Talk:2018 in spaceflight/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2018 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/20161224000000/http://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/ to http://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140427025907/http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/atlas-5.htm to http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/atlas-5.htm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

False positives again. This bot is geetting too sensitive for its own good… — JFG ^talk 12:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Vector Space Systems launches

I added Vector Space Systems' announced launches. They're orbital and seem likely to occur in 2018, but there is little information on them including launch site, payload, etc. Vector presents somewhat of a challenge in that one of their goals is for flexible launch sites so it's hard to even speculate where they'll launch from. Though the ref mentions MARS without specifically stating it's the chosen site. aremisasling (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Template for Orbital Launch on Wikipedia Mobile App on iPhone

The template is not displaying the table correctly in Wiki mobile app (for iPhones at least). It does not display in table form and cannot be collapsed. It displays it correctly if I switch to display it in the mobile browser (i.e. if I go all the way down to the end of the article and click the "View article in browser" link). I noticed that the templates for other summaries such as suborbital launches are displayed correctly. This problem seems to go way back. I checked the 2000 version and it does the same thing. Probably need someone with better knowledge on the particular platform to take a look and do some serious debugging on this. Showmebeef (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the report, Showmebeef. I have the adequate equipment and I'm a template editor; will take a look at the issue. — JFG ^talk 23:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Ariane 5 VA241 Partial Failure

We now have confirmation, from Space Track as well as various reporters on twitter, that the satellites were placed into off-nominal orbits. I'm going to edit accordingly as soon as I find an authoritative article on the subject. Oh and the edit war on Zuma is becoming pathetic at this point. --FuocoVivo (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

If the payloads were placed into off-nominal orbits, then it is considered simply as "partial failure" in all prior cases. Agree with you on your Ariane 5 edit, and yeah, on the edit war on Zuma too. Showmebeef (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Previous listings use 'Partial launch failure' and 'Operational' to clarify the status of the satellite when a launcher puts its payload in a wrong orbit but it's still operational and can be recovered. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_in_spaceflight (the 28 December Long March 2D launch) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_in_spaceflight (the 22 August Soyuz/Fregat Galileo launch).

You are right! I only looked at last year's launch of ChinaSat 9A by Long March 3B/E on 18 June. I will change that for consistency. Showmebeef (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, per https://twitter.com/Spaceflight101/status/956921095411650560 the satellites are in a 20 degree inclination. Phillipsturtles (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Zuma launch a "success" and the satellite is "in orbit"?

While multiple sources said it is not? I was about to change the entry but want to get some consensus on this. Showmebeef (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Multiple sources have indicated that "Lawmakers from the Senate and House, along with congressional staffers, were briefed on the failed mission, according to the Journal (WSJ)".

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/01/08/zuma-satellite-launched-by-spacex-reportedly-total-loss-failed-to-launch-into-orbit.html

http://fortune.com/2018/01/09/spacex-zuma-mission-booster-rocket/

So it is not a rumor. Due to the nature of the payload, the relevant agency will NOT provide confirmation even it reached the orbit. However, to the contrary, multiple credible sources have indicated it has not. It is said that the satellite failed to seperate from the second stage and fell back with it to the ocean. So it is obviously not "in orbit". However, SpaceX has maintained it has done its part, i.e. delivered it to the intended orbit, at least the height of the orbit. It's the satellite that failed to seperate. So can this launch be considered a "success" or a "failure"?

I think it is reasonable to put its status as not in orbit. Whether the launch itself can be considered a "success" is up to debate. To SpaceX, it is (they have to assure its other clients and investors). But the overall result is a failure, or at least a partial failure.

The best approach, IMHO, is to put a note in the entry stating such facts. Showmebeef (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches and of course Zuma (satellite) have suitable references, the same discussion happens there as well of course. I would just use "unknown" as long as we don't get better information (which is unlikely). Note that the definition of success here is different from the list of launches: It has been reported that the payload adapter was not from SpaceX. If this is true and this part failed, the launch was a success for SpaceX, but not for the satellite. --mfb (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I would agree "unknown" would be a suitable description. But then, if there is no such reports from secondary sources for the separation failure, would an "unknown" status still be applicable? Since let's face it, the government agency, whichever it is, would not confirm it one way or another, success or failure. I think in that case, people would have no problem of stating it's a success, even no direct source can confirm it. Anyways, I think separating the launch from the payload would be another reasonable approach. Showmebeef (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Gwynne Shotwell categorically denied any failure of the rocket's mission, and she's known for straight talk: that qualifies as a launch success according to usual criteria for this series of articles. Debate at the list of Falcon launches is a different matter, as consensus there seems to be "let's waiting until a secondary sources confirms SpaceX's claim". Also, the satellite has been assigned a COSPAR ID (2018-001A), a NORAD SATCAT number (43098), and a USA designator (USA-280). We do not usually see those assignments for payloads which de-orbit after a few hours, so that something has been confirmed as being in orbit, although orbital elements are hidden by NORAD. Therefore, I would list it here as "in orbit", with a note about possible spacecraft failure, referencing one of the credible sources. — JFG ^talk 23:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

JFG: note that Shotwell's statement says nothing about Zuma being deployed to the orbit or not. All she says is that FC9 has done its job and done it correctly, which is to deliver Zuma to the orbit. The company that supplied Zuma (Northrop Grumman) also provided the payload adapter. Whether it managed to separate Zuma from the second stage while in orbit is NG's problem, not SpaceX'. I watched news tonight and it said a US official has confirmed to ABC that Zuma "failed to remain in orbit": http://abcnews.go.com/US/classified-satellite-fell-ocean-spacex-launch-official-confirms/story?id=52246100. I believe there is enough credible information (albeit secondary) to support the notion that Zuma is not in orbit.

Re: Satellite catalog entry for Zuma: Jonathan McDowell, @planet4589, tweated: Recap 2: Assume satellite catalog entry is not an error. Still doesn't mean USA 280 is still in orbit, or that it separated from stage 2. Suggests that payload/stage 2 remained attached and completed 1.5 orbits (winning it a catalog entry), then performed deorbit. https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/950574866020884480 Showmebeef (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Can we please just leave this as unknown. Let's not speculate without authoritative facts. Just put that the payload status is unknown. That's what we did for the list of SpaceX Falcon 9 launches. - Mostmadmonkey (talk) 07:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

If it should be left as unknown it should not be marked as a success in any of the summary tables. SkywalkerPL (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Failed to separate from upper stage after launch YET a success?!

It's not a success if satellite failed to separate from the upper stage. Never was for any launch in the entire series of xxxx in spaceflight articles. Regardless who the culprit is - there is no reason for making an exception for this one SpaceX launch. It should be marked as a failure. (posting a discussion to prevent edit war on the article) SkywalkerPL (talk) 07:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

We don't know that it failed either. Let's just leave this as unknown until we get more info.

- Mostmadmonkey (talk) 07:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

We don't? It's well sourced that the satellite did not separate. It's even in the article. What we don't know is the cause and who to blame, but it changes nothing on the fact that mission was not a success. SkywalkerPL (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with SkywalkerPL that (based on available information we have now*) this launch can't be deemed as a "success", so the "outcome" column should be "failure", even if the outcome is for LSP (Launch Service Provider), since we shouldn't make an exception in this case for SpaceX when the payload is not deployed correctly. A recent example is India's attempted launch of its IRNSS-1H navigation satellite on Aug 31 last year by ISRO--"The satellite got separated internally, but the heat shield did not open as expected, causing the satellite to be stuck inside the upper stage of the rocket" and subsequently brought back to earth. Note it's deemed a "Launch Failure". Also the decay column should list Jan 8 or Jan 9 (UTC) as the date for deorbiting. The clearest indication for reaching such a conclusion is the ABC piece(*) which states in no uncertain terms that an government official has confirmed to ABC that Zuma "failed to remain in orbit". Note that we will never get direct confirmation from either the agency that owns the satellite, or Northrop Grumman who built the satellite and provided payload adapter. This is probably the clearest and most direct confirmation we can get.

As a nod to SpaceX who has maintained that it has done everything right for its part of the job (with every available fact supporting such claim too), we should put a note in the "remark" column stating so. Showmebeef (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• http://abcnews.go.com/US/classified-satellite-fell-ocean-spacex-launch-official-confirms/story?id=52246100.

We have sources speculating that the separation might have failed. That is not enough to call the launch a failure, especially as NORAD lists it as orbiting object, and other sources point to two separate re-entry events. There are so many possible options all supported by sources, we cannot just pick one and ignore the others. "Unknown"/"unclear" is the only thing we can say. --mfb (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

An official confirming to ABC news that it "failed to remain in orbit" means it is not speculation. Whether it was caused by a failure of the payload adaptor is immaterial to the net result which is that the satellite "failed to remain in orbit", resulting in an overall launch failure, which is the outcome attributed to the Indian launch under similar circumstances. In the end, it doesn't matter whether it was the payload adapter failed, or that the fairing failed to open, they are all the integral parts of a launch vehicle.

