formal announcement is made or some time passes. Not that I think the Zenit will ever fly again, but just because there are no sources which directly indicate retirement.

[2] and [3].UnitTwo (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

In addition, it was just leaked that Putin also put a moratorium on Dnepr launches back in April 15. Both of these are fallout from the Ukraine situation where these rockets were manufactured. --IanOsgood (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The comment should probably be removed, since Russia did launch a Zenit at the end of 2017. The long-term plan is to create Soyuz-5 (rocket), basically a Zenit with all-Russian parts. --IanOsgood (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Corn Ranch, Spaceport USA, MARS

Under the section called, Orbital Launch Summary - By Launch Site, why is the launches from sites other than Cape Canaveral, Vandenberg and Barking Sands (listed in the Launches section on this site), not listed?

user:mnw2000 22:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Because launches from those sites are not orbital launches. When MARS begins flying Antares and Taurus rockets again next year, it will be listed on the table again. Astrofreak92 (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Vega IXV: orbital or suborbital?

Looking at this page's total 2015 count (86) vs. my own tally (87), I'm wondering if the difference is because February's Vega IXV launch wasn't counted as orbital? I count it as orbital, since it briefly attained an orbital trajectory before actively deorbiting for the reentry test. How is "transatmospheric" categorized on this page? --IanOsgood (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

This list has 86 launches *including* the IXV launch, which put something in orbit and was thus an orbital launch. Perhaps you're double-counting in your list somewhere by mistake? Check, and see if perhaps we're missing something or counting wrong here. Astrofreak92 (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Just went through again, one Rokot launch wasn't added to the Universal Rocket total, so it threw the whole thing off. There actually were 87 launches this year. Astrofreak92 (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for double-checking! --IanOsgood (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Adding to the confusion, the Vega IXV didn't get a COSPAR designation (possibly because it spent less than two hours in orbit), so we ended the year with 83 COSPAR numbers for 84 flights that reached orbit (87 launches minus 3 total failures). — JFG ^talk 22:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Notable debris creation events

Following consensus in the above BRD, and noticing in history that the section on space debris had been first added then commented out for lack of contributions, I took the liberty to revive and improve it. I added another major satellite breakup which occurred in November, expanded the text, clarified the table titles, and provided more detailed and well-sourced information on both notable events of 2015. I hope this creates a sound base to add similar events to the yearly spaceflight templates. The Orbital Debris Quarterly News from NASA is a treasure trove of historical information and analyses on this topic. — JFG ^talk 01:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Infobox Picture

Last year, I put the New Horizons art in the infobox as a placeholder picture, so that the article would feel less empty. Articles for completed years typically have real photographs of notable events (launches, landings, satellite deployments, and EVAs are some examples). Now that 2015 is over and we can reflect on what was most notable, should we select a new picture to grace the infobox? The iconic image of Pluto or the Falcon landing from the gallery section are two good options. Any other thoughts? Astrofreak92 (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Pluto most notable imho. — JFG ^talk 10:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

While I was there, I noticed that the picture for 2007 had disappeared, so I picked another notable item, the Indian SRE-1 capsule. Hope you like it! — JFG ^talk 10:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Any objections to using the Pluto image from the gallery? I'll change it tonight if nobody else wants to weigh in. Astrofreak92 (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I vote Pluto too. --Михаило Јовановић (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Rename SpaceX CRS-n missions to Dragon CRS-n

Spaceflight editors may wish to comment on this global move discussion. — JFG ^talk 10:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2015 in spaceflight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518093211/http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/saturntourdates/saturntourdates2015/ to http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/saturntourdates/saturntourdates2015/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)