Talk:2018 in spaceflight

Spaceflight: Timeline of spaceflight High‑importance

	Spaceflight portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the timeline of spaceflight working group.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Chinese launch failure

What do you all think about adding a remark to the launch stats that their only failed launch was maiden flight of the rocket made by private company? I feel like a little explanation would give better understanding of the reliability of Chinese rockets. Viktorrulev (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go for it. Keep it short though. — JFG ^talk 10:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beating 1992 or not quite reaching 1990 levels of activity?

@Mfb: Regarding this revert, now I understand your intent, so accept my apologies for calling your edit "wrong". My intent in adding the tidbit about 1992 was to call the reader's attention to the recent growth in launch activity after decades of a routine level around 80 flights per year, and even a few "slow years" 2001–2005 hovering at 60. The evolution is clearly visible on Timeline of spaceflight#Orbital launches by year. 2018 is the first year that really breaks the trend, and looking at planned launches for 2019 and 2020 this will surely continue to go up. When I wrote about exceeding the number of launches in 1992, I felt that it showed the industry had broken a long-term trend, whereas my impression when I read the 1990 version is "oh yeah, we're still 20 launches from getting a serious shift." I'd be happy to discuss a better wording in order to convey this accomplishment to readers with maximum impact.

Admittedly, this sentence is a bit of synthesis but I think we do have some editorial leeway in the summary blurbs describing the highlights of each year in spaceflight. Besides, WP:CALC lets us pick stats out of the well-sourced yearly reports compiled by this encyclopedia. — JFG ^talk 10:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have rephrased the last sentence to emphasize that 2018 exceeded launch levels of the whole period since 1991. Tell me what you think. — JFG ^talk 10:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write the original sentence. I don't think we need the specific launch where all years after 1990 were surpassed, the fact that we surpassed it alone is sufficient to demonstrate an upwards trend. We also have the comparison to 2017. Looks good now.

We always have many more scheduled launches than actual launches, we'll see how 2019/2020 will be. If Electron flies often or OneWeb or SpaceX start deploying their constellations we will probably see further increases even with a lower number of geostationary communication satellites. --mfb (talk) 11:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Status of ambiguous spaceflights

I've been removing the VSS Unity flight from the suborbital table because current Wiki consensus is to use the 100km line until the FAI says otherwise, but it's been put back repeatedly and nobody else has removed it. Is the consensus here that it should remain in the table as a spaceflight attempt but the pilots not be listed in the suborbital section crewed spaceflight table until/unless FAI agrees next year to redefine the Karman line to 80km? Because it looks like that's what we're doing and I can live with that. (I'm pro-80km and personally consider the VG flight a spaceflight, but I'm a stickler for Wiki norms)Astrofreak92 (talk) 05:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did they have hope to reach 100 km? If yes we can include it as attempt (but then it would be a failed attempt). Maybe add it but add a comment that it didn't qualify as spaceflight under FAI rules? --mfb (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The target wasn't announced in advance, but I don't think there was any expectation this flight would cross 100km. Which is why my instinct was to remove it from the list, but it keeps being added back. Astrofreak92 (talk) 06:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping it in because it's notable and claimed by many sources to be a spaceflight but adding the FAI comment might be a good compromise. Astrofreak92 (talk) 06:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]