If we attributed a "launch failure" outcome for the Indian launch, why can't we do the same for this US launch? Showmebeef (talk) 06:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Outcome uncertain - list as uncertain

payload reached orbit so if it failed the rocket is not the issue, uncertainty noted in summary tables. It has also never been the policy of US to conceal a launch failure. Recommend we add category for uncertain to info box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whaleyjosh (talk • contribs) 05:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

We don't have an "uncertain" category. Until that is made available, "launch failure" is what we have been using to describe the outcome when the payload fails to "remain in the orbit". Besides, how can it be "uncertain" when a US official has already confirmed to ABC news that the payload failed to "remain in the orbit"? We are uncertain as to what has caused the payload to NOT "remain in the orbit". But that doesn't change to overall outcome of a "launch failure". Whether it is caused by the rocket, the faring, or the payload adapter is immaterial here! Also, in this case, the US neither conceal nor confirm the outcome because of the nature of the payload. Showmebeef (talk) 06:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Is Sputnik a launch failure because the satellite is not in orbit any more? Or one of the old Shuttle missions? If the deorbit was independent of the launch and due to a problem of the satellite it is not a launch failure. --mfb (talk) 07:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

That is correct. If satellite deorbited independently of the upper stage - it was a success. However sources tell the opposite to be true. SkywalkerPL (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed there is no "uncertain" parameter in the infobox and I don't think we should invent one to accommodate this case. Several missions in the past have been deemed launch failures when the payload did not remain in orbit for at least a day after launch. Typically this includes separation failures, as is rumored here. However, due to the uncertainty, it is probably best to call this a "partial failure" until clearer information emerges from all parties involved, or independent confirmation of what actually happened. I have also requested temporary page protection (ECP level) to calm down the edit-warring. — JFG ^talk 11:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but the payload is confirmed lost in the Indian Ocean by an U.S. official. We have no reason to doubt this information. That's a total mission failure in any meaningful sense of the term. Furthermore, there is no longer any orbital component from any launch on January 8th, 2018 in the NASA's NSSDCA Master Catalog (International COSPAR ID) (just check it yourselves.) MaeseLeon (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources

@MaeseLeon: The NSSDC database does not list any of the 2018 launches yet: it is rarely updated that fast, and is also incomplete. However, the COSPAR 2018-001A and SATCAT 43098 numbers were definitely assigned to "USA 280 (ZUMA)", and they can still be seen on the NORAD tracking reference database.[1] We need to wait until clearer information emerges than the anonymous report to ABC News and the SpaceX denial. — JFG ^talk 14:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we should make anonymity of the report an issue - the press is very judicious in confirming information. With that said the COSPAR catalog, NORAD tracking data, and SpaceX mission patches, are sufficient for an encyclopedia to report outcome unclear.

Also if it did in fact come down per the claim we have no details re: its cause. Information about the mating adapter are at best supposition drawn from SpaceX's statement and manufacture of the mating adapter. For all we know the object was intended to reenter. We do know the original contract SpaceX the launch was very time sensitive with launch intended by 11/30/17. Satellites intended to stay in orbit for long duration do not have such restrictive launch deadlines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.88.9.52 (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Pentagon shuts down questions about Zuma, and raises more questions - "ask SpaceX". Well, SpaceX says their part worked. --mfb (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

That SpaceX's part worked does not mean the whole mission is a success! That's what this list cares about. I don't get it that if you guys can accept the outcome of the launch as "Failure to separate from second stage payload adapter", but still won't accept that as a launch failure. It doesn't matter whose part failed. If the end result is "Failure to separate from second stage payload adapter", and that the payload "fell back to Earth over the Indian Ocean", which you guys all seem to accept now, why is that launch not a failure?! We know at least 2 other similar cases, one involved a recent Indian ISRO launch in Aug last year which I quoted in my earlier post, and another in 2015 where "Kanopus-ST failed to separate from the Volga upper stage"--both are labelled as "launch failure". How can this particular mission not be a "launch failure" is beyond me. SMH!! Showmebeef (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This page cares about 'rocket launches' not weather the payload succeeded or failed. The Mars polar lander failed due to issues with the probe not the launch. The page from 1999 notes space craft failure but all the list on that page count the Delta II launch a success.76.188.184.251 (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

But the launch of the Mars Polar Lander was a success because Delta II did insert the spacecraft into the correct Heliocentric orbit. The lander lost communication after it attempted landing on Mars. It was deemed a "spacecraft failure". How can it be compared to this case where the satellite "failed to remain in orbit" and it "ended up plummeting into the Indian Ocean"?! Showmebeef (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with the above comment. These SpaceX fanboys are out of control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.163.175.181 (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with 'fan boys' and everything to do with confirmed facts. Kanopus-ST failed to reach orbit. The PSLV-XL failure from last August was problem with fairings and likewise the payload did not reach orbit. We know ZUMA reached orbit from a variety of sources. What we don't know is if it was ever intended to stay in orbit or if the payload's own thrusters de-orbited the payload. It has never been the policy of the US government to deny or try and conceal a launch failure. We also have a statement from spaceX "Gwynne Shotwell issued a statement Tuesday saying the Falcon 9’s part of the mission went off as planned. “After review of all the data to data, Falcon 9 did everything correctly on Sunday night,” she said. And she noted that any reports that the rocket failed are “categorically false.” seems to me the only thing we can sure for certain is that the launch was not a failure. 76.188.184.251 (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

SpaceX's part might have been a success, good for them, it is up to their future clients to judge if this incident compromises the reliability of their rocket. However, the mission in its entirety is not limited to the launch vehicle's performance, but putting the intended payload in its intended orbit. This seems to be at best unclear. Some people above have provided statements from United States officials saying the payload splashed into the ocean. Whatever the actual outcome, at this point we do not know for certain, but clearly, not everything went according to plan. Thus, it is my belief that, for the sake of consistency and honesty, this launch is, at best, a partial failure. At least until we know more. I also would like to bring to your attention last year's final launch of AngoSat 1, which for a short period after its insertion into orbit lost contact with ground control through no fault of the launch vehicle, yet, the launch was labeled as a failure (complete, mind you). Which is fair. Thus, unless this particular launch outcome is a deception, which we have no way of knowing for sure, it seems as though it was indeed a failure at some level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.163.175.181 (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

---

"Kanopus-ST failed to reach orbit. The PSLV-XL failure from last August was problem with fairings and likewise the payload did not reach orbit."

No, 76.188.184.251, "Kanopus-ST failed to reach orbit" because it failed to seperate from the upper stage. The other payload carried by the launch vehicle managed to launch just fine. The ISRO PSLV-XL had a problem with the fairings as they failed to open, thus preventing the payloads from being released. The rocket did reach the intended height of the orbit.

"the mission in its entirety is not limited to the launch vehicle's performance, but putting the intended payload in its intended orbit."

Well put, 104.163.175.181! I have stressed this point several times. It is confirmed by US official to several US news organizations that the satellite "failed to remain in its orbit". It's also reported that a congressional investigation is opened to look into the cause for the failure. But whatever the cause is, and to whom the blame is placed has no bearing to whether the launch has failed or not--which it has based on the available information we have so far. We know, based on confirmation by US official to credible news organizations, that the satellite is not in the orbit it was meant to be launched into and that it "fell back to Earth over the Indian Ocean", thus resulting in a launch failure! Showmebeef (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

There are only anonymous sources for a failure of Zuma. No official statements an no official confirmation at all. Just rumors. The outcome of this launched should be changed to "Unknown". The following link gives some clues, specially about precedent case in February 1990.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17612/the-secret-zuma-spacecraft-could-be-alive-and-well-doing-exactly-what-it-was-intended-to — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceTom72 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

As one editor pointed out earlier, we shouldn't "make anonymity of the report an issue - the press is very judicious in confirming information". The source for the Watergate scandal had remained anonymous for a long time, but it does not mean it is not valid. Especially in this case, the very nature of the payload precludes any government agency from making "official" confirmation of either a success or failure in the launch. An "anonymous" confirmation in this case is as good as you can get. It is rather interesting that you would term this confirmation (albeit "anonymous") by a US official to reputable new organizations as "(j)ust rumors", you would have quoted source with putting forward multiple theories for alternative outcomes which can only be best described as speculations. Now I am not arguing one way or another that they couldn't possibly be one day proven to be true. I am arguing that until we have more solid evidence to support these theories, we need to go by with what we have known so far. Again, it has been pointed out earlier in this thread (may I ask you to please go through earlier discussions in this thread?) that there is no "unknown" or "uncertain" category for the "outcome" column. Finally, let me repeat again what have been confirmed by a US official to the ABC news:

(source: "Classified satellite fell into ocean after SpaceX launch, official confirms", ABC News

• "the satellite, codenamed Zuma, failed to remain in orbit"
• "...satellite launched by SpaceX this weekend ended up plummeting into the Indian Ocean"

Again, these are confirmations, NOT rumors

If you can accept these statements from a US official to an accredited news agency, I don't see why you can't accept "launch failure" as the outcome.

p.s. please sign your posts folks, with 4 ~ at the end of the post.

Showmebeef (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Falcon 9 did everything correctly but it is still sorted as Partial Failure

In a hearing with Congress, VP of Mission Assurance at SpaceX Hans Koenigsmann stated that "Falcon 9 did everything Falcon 9 was supposed to do" Source(skip to 1:19:58 in the video). It seems like the payload separation mechanism was not SpaceX responsibility and that they where simply contracted to bring the payload adapter to orbit with the Zuma Spacecraft attached. Because of this i think it should be marked as a success for the Falcon 9 and for SpaceX as an LSP since it would have had the same outcome regardless of the launcher. But there should be a note that says it failed to separate.Almightycat (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The mission in its entirety is not limited to the launch vehicle's performance, but putting the intended payload in its intended orbit. This article is not about SpaceX's performances, rather a list of spaceflight missions, in other words, putting stuff into orbit to accomplish something useful, not a merry-go-round to orbit.104.163.175.181 (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree! The payload adapter is an integral part of the launch vehicle. It doesn't matter whether SpaceX or someone else provided the part. Whether a launch is successful is entirely judged by the outcome, i.e. whether the payload is successfully deployed to the intended orbit. In this case, it is more than sufficient to show that the payload is not deployed to the orbit. Otherwise there won't be this congressional hearing in the first place. Actually I really think we should change the outcome to failure, as we did for India's attempted launch of its IRNSS-1H navigation satellite on Aug 31 last year when the payloads were prevented being released due to a malfunction in the fairing, and in the case in 2015 where Kanopus-ST failed to separate from the Volga upper stage. Showmebeef (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The difference between this and the IRNSS-1H is that the payload adapter was not a part of the launch vehicle, as evidenced by SpaceX continuing launch flow of future launches, something that is not done when there has been a launch vehicle failure. Since the column for mission outcome has "isp" on the top and the isp didn't fail it shouldn't be marked as a failure. The fact that this mission would have the same outcome even if it flew on an Atlas or Delta makes me uneasy to put it as a launch failure since it makes it look like the Falcon 9 had a failure. I understand why you think it it should be marked as a failure and i agree that it should in total statistics, but marking it as a failure of the Falcon 9 or SpaceX is misleading. Almightycat (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

This is why we have notes giving more details about the type of failure. Why should we defend Falcon 9's statistics? Let SpaceX, Northrop or whatever agency ordered the payload to sort it out between themselves who's fault it is. How can we honestly label it a success while the payload is in the ocean and not in orbit (as far as we know, at this moment)? Surely this would seem odd, wouldn't you agree?104.163.175.181 (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, I agree with Showmebeef that it should be a 'complete failure', not even a partial one.104.163.175.181 (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with the others above, this launch should be listed as a failure. Let me give an analogy: If I went on a trip to the grocery store, drove all the way there and then had a heart attack in the parking lot, you would call that trip a failure. I didn't get into the store. I didn't buy groceries. Does that mean that Toyota needs to do an engineering analysis of their car? No. Does that mean calling the trip a failure reflects poorly on Toyota? Not to anyone who puts the slightest amount of effort into investigating why it was a failure. This launch was a failure. Period. DrunkBicyclist (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I get the logic with calling it a failure, but the issue is that the Outcome column is for the Launch Service Provider, so it would technically wrong to call it a failure since that would directly imply that it was a SpaceX failure. Almightycat (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

But if the launch vehicle failed to insert the payload into the orbit, then it IS a launch failure for the Launch Service Provider. It doesn't matter who provided the payload adapter, or payload fairing (can you argue that it was not a NASA launch failure if the O-ring on shuttle Columbia was not made by NASA?) It is part of the launch vehicle--I don't know why you insist that it is not part of the launch vehicle: how can you launch a payload without a payload adapter? Showmebeef (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It didn't fail to insert into orbit, everything that SpaceX was responsible for performed nominally. The adapter for this mission was special made for the payload from the payload maker and the payload maker did every part of the processing that had to do with the adapter. It was essentially a part of the payload. Would you qualify this as a Launch Service Provider misstake if it launched on the Atlas V and the adapter failed in the exact same way? It is still a failure, but i just don't see how it is a failure of SpaceX. Your Space shuttle comparison would be valid if someone bought a flight from NASA on the shuttle and strapped on their own SRBs without any oversight or qualification from NASA themselves, and i wouldn't say NASA had a failure if that happenedAlmightycat (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

If "it didn't fail to insert into orbit", then how come the payload "ended up plummeting into the Indian Ocean"? Note this list documents the outcome for the overall mission. It does not concern itself that much whose fault it is that the mission has failed. Note the note/remark here didn't say "it is a failure of SpaceX". In fact the wordings in the remark have pretty much absolved SpaceX of that. Yes, if it was a Atlas V that provided the launch service and the same thing happened, it would be a "launch failure", because--the payload "failed to remain in orbit" and it "ended up plummeting into the Indian Ocean". Don't see your point about strapping SRBs to the shuttle--NASA better make sure whatever it puts onto its shuttle works, even down to a small thing like an O-ring, let alone SRBs. Oh, yeah, if the SRBs explodes, I would definitely say that "NASA had a failure". Showmebeef (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

If it swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is a duck

Similarly, if it "failed to remain in orbit" and it "ended up plummeting into the Indian Ocean", then it is a launch failure--even if the authority refuses to (officially) confirm it (due to the nature of the payload). I started this thread two weeks ago trying to get some consensus on the status of this particular launch, as I didn't want to start an edit war on the subject. I think by now after some lengthy discussion, we can reasonably conclude that this is a launch failure, even if all available facts have indicated that SpaceX has successfully delivered the payload to the orbit. Note, however, "delivered" is different from "inserted". I want to stress once again that this list documents the outcome of the overall mission. I am going to change the outcome for this launch to "launch failure" and the associated statistics. I respectfully ask anyone who attempts to revert my edit to read the whole discuss here before doing so. Showmebeef (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I would to prefer to go by the precedent set by AngoSat1 last year, the rocket performed as expected but the satellite failed. This is down as a success for the rocket, but in the outcome as a "Spacecraft failure". This fits both the idea that the launch was successful, per SpaceX, but the payload failed, per DoD --Richhaddon (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there is similarity here between the two cases. In the case of AngoSat1, it was inserted into the orbit successfully. The sat itself failed to establish communication with the ground. That's a classic case of "Spacecraft failure". In the case of Zuma, it "ended up plummeting into the Indian Ocean". "Failure to separate from the second stage" is more inline with "launch failure". Showmebeef (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

AngoSat 1's communication was restored and it seems it's recoverable. I also would like to bring your attention to the fact that after it did lose communication with ground control, through no fault of the launch vehicle, it was labeled as a complete failure. I very much dislike that because it's a SpaceX launch it is being treated differently through a torrent of excuses.104.163.175.181 (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The similarity i'm drawing is that the failure did not occur during the launch process, i.e the portion of the mission controlled by the LSP. But after this section. Secondly, although there are a lot of fanboys behind SpaceX, I think the argument is just down to lack of information, rather than it being treated differently. --Richhaddon (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The launch process would (and should) include the deployment of the payload. Otherwise Indian's (attempted) launch of of its navigation satellite with PSVL-XL (payload fairing failed to open) and Russia's (attempted) launch of Kanopus-ST with Soyuz-2-1v / Volga (failure to separate from second stage) can both be regarded as launch "success" then. There is apparently no lack of information (at least enough to justify the conclusion of "launch failure). There is also no lack of authority in the sources either (sources are identified as US officials). The only issue some hold onto is the issue of anonymity. But this is entirely due to the nature of the classified payload. But as was discussed in the thread earlier: we shouldn't "make anonymity of the report an issue - the press is very judicious in confirming information". That fact that no one has raised any issue with either the Indian or Russian launch (both are very similar cases) but plenty with this SpaceX launch seems to indicate that it is being treated differently. Showmebeef (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The deployment of the payload was not the responsibility of the LSP in this mission, so the PSLV-XL parallel does not hold true. Also, if this is classed as a failure here. It is inconsistent with "list of falcon 9 and falcon heavy launches" & "Timeline of spaceflight" --Richhaddon (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It would be hard to justify that "deployment of the payload was not the responsibility of the LSP", even in this mission. If the PSLV-XL parallel does not apply, would you declare that launch a success? And then how about the Kanopus-ST mission? The inconsistency with list of falcon 9 and falcon heavy launches" & "Timeline of spaceflight" need to be addressed separately. Showmebeef (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

We don't list probes that fail to reach mars as failures of the rocket. They're space craft failures (for those that reach orbit anyway). We have SpaceX saying that any rumors of a rocket failure are categorically false. We also have reports of the second state being seen deorbiting without zuma attached. It's been added to the registry of orbital objects. We have no stand down by SpaceX to investigate as is always the case following rocket failures and we have their other customers on the record there was no rocket failure. We also have the USAF saying it was not a launch failure Seems to me that it neither swims nor quacks like a duck. Whaleyjosh (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually the payload "fell back to Earth", and it "failed to remain in orbit". There is absolutely no indication whatsoever, anonymous sources or not, that this was a spacecraft failure. But there is confirmation from US official that the payload "failed to separate from the second stage". The fact that the payload "failed to separate from the second stage" does not imply it's a rocket failure--nobody says it's a rocket failure. Note there is a distinct difference between a "launch failure" and a "rocket failure". Pls provide your source stating "the second state being seen deorbiting without zuma attached". Please note that we have US official confirming to the press that the Zuma satellite "ended up plummeting into the Indian Ocean". Showmebeef (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

If we accept that Zuma fell back to earth (and that seems to be the indication) the cause of that orbit has not been disclosed. There is an assumption that it was the payload adapter which has not been confirmed. But even if it was the payload adapter the fact that this adapter was built by northrop grumman and not SpaceX means that we can consider the adapter as part of the payload. If UPS delivers you a broken item from Amazon because it was not packaged by amazon correctly that's on Amazon and something entirely different that UPS delivering you a broken item because they mishandled the package (not a perfect analogy) but you get the idea Whaleyjosh (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Your Amazon delivery analogy is inaccurate. Note that there is confirmation that the Zuma satellite "failed to separate from the second stage" and "fell back to Earth over the Indian Ocean". The correct analogy would be the mailman "failed to drop off the package at the residence" and the package was "left in the roadside ditch". Even though the recipient is mum about whether he's received the package (due to the nature of the content) we can still declare this a failed delivery, based on Amazon's own admission. The mailman's claim that his mail delivery van works just fine and that he took the package to the recipient's resident simply doesn't cut. Showmebeef (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no confirmation that the payload did not separate - every article suggests this a possibility but no confirmation. Whaleyjosh (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2018‎ (UTC)

From the Ars Technica article you quoted ("SpaceX gets good news from the Air Force on the Zuma mission"): "No one has officially confirmed this on the record, but sources have told Ars that, after the launch, the Zuma payload never successfully separated from the rocket. Instead, it remained partially or completely attached to the second stage and re-entered Earth's atmosphere after 1.5 orbits.". So it's not a suggestion but a confirmation, albeit not an official one, again due to the secret nature of the payload.

Also from this CBS article I quoted earlier ("Fate of secret satellite a mystery amid reports of failure"): The Wall Street Journal quoted unnamed sources Monday saying "the secret payload ... is believed to have plummeted back into the atmosphere ... because it didn't separate as planned from the upper stage of the rocket." Reuters also reported the satellite "failed to separate from the second stage of the Falcon 9 rocket and is assumed to have broken up or plunged into the sea." Showmebeef (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

So in my book if we're to consider this a launch failure both of these need to be true

• The deorbit was a result of a faulty payload adapter (unconfirmed) "No one has officially confirmed this on the record, but sources have told Ars that, after the launch, the Zuma payload never successfully separated from the rocket."
• The payload adapter was built by SpaceX (no)

So it is therefore a spacecraft failure. Whaleyjosh (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The insertion of payload into the orbit is part of the launch process. Otherwise both the PSLV-XL and Kanopus-ST missions can be considered launch success (they are not!). It does not matter who supplied the payload adapter. We can clearly state that Northrop Grumman supplied the payload adapter (we did) thus absolving SpaceX of its responsibility in this "launch failure". But it is nevertheless a "launch failure". Showmebeef (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The payload was inserted into orbit that's why it was entered into the catalog. We don't know if the failure was due to being unable to separate from the adapter. That has not been confirmed. The air-force does not consider this to be a launch failure. Whaleyjosh (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2018‎ (UTC)

It has been confirmed by multiple sources (see my reply to you above). It's just that the sources CANNOT officially confirmed it due to the nature of the classified payload. The air-force has good reason to believe that the SpaceX launch vehicle itself has performed its task, but has said nothing about whether the payload was launched successfully or not. As I have pointed out earlier: "launch failure" is not the same as "rocket failure". Showmebeef (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The only thing that the USAF said is that "Based on the data available, our team did not identify any information that would change SpaceX's Falcon 9 certification status". Nothing about the launch itself whether it's successful or not. Whaleyjosh: I ask you respectfully not to engage in edit war. At this point, it is universally accepted that the payload is a "total loss". We just cannot confirm what exactly caused it or who is responsible for it. But it is irrelevant to this list as it only concerns itself with whether the payload is deployed successfully or not. As it stands now, it was not! Please present you reasoning here before you attempt to change the status of the launch. Showmebeef (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Whaleyjosh, if I am not mistaken (the edit comments appear to be a continuation of the comments you have here), it was you with an anonymous mobile IP address (2607:fcc8:6dc8:9100:3dac:9fff:3ca5:a736) who just changed the status for the Zuma launch (if it's not you then I apologize). Once again I ask you not to engage in edit war (anonymously). I started this thread two weeks ago to discuss this matter and also to avoid edit war. I would respect you more if you can present your opinions and discuss the matter first--I did that for the last two weeks before I reached the conclusion and made the changes, and I am doing it now. Respectively yours, Showmebeef (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

No, the status is not clear. The government hasn't made any official declaration, and all sources refer to one single page, which takes words from an official dishonest enough to leak information. Please don't engage in an edit war. The status is NOT clear; the sources are very unreliable. 112.133.232.34 (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Corrected Falcon 9 Launch to Partial Failure

Found a mistake in the page that seems to claim the Falcon 9 failed when it did not. Fixed. Ergzay (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Did you miss the whole discussion in the section above this one, and the various edits on the article page oscillating between the different versions? --mfb (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

That is not the consensus the section on this talk page directly above this one came to. Just because the Falcon 9 itself did not fail during launch, does not mean that there was not a launch failure that took place on the Falcon 9. The payload adapter is part of the launch vehicle. The mission was not a "partial success", it was a complete failure. DrunkBicyclist (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The payload adapter on this launch is part of the payload, not part of the vehicle. Thusly, the payload failed, no part of the launch vehicle did. I'm probably incorrect about calling it a "partial failure" and thinking about this more this is actually a success. The article should be changed again. Ergzay (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The payload adapter is part of the launch vehicle, and is traditionally provided by the party who provides the launch vehicle. However, NG provided the adapter this time (most likely because of the secret nature of the payload). The adapter stays with the launch vehicle after inserting the payload to the orbit, which it failed to do this time, and which made this launch a failure. Showmebeef (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The USAF does not consider this a failure of the rocket, neither does SpaceX, and neither do their customers. When spacecraft fail due to a fault with the spacecraft we list it as a 'space craft failure' for example see Mars Climate Orbiter. If you look at the 1999 in space flight page it's a "Space Craft Failure" we don't consider the Delta II it was launched on to have failed.

We do not know for certain it was the payload adapter which would under normal circumstances be a failure with the rocket but since this was built by Northrup it's considered part of the payload.

Unless the loss of Zuma impacts the calculations falcon 9's reliability it's not a launch failure. Whaleyjosh (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Whaleyjosh: the loss of Zuma does NOT impact the calculations falcon 9's reliability (because apparently the payload failed to seperate from the second stage), that's what the USAF's statement is saying. HOWEVER, the loss of Zuma does impact the outcome of the launch, which is what this list cares about and maintains. Showmebeef (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Correction, the USAF and SpaceX's customers do not consider this a failure of SpaceX. They make no distinction between the launch vehicle and the payload, this distinction does not matter to them. All they care about is which company is at fault, and every indication is that it is Northrop Grumman's fault. This SpaceX launch is unique though because Northrop Grumman was responsible for the manufacture of a portion of the launch vehicle, the payload adapter. This article, however, does make a distinction between launch vehicle and payload. The payload adapter failed, the payload adapter was a part of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle for this mission. DrunkBicyclist (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

"They make no distinction between the launch vehicle and the payload, this distinction does not matter to them" Bullshit. Customers absolutely care about whether their launch vehicle failed or an unrelated payload failed. Your statement is nonsensical. I used to work on nanosats. It absolutely matters. As I stated above, in this case the payload adapter came with the spacecraft and thusly is part of the spacecraft. It is simply a spacecraft that splits in two leaving part of itself behind on the launch vehicle. Ergzay (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

What the customers care about is irrelevant to the list here. Like I mentioned several times in the discussion here that the adapter is part of the launch vehicle and stays with the launch vehicle after the launch. The fact that NG provided it this time (most likely due to the secret nature of the payload) does not change that nature. It only changes where potentially the blame can be placed (which the remark in the entry has made pretty clear where it should be). It does not change the outcome of the launch, which is a failure (to insert the payload into the orbit). Showmebeef (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

DrunkBicyclist: you are exactly correct in this argument. I had a lengthy discussion with Whaleyjosh and made the distinction between "rocket failure" (which is Whaleyjosh's point that it wasn't) and "launch failure" (which is the overall outcome of this launch and what this list cares about). I thought I have already cleared it up with him. The launch adapter is NOT part of the payload even if NG provided (probably because of the secret nature of the payload) this time. It stays with the launch vehicle after delivering and, more importantly, inserting the payload into the orbit, which this mission failed to do. Showmebeef (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I will add. The official record on Wikipedia for SpaceX launches is at List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches. This (as shown by the talk page) conclusively by consensus determines this a launch vehicle success (aligning with SpaceX's claims and every official source regarding the matter). Is this page to go renegade versus the other consensus that has been reached? Ergzay (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches maintains launch statistics for SpaceX launches and is viewed from SpaceX' perspective. So in this particular case, the launch did apparently delivered the payload TO the correct orbit (but failed to insert the payload into the orbit). From that narrow point of view, the launch CAN BE considered a success according to SpaceX, which is the point of view some hold for this list. BUT, this list strictly maintains the overall outcome of the launches, and prior cases (India's PSVL-XL mission last year, and Russia's Kanopus-ST mission in 2015, both are mentioned several times in earlier discussion) in similar situations are both labelled as "launch failure". I think it is more important to maintain consistency for all launches on this list than with the List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches, which is SpaceX-centric. Showmebeef (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

That is a point I made a few days ago. For the list of SpaceX launches it is a success - the task of SpaceX was to deliver satellite plus payload adapter to orbit. For this list it is a failure - the goal was to have the satellite alone in orbit. It is a unique case as (a) the payload adapter was not from the launch provider and (b) basically everything is classified. --mfb (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a list of rocket launches not payload deliveries, not every cube sat is listed. This list is to track rocket launches that why we have it broken down into type of rocket.

This list maintains the overall outcome for the launch missions. If the launch vehicle fails to deliver the payload to the orbit, including cubesats, it will be, and has been, documented. Showmebeef (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Tesla Roadster for Deep-space Rendezvous?

Does anyone know if the Tesla Roadster will have the Mars flyby in 2018? If so can we add it to the Deep-space rendezvous list? --Phillipsturtles (talk) 20:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

We don’t know details about the orbit, so I would be careful with adding things. If it gets close to Mars - something we don’t know yet - it should happen within 2018. --mfb (talk) 21:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Falcon Heavy launch now NET Feb 6 (so the article's introduction is out-of-date). Feb 6 is somewhat early for a Hohmann orbit to Mars, but the payload is light so there might be plenty of delta-V. Note that (assuming full launch success) the car will not vanish at aphelion; it will continue in an ellipse approaching the orbits of Earth and of Mars alternately, one approach roughly every 9 months - and, sooner or later, one of those approaches will be more-or-less close. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

U.S. Air Force says SpaceX rocket launch worked perfect. Northrop Grumman made a payload error

https://www.space.com/39464-air-force-spacex-confidence-zuma-mission.html

"Based on the data available, our team did not identify any information that would change SpaceX's Falcon 9 certification status," Lt. Gen. John Thompson, commander of the Air Force's Space and Missile Systems Center, told Bloomberg News in a statement.

This does not in any way prove that the payload was delivered and inserted into the orbit as intended. But all we heard from news reports are that they were not--they actually ended up "plumbing back into the atmosphere". Since it is apparent that you didn't read the discussion here, I will use the Amazon deliver analogy again (that I used earlier in the discussion here) to make my point: If you order something on Amazon and you haven't received in two weeks, then something's wrong with the delivery. It doesn't matter that the delivery van made rounds to your house, or someone claim how well the delivery van is trouble free and drives like a Ferrari! The bottom line is you didn't receive your package. And that makes it a delivery failure!

p.s. I don't know why you want to put USAF's statement in the remark section of the entry for Zuma. That area is really not a forum for discussion.

Showmebeef (talk) 07:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Nothing 'proves' it failed either, and in fact with so much evidence that zuma's loss had nothing to do with the rocket please stop changing it to launch failure. Let's think about your amazon analogy (that was originally posted here by someone else) Your trying to blame general motors for not getting the package since they made the delivery van even though everyone is telling you nothing went wrong with the van. This page's primary purpose is to track failures with the rockets. As others have pointed out everyone considers this a launch vehicle success and the failure of payload adapter in this case is a payload failure. see comments by Ergzay. **I'm looking at you Showmebeef** stop changing it to failure you're wrong and we don't need edit war, you don't know better than the USAF, COSPAR, spaceX or Northrup - Just fucking stop. 76.188.184.251 (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

If report that the payload "ended up plumbing back into the atmosphere" does not prove it's a failed launch, I don't know whatever does. Let me repeat it one more time (if you have read the whole discussion here, you would have noticed that I have made this assertion several times already--and the Amazon analogy made that specific point too)--nobody says it's a "rocket failure"! It is a "launch failure", as the mission failed to place the payload in the intended orbit. My Amazon analogy did not blame GM for making the van. My analogy said that "the delivery van is trouble free and drives like a Ferrari!". This is list maintains the overall outcome of the missions. In case you missed it in our discussion earlier, we know at least 2 other similar cases, one involved a recent Indian ISRO launch in Aug last year, and another in 2015 where "Kanopus-ST failed to separate from the Volga upper stage"--both are labelled as "launch failure". I started this discussion thread more than 2 weeks ago to solicit comments and seek consensus on the status of this launch. This is the consensus reached based on all these discussions. I have engaged discussions with all others, including Ergzay, and I welcome yours too (except that you can leave your foul language at home). So what's your opinion, if any, regarding the distinction between a "rocket failure" and a "launch failure" (or a "mission failure")? p.s. please do not delete my post and my signature. Showmebeef (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The point has been made here and elsewhere that the for this case the payload adapter is part of the payload. This list's purpose is to track rocket launches not payloads; we don't list every cube sat here and disaggragating these launches by rocket is a clue. Everyone considers the Falcon 9 to have behaved nominally. *IF* Zuma failed it was a spacecraft failure not a failure of the Falcon 9. Do you really think this belongs in the same category as rocket that explodes on the launch pad? The US air force doesn't. The point has been made that this list (see page on launches in 1999) shows mars climate orbiter as a space craft failure. No one argues it's failure to be the fault of the Delta II that launched it. If you want to start a series of pages that list the payloads put in orbit go ahead Zuma would be a failure there but just but on this page about rockets it's a spacecraft failure. 76.188.184.251 (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not a "spacecraft failure" (and payload adapter is NOT part of the payload either--see my comment in the section "Payload adapter is part of launch vehicle or payload" below). I thought I have already discussed and refuted your argument using the Mars Lander before. I don't know why you want to recycle this argument again and again. To save myself some typing, I will just copy and paste my rebuttal I gave earlier:

But the launch of the Mars Polar Lander was a success because Delta II did insert the spacecraft into the correct Heliocentric orbit. The lander lost communication after it attempted landing on Mars. (That's why) it was deemed a "spacecraft failure". How can it be compared to this case where the satellite "failed to remain in orbit" and it "ended up plummeting into the Indian Ocean"?! Showmebeef (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

This is launch failure but not payload failure because the deployment of the payload is still part of the launch process. Since when can you call a launch success without it deploying the payload?! Showmebeef (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The payload adapter is part of the payload ??? Please cite your source. 2001:DA8:201:3032:3062:DB50:1B0:DCEA (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe more accurate: Amazon gave the package to your neighbor, your neighbor showed you the package, but refused to hand it to you, and left again with the package. Not a failure of Amazon if you asked them to give the package to your neighbor, but still a delivery failure. --mfb (talk) 08:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi

Is this page about rockets or payloads

Everyone needs to calm down here. We need to decide if this list is about rockets or payloads before we can label either Zuma or the recent Arian launch.

If this list is concerned about rockets than the falcon 9 should be listed as a success while the Ariane should be a partial failure.

If this is concerned with payloads than the Zuma is an failure but the Ariane is a success.

• Zuma failed despite rocket behaving entirely nominally
• ses 14 and Al yah end up the right orbits (after a few months of manuver burns) despite aberrant bevhavier by the rocket

I tend to think of this list as one about rockets but this is a choice the community needs to make but consensus is needed. Whaleyjosh (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

This list documents the status of the mission. If the payload is successfully deployed to the intended orbit, it's a "success", otherwise it's a "launch failure". If the payload is deployed to an orbit that is not intended then it's a "partial launch failure". if the spacecraft possesses the capability to maneuver itself to adjust its orbit to the intended one, then the spacecraft is "operational". Otherwise, if the payload is rendered non-operational due to the incorrect orbit it is deployed to (and does not have the capability to adjust its own orbit, such as for cubesats), or damaged during the deployment, it's a "failure" (a little bit foggy here). If the payload experiences any malfunction due to its own activities AFTER the it is deployed to the orbit, then it is a "spacecraft failure". Note that this list does not support, as far, other status such as "unknown", "unclear" as suggested in other part of this discussion. Based on these criteria for classification, the Zuma mission should be classified as "launch failure', while the Ariane 5 launch should be classified as "partial launch failure/operational". I understand that (based on the information available) SpaceX has successfully DELIVERED the layload TO the correct orbit, but the failed the deployment because the payload failed to seperate from the second stage, possibly due to a malfunction in the launch adapter provided by the payload provider NG. So to put it metaphorically, SpaceX did not drop the baton but NG did. However, the whole relay team didn't get to stand on the podium even SpaceX managed a 9.8s 100 yard dash in the relay. Showmebeef (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The Ariane launch is a partial failure, and listed accordingly everywhere. The satellites are in an Earth orbit and operational, and they can be used, although not with the expected performance (they will start operation later). --mfb (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

From what I understand (also looking at previous years spaceflight page), listing the launch as "launch failure" means the rocket failed while "spacecraft failure" indicates the payload failed.

Payloads such as Hitomi (satellite) and AngoSat 1 for example failed after launch and are listed as "spacecraft failure"

Ariane should be listed as a "partial launch failure" similar to the ChinaSat 9A payload which was launched into the wrong orbit. Per https://twitter.com/Spaceflight101/status/956921095411650560 and http://stuffin.space/?search=2018-012 the launch was off by about 17 degrees with inclination. Phillipsturtles (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

This table about launches (it's title: "Orbital launches"). And purpose of launch is to deliver payload to correct orbit. If payload destroyed, the launch is obviously not success, whatever the cause is. If payload is not delivered to proper orbit, launch is not successful either, but can be treated as partial failure if mission still can be recovered somehow. 178.49.232.223 (talk) 06:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Successful launch means payload delivered in proper orbit and drifts away from top stage. If you ever watch any launch webcast, you can clearly see at what point launch success confirmed. 178.49.232.223 (talk) 06:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Payload separation definitely is a part of launch. In this case major launch hardware supplied both by SpaceX and NG and operated by SpaceX. This article is not about SpaceX part, but of whole launch 178.49.232.223 (talk) 07:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

We can't call some action successful if desired result is not achieved. Purpose of space launch is to put spacecraft in orbit, not just flew a rocket. 178.49.232.223 (talk) 06:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Please sign your posts !!! 2001:DA8:201:3032:3062:DB50:1B0:DCEA (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

You end your post with 4 consecutive ~. The Wiki editor will automatically convert them into your signature. Showmebeef (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It's utterly frustrating trying to read and/or comment on posts whose owners don't leave a signature. So, for those folks: Pls do us a favor and go back to your posts and append your them and time stamps!. I will also take the liberty of appending some if I come across some while trying to read them. Showmebeef (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Air Force viewed telemetry show SpaceX second stage properly sent command to separate to Northrup Gruman built payload adapter.

73.211.116.42: Why do you delete all your comments after you created this section in the first place?! This is after I took the trouble of appending your user IP address and time stamps for the comments you've posted here (without signatures) to make them easier to follow! Do you not realize that everything you wrote here are all recorded in the change log, and can be easily retraced and recreated? Makes people think that what you put out here do not hold much water. Not only that, it leaves comments left here totally not making sense. For example, the comment I posted below is in response to your comment that "Standard flight telemetry data that the Air Force viewed showed that the SpaceX second stage properly sent the correct command to separate the payload to the Northrup Gruman built payload adapter" and asked you to provide your your source. Feeling not quite sure about what you've said before, huh?! This leads me to think that you are nothing but an obstructionist and source of rumor mill. Goodbye and good riddance! Showmebeef (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Care to share your source here?? Showmebeef (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I think your analogy missed a crucial part. It's the driver's responsibility to make sure that the passenger (school kid is a better example) disembarks at the correct stop and that the kid goes home, because the contract calls for such assurance. A more fitting analogy would be that the school bus company hired a chaperon to escort them home. I think if you would find default with the school bus company if your kid didn't go home even if it is the cheparon fault that he/she fails to escort the kid home. I don't think you would call this a successful delivery of your kid to your home. Showmebeef (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not an article about what SpaceX did. It is an article about whether a satellite was deployed to orbit or not. --mfb (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

if the Federal government think the contractors (SpaceX and NG) did their job, they would not have the congressional hearing on why and how they have failed to deliver the payload. I think the mere existence of such a hearing means that there is something undesirable about the job they did. Showmebeef (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

If it still attached to top stage, it's not deployed. 178.49.232.223 (talk) 07:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

LSP Nationality

Hi All: the article seems in consistent in giving the nationality (via flags) of private LSPs. Rocket Lab is listed as US (jurisdiction where parent co is incorporated), despite the launch providing subsidiary being incorporated in NZ. Virgin is listed as US (jusrisdiction where launch providing subsidiary is incorporated) despite parent co being incorporated in the UK. Surely a consistent approach should be taken, one way or the other. If controversial, both nationalities divided by a / could be shown? Wdcarter2 (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree it is an issue, but I don't see a simple solution. There is also an inconsitency with the Russian/Ukrainian Zenit rocket that's been unresolved for several years now. Oftentimes rockets are collaborative projects between two or more nation states. Unfortunately there is no simple guidline to go by as of yet.192.222.134.89 (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

In the case of Virgin Galactic, I think the flag should be American. If we look at just the subsidiary, then its only locations are its offices in New York and its launch site in Mojave. I don't think the fact that they are owned by the Virgin group is particularly relevant to the spaceflight angle of things, because the parent company is not directly involved in manufacturing or testing or research. For Rocket Lab however, there is a very clear split in the work between the US and New Zealand. I think both flags should be listed for them, similar to how we have in the past when space missions were co-designed by different nations. Not as familiar with Zenit, but if there is a similar situation there, I would say put up both flags. DrunkBicyclist (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Payload adapter is part of launch vehicle or payload

Now the situation is clear:

(a) Payload adapter is part of launch vehicle = SpX is LSP and Northrop serves as a subcontractor --> Launch failure.

(b) Payload adapter is part of payload --> Payload failure, launch success.

Contributors to this page, SpaceX related articles and spaceflight topics: @FuocoVivo: @Ergzay: @Showmebeef: @JFG: @BatteryIncluded: @Galactic Penguin SST: @SpaceTom72: @Mfb: @N2e: please comment and vote.

2001:DA8:201:3032:3062:DB50:1B0:DCEA (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The payload adapter is usually considered part of the launch vehicle. --mfb (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I changed my mind: the payload adapter in this case has been provided by the spacecraft provider, it's therefore considerable as part of the payload. NG here isn't SpaceX's subcontractor for a subsystem of the rocket, NG is their customer, which spontaneously decided to provide their own payload interface (which eventually failed) to the Launch Service Provider. I'm basing this on William Graham's Nasaspaceflight launch log, where he wrote: "Falcon 9/Zuma outcome not entirely clear. If the mission failed most likely scenario based on available information is that the separation mechanism failed to operate and satellite remained attached to the second stage of the rocket. Normally this would be a launch failure, but for this launch the adaptor was part of the payload, not the rocket, so until more information becomes availble this is scored as a successful launch (with a possibly DOA payload)". William has maintained NSF's launch log for almost 10 years and he's a contributor here as well. So I vote for 'unclear' as the outcome and keeping this listed as 'success' in the table, with a note that clarifies that until more information becomes availble this is considered as a successful launch. --FuocoVivo (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Under normal conditions the adapter is part of the rocket but for Zuma it was built by the spacecraft maunifacturer and thus must be considered part of the payload - essentially a two stage payload with Zuma proper and Zuma payload adapter Whaleyjosh (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

In regard to FuocoVivo's comment (actually Whaleyjosh's too) that "the payload adapter in this case has been provided by the spacecraft provider, it's therefore considerable as part of the payload."--just because it is provided by the payload provider does not make it part of the payload. Functionally the adapter is responsible for deploying the payload to the orbit: it stays with the launch vehicle after the deployment, not with the payload--how can it be part of the payload? Logistically, the launch ends with the deployment of the payload to the orbit, not when the launch vehicle reaches the orbit. Without the adapter the launch vehicle can not function fully, i.e. it can not deploy the payload without the adapter, while the payload can function just fine without the adapter. In fact it will cause trouble if the payload is still attached to the adapter, like in this case (it plunged back into the atmosphere with the upper stage since it failed to seperate from the adapter which is attached to the upper stage, an integral part of the launch vihecle). So the payload cannot function properly WITH the adapter still attached to it. How can the adapter be functionally part of the payload? Showmebeef (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Folks: I think this discussion is rather academic and to be honest, rather irrelevant in determining the status of the outcome for this launch. This list determines the outcome solely on whether the payload is deployed to the orbit or not. This is consistent for all launches and I can cite at least two earlier cases (mentioned several times in this thread of discussion earlier) that failed to deploy the payloads in similar fashion and both are labelled as "launch failure". This discussion of whether the adapter is part of the launch vehicle (which I think is the case) or part of the payload only helps to determine which party (SpaceX or NG) is responsible for the failure. It does not change the outcome of this launch mission which is that it failed to deploy the payload to the orbit. If we decided to label this launch a "success", or "partial failure", then we will need to change the status for all other previous cases that failed to deploy their payloads in similar situations. Showmebeef (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Purpose of space launch is to put spacecraft in orbit. So payload separation is final stage of launch, regardless of who supplied the hardware. 178.49.232.223 (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Support (b) The payload adapter was part of the payload in this case. The payload adapter was supplied by the same manufacturer as the satellite and thus is part of the satellite. Ergzay (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Suspected Misty NRO program stealth satellite more plausible than leaked to media "Loss" NRO cover story.

Numerous credible reports, a few of which are referenced below, indicate the Zuma satellite is successfully orbiting and is the latest stealthy reconnaissance satellite under the Misty program in which the United States National Reconnaissance Office has invested US$12.3 billion since 1990.

Misty is reported to have optical and radar stealth characteristics, making it difficult for adversaries to detect (and thus predict the times it would fly overhead). Almost everything about the program is classified information. This would explain why amateur astronomers have not detected Zuma. And also why Zuma was so classified that not even the name of the government agency could be released. But it now appears to be the NRO, despite any expected denials that NRO would give for security.

This rational explanation is more plausible than the "Northrop Grumman separation error" cover story leaked to the press. Politicians publicly "calling for hearings to get to the bottom of the Zuma matter", are likely just grandstanding to play along with the cover story at the request of the National Reconnaissance Office.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misty_(satellite)

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17612/the-secret-zuma-spacecraft-could-be-alive-and-well-doing-exactly-what-it-was-intended-to

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43976.1160

https://allthingsnuclear.org/lgrego/lost-in-space-the-zuma-satellite Marshall Griffin (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

These are not credible reports. The Wikipedia page is not a report, the other links just contain speculations. The non-observation is evidence that it entered the atmosphere again. Maybe not the strongest, but the more time goes by without anyone spotting it the more convincing the evidence gets. --mfb (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Is the Deep Space Gateway, moving the/a space station to lunar orbit or Lagrange, confirmed?

NASA has been discussing this concept for about a year, but Popular Mechanics writes that USA and Russia have agreed in Tokyo to implement it. Do any other sources confirm this decision? 86.140.153.56 (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Nothing is confirmed until a budget is passed and authorization is given by the governments involved, and that can't happen before the end of the year. Astrofreak92 (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Recommendation: Default Zuma Outcome to "Unknown", "Unclear" or "TBD"

Although I don't have as much experience working with Space related Wiki pages as many of you do, I think we can all agree, although there has been good discussion, this edit war has gone on far too long.

I propose that until the community can come to a concensus the status of Zuma (USA-280) mission be listed as "Unknown", "Unclear" or "TBD". When cooler heads prevail, or more credible informaiton is made available a decision can be made to move it to "Success", "Partial Failure" or "Failure". I'll let you guys determine which of those three temporary terms is the most accurate reflection of the current situation. At present to have the outcome listed as "SpaceX Successful, Northrop Grumman payload separation unclear" is far too long and messes up all the formatting for the rest of the launches, not just in January, but the rest of the year. Furthermore, "Unknown", "Unclear" or "TBD" are also simple outcomes to place in the "Orbital launch statistics" tables at the bottom of the article. CFLNFL ^talk 18:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree to any of these terms, because it is in clear contrast to what has been revealed to the press by the government official. From the Ars Technica article ("SpaceX gets good news from the Air Force on the Zuma mission"): "No one has officially confirmed this on the record, but sources have told Ars that, after the launch, the Zuma payload never successfully separated from the rocket. Instead, it remained partially or completely attached to the second stage and re-entered Earth's atmosphere after 1.5 orbits.".

Also from this CBS article I quoted earlier ("Fate of secret satellite a mystery amid reports of failure"): The Wall Street Journal quoted unnamed sources Monday saying "the secret payload ... is believed to have plummeted back into the atmosphere ... because it didn't separate as planned from the upper stage of the rocket." Reuters also reported the satellite "failed to separate from the second stage of the Falcon 9 rocket and is assumed to have broken up or plunged into the sea.". So it is not "unknown", nor "unclear", but there is a confirmation, albeit not an official one, due to the secret nature of the payload. And we don't need to wait for it TBD, since we already have knowledge of what has happened, and it is not speculation. Showmebeef (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

So if it's clear how would you list it? It's obviously a mission failure, too bad that here you have to make a distinction between launch failure and spacecraft failure, given that the latter is still considered as 'Success' in the launch statistics charts. The fact is that there's not a consensus on wether the failed, customer provided payload interface makes this a launch or spacecraft failure. Nasaspaceflight lists this as a launch success, other consider it a launch failure. What do you purpose that's undeniably clear? --FuocoVivo (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I would list this launch as "launch failure", just as we did with (at least) the two other earlier launches:India's (attempted) launch of its IRNSS satellite (failure to release satellite since the fairing failed to open) and Russia's (attempted) launch of its Kanopus-ST (failure to separate from the Volga upper stage). So it is "clear" how we treated similar cases before. This is not a spacecraft failure. All other cases that are considered spacecraft failures are based on spacecraft's action alone (e.g. failure to communicate with base stations; failure to land; battery failures, etc), and AFTER the spacecrafts have been deployed to the orbit. I have also given my rationale (above in the "Payload adapter is part of launch vehicle or payload" section) why the payload adapter should not be considered part of the payload, even if it is provided by the payload provider. Showmebeef (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

"Unclear" seems like the best overall status to me. Footnotes can clarify that the launch vehicle, other than the payload adapter, did everything correctly, but there was an apparent failure to separate which is chargable to the (customer supplied) payload adapter. Let the reader draw their own conclusions ++Lar: t/c 22:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the outcome should be listed as 'unclear'. However the problem remains for the graphs and launch statistics tables, where it's either Failure, Success or Partial Failure. Personally I would list Zuma as a success (given that those are more from a Launch Vehicle point of view, and the LV performed fine excluding a costumer-supplied subsystem) with a remark about the unclear outcome until further info is available. Thanks Lar btw for coming by, I'm that NSF user ;) --FuocoVivo (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see how this mission can be considered a "success" or even a "partial failure" when the payload ended up "plummeted back into the atmosphere", and when at least two other earlier launches that failed to deploy their payload in similar fashion are all deemed as "launch failure". Showmebeef (talk) 05:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

That the mission wasn't a success is not what we are discussing here. The issue is that this page historically makes a distinction between launch failures and spacecraft failures. With the latter the label is 'spacecraft failure' as the outcome and, since the statistics refer to the launch specifically (not the mission in general), spacecraft failures have always been classified as 'Success' in the charts. Given the secretive nature of this launch it's unclear what happened to the payload exactly, we only vaguely know that it failed to separate, without specific insight. It's very likely that the failed subsystem is the payload adapter, which was built and provided by the customer for this mission. For this reason many consider this a payload failure and not a launch failure. Since a consensus seemingly can't be reached and the problem here is the lack of detailed information to better inform it, labeling it as 'unclear' seems the best option to me. --FuocoVivo (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It is totally fine to make a distinction between launch failures and spacecraft failures. In fact, we should and have been doing that, except this launch is NOT a spacecraft failure. I have already argued above why this cannot be considered as "spacecraft failure" and also why the payload adapter should be considered part of the launch vehicle so I don't want to repeat myself here again. The information we have so far has been pretty clear that the payload failed to seperate from the second stage and plunged back into the Indian Ocean. We cannot expect more detailed or precise information than this because of the nature of the classified mission. We need to go by with what what we have been fed so far. The information we have indicates that this is NOT a spacecraft failure. It is unfortunate that, as it is pretty clear now, that SpaceX used a payload adapter from the payload provider that caused the failure. The phase of payload deployment is part of the launch process, even if SpaceX has no control over it because the adapter was provided by NG (which SpaceX cannot test because of the classified payload and we know it had done extensive testing to make sure that the payload fairing worked). But that does not change the fact that this is a launch failure. We can point out all these factors that absolves SpaceX of its responsibility for causing the failure, which we have done already in the remark section. And the fact that the USAF has come out and cast a vote of confidence on SpaceX launch vehicle has cleared any doubt that they will continue to use SpaceX to provide launch services. Anyone with reasonable knowledge knows that, based on available information we have now, it is not SpaceX but NG that is responsible for the launch failure. However we shouldn't make an exception for SpaceX just because it did not provide the payload adaptor that caused the failure. And I don't understand all this hand wringing and convoluted logic to get SpaceX out of a problem that it didn't create, and more importantly, not affected by. Showmebeef (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

We can exclude it from the statistics and mention it separately. The same thing was done with Amos-6 where the rocket exploded in pre-flight tests. --mfb (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree, outcome of launch should describe outcome of launch. And purpose of launch is to put spacecraft to correct orbit, not just flew a rocket. If two people work on problem but one did a mistake and desired goal is not achieved then it's failure in scope of entire problem. When I come to Wikipedia, I want to read facts, not excuses. That's why I write this. 178.49.232.223 (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I also disagree with these terms and I've corrected the page again. Showmebeef please stop editing the page in contravention of the consensus on this launch via the dedicated Falcon 9 launch pages. This was a launch success in every way you can measure it. The payload (namely the spacecraft along with the supplied payload fairing) failed after reaching orbit leaving the satellite stuck to the successful upper stage. I'll again refer to List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches which is a Featured Wikipedia article. Ergzay (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

This article is not about Falcon 9 performance, but solely about launching spacecraft to orbit. Space launch needed to allow spacecraft to begin its useful work and that's not equal to flawlessly flew a rocket! There is numerous things that can affect launch even besides launch hardware (rockets, adapters, fairings etc). For example, in CRS-1 mission NASA forbid Orbcomm depolyment and it's definite launch failure too because spacecraft never depolyed. 178.49.232.223 (talk) 08:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

This article is not about Falcon 9 performance

Exactly. I've been following this whole discussion from launch day, someone mentioned the advent of 'SpaceX fanboys', I think it's exactly right. Someone must stop this nonsense, otherwise this article is losing a good amount of credibility. This launch is being held to a different standard through a massive flood of excuses and technicalities.212.73.224.250 (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

This article is NOT about spacecraft performance either. The "useful work" began when the launch vehicle arrived in orbit and commanded the spacecraft to release itself (launch vehicle had no control of it after that). It failing to release is a spacecraft failure in it's "useful work" stage. I don't believe this is being held to a different standard than any other vehicle. This is a unique failure. I would assume that if Ariane 5 were to launch with a spacecraft manufacturer-supplied payload adapter and that failed to work that we would count that failure the same as this. This is NOT about 'SpaceX fanboys'. CRS-1 mission is properly marked as a SpaceX partial failure so your point is not relevant. Ergzay (talk) 12:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

This list maintains the overall status of the missions. The launch process includes the payload deployment phase. After that the payload is on its own. If the launch vehicle fails to deploy the payload to its intended orbit, then it's a "launch failure"--doesn't matter who provides the payload adapter. If the launch vehicle manages to deploy the payload in an orbit than it is intended, then it's a "partial launch failure", which is the case for the recent Ariane 5 launch, as well as the SpX CRS-1 mission. It's pretty clear cut. Showmebeef (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

So, let me understand. You say the undeniable truth is that this was a launch failure, that everyone that disagrees with your view is a 'fanboy', and that we should dismiss every source negating your opinion because you say so? Talking about the 'free encyclopedia'... CRS-1 is a launch failure because, guess what, the launch vehicle actually suffered an anomaly. But that's not the point. The point is that we don't have clear rules here of what constitutes a 'launch failure' and this is an unprecedented, unclear case. There have been separation failures but in none of those the payload provider was at fault. I agree that determining what this really is is a technicality and that it isn't our responsibility on Wikipedia to decide. That's why, being an encyclopedia, we cite sources: there are authoritative sources that classify this as a launch success (http://spacelaunchreport.com/log2018.html#log -look at the launch outcome tables tables, https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15134.140 -look at the last post, http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/falcon-9.htm look at the Falcon 9 launch list). That's why I'm arguing that we should classify this as outcome unclear and as a 'success' with remarks in the tables. --FuocoVivo (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

"The point is that we don't have clear rules here of what constitutes a 'launch failure'"

No, actually the rule is rather clear: if the launch vehicle fails to deploy the payload to an orbit, then it's "launch failure", regardless of what is causing the payload to fail to deploy. That's why I argued earlier that the discussion on whether the payload adapter is part of launch vehicle or payload is irrelevant in determining the status of the launch mission. Showmebeef (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Unless you provide a source I'm sorry but that's just what you say, not 'a rule'... --FuocoVivo (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, "rule" is not a good choice here. Maybe "logic"? I was simply following your use of "rule" in your earlier comment. You are using the appeal to authority argument (or fallacy) here. I will give you credit for digging up the sources. That definitely HELPS your argument. BUT, do they lend much AUTHORITY to your argument? What other information your sources have that we don't? Have they provided compelling arguments to support their choice? I don't think so in either case. Of the 3 sources you provided, Ed Kyle's statistics is clearly on Launch Vehicles. I have no problem of calling this a success for LVs. BUT we are NOT talking about LVs here. The Falcon 9 list probably is, and I don't have a problem with folks over there calling this a LV success. William Graham's list currently puts the Zuma launch as "success", but if you read his footnote: "Falcon 9/Zuma outcome not entirely clear. If the mission failed most likely scenario based on available information is that the separation mechanism failed to operate and satellite remained attached to the second stage of the rocket. Normally this would be a launch failure, but for this launch the adaptor was part of the payload, not the rocket, so until more information becomes availble (sp) this is scored as a successful launch (with a possibly DOA payload)", his rationale is the same as yours. Gunter's list didn't say anything about the Zuma launch (which is unusual). You would argue that he means this launch to be a success by default. To me I would think that he simply does not want to wade into this controversy. Interestingly also he put an "n" (no recovery attempted , only for recoverable missions) next to the GovSat launch, which follows the Zuma launch, and which was flawless as far as I know. Could it be a simple typo on his part? So your list of these sources support your argument somewhat, but it is no different than I can enlist some others on this talk page who holds similar views as I do. We all based our argument on available information AND drew on LOGICAL conclusions. Showmebeef (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems we agree on something now. That's also my point: I posted those sources to show that 'launch failure' is not the only logical way to classify this mission. That's why stating the outcome was a launch failure (or success) means we as a community take a side and set a precedent (because there's no previous example like this, with the pa provided by the costumer) and that requires reaching a consensus here. Since that consensus does not seem in reach, I back the 'unclear' proposal. And not only for the consensus on the payload adapter, but also because the uncertainty that comes with this being a classified NS mission (and, I repeat, there are historical precedents of cover-ups even if unlikely). It seems to me the option that does the best job at representing an objective picture of the situation, which is unclear a part from LV success (the only verifiable fact here, given that F9 missions are proceeding and public, official reports are available). --FuocoVivo (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

See my comment below to you. I think it pretty addressed the point you raised here. Showmebeef (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

You guys call the payload adapter a spacecraft. From a technical point of view this is complete nonsense. Payload adapter is part of LV and its function is to deploy spacecraft. Payload adapter is not needed for operation of spacecraft and it stays with LV after launch. In almost every flight the payload adapter is supplied by LSP exactly because its operation is a part of launch process. When you watch any launch webcast you can see at what point launch success is confirmed. In rare case such Zuma launch, when this part is supplied by third party, nothing changes from technical point of view, all hardware pieces still have same function as in regular flights. 178.49.232.223 (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming that the PA is part of the spacecraft, and you just proved my point. 'In almost every flight the pa is supplied by the LSP'. That's the thing: This isn't 'almost any flight', this is a special case and should be treated as such. You push this narrative that not classifying it a launch failure is 'using double standards'. Guess what? You use double standards when things are different. Zuma is different, there's no precedent of a deployment failure where the customer provided the PA, that's why there's no established rule nor praxis in treating this, regardless of what you and Showmpbeef keep saying. You say: 'In almost every flight the payload adapter is supplied by LSP exactly because its operation is a part of launch process', couldn't it be that 'its operation is -considered- a part of the launch process' exactly because 'in almost every flight the payload adapter is supplied by the LSP' ? I think you inverted cause and effect. --FuocoVivo (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

PA is usually supplied by LSP because purpose of launch services is to deliver spacecrafts to orbit and PA is a spacecraft delivery tool too. I think it's you inverting logic while saying "launch hardware operation is considered a part of launch because this hardware usually supplied by LSP". No, launch hardware usually supplied by LSP because it required for launching spacecrafts. However if launch hardware supplied by any company other than LSP it's still launch hardware and success of launch still depends on its correct operation. 178.49.232.223 (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

About CRS-1, anomaly is not direct cause of failure. Most likely LV still was able to deliver satellite to correct orbit, but NASA prohibition precluded this attempt. In that case also non-SpaceX cause had leaded to failure. 178.49.232.223 (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

So, to sum up: many don't agree that we should be listing this as unclear, because the outcome is actually clear and the listing should match their opinion of what a 'launch success' is. You can say 'it's not unclear, it's how I say it is' how much as you want, that doesn't change the fact we can't agree on whether or not this is a launch failure. That's what I call 'unclear'. There aren't established rules here about what constitutes a launch failure, despite Showmebeef trying to pass his/her opinion as the official definition of failure on this site . There aren't because this is a technicality: an unclear case with no comparable precedents in this page (some listed launch failures due to payload sep but none in which the payload provider was responsible for the actual mishap) and we don't have the authority to decide ourselves. This is an encyclopedia and we cite sources: there are authoritative sources that classify this as a launch success in their launch logs: (http://spacelaunchreport.com/log2018.html#log -look at the launch outcome tables tables, https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15134.140 -look at the last post, http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/falcon-9.htm look at the Falcon 9 launch list), and I assume other authoritative launch logs that classify it as a launch failure (even if I couldn't find them). That's (together with the fact that this mission is classified so nothing can be taken as certain unless officially confirmed) why I think we should list this mission as Outcome unclear and 'success' (with remarks) in the tables and charts (given that there are more sources listing this as a launch success than not). --FuocoVivo (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

There is simple and straightforward definition of launch success/failure as spacecraft deployed or not. You guys trying to redefine spacecraft as spacecraft itself plus LVs payload adapter, but open Spacecraft article or any other source, barely you find anywhere such strange definition. Payload adapter can be supplied by one company or another, but its function remains exactly the same and launch process still includes spacecraft deployment phase. You guys seems like big fans of SpaceX and you thinking only about perfect operation of Elon Musks rocket. Your links are also related to Falcon 9 performance. But this article is about spaceflight and not about Falcon 9. People launching rockets (firstly) not for great pictures of it blasting off the launch pad but to safely deliver spacecraft in orbit. And fact of reaching this goal defines success of launch. 178.49.232.223 (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Putting aside the ridiculous and unrelated with the discussion Elon Musk rant, I'm not saying that there are no arguments in favor of classifying this as a launch failure, I'm saying that you can't disprove the ones saying otherwise either. And there are many, as I proved. You and Showmpbeef keep refraining that your definition is correct and the only logical one, despite never providing a source, which I did (and the logs I posted DO NOT refer to Falcon 9 performance, they're launch and mission logs, some with statistics by country and LV exactly as this page). Not only that but they're from experts that have been doing this for years and, respectfully, I take their word over yours, mine and other random users here. Guess they're illogical while you are not? Who says that the criteria to define 'launch success' is payload deployment in every context? In this case is you vs. the authoritative sources (William Graham, Ed Kyle et al.) I posted. --FuocoVivo (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

If your "experts" call a "launch success" when spacecraft is not delivered to orbit, but crashed in ocean, this explains why I come here for spaceflight events and not to your links... 178.49.232.223 (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

This is exactly the point I was making. The criteria for determining whether a launch is a success or failure solely depends on whether the payload is deployed to the orbit or not. That's a logical conclusion, not just my opinion!! The whole launch process includes the payload deployment phase, and failure of that phase would determine the outcome of the whole launch process. If anyone has watched SpaceX's launch yesterday, you would have noticed that the coverage ended with the deployment of the payload. Showmebeef (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, you keep saying it is not your opinion, but each time you don't provide arguments or sources except 'it's like that because I say so'. Of course SpaceX ended their coverage with payload deploy, it was their responsibility to deploy it this time. When the responsibilities of the Launch service provider come to an end, and nothing anomalous has happened, then the Launch service has been granted completely and the launch is successful. In the case of Zuma the launch process ended when F9 issued the payload separation command to the payload adapter. But even saying this is pointless because you and I can argue endlessly but this remains our opinion, regardless of what you say. That's why 'unclear' is better: we have a few external sources of launch success, but more will be available and we can drop the 'unclear' definition for a definitive one once they materialize. Not to mention this was a classified launch and the chance of this being a cover-up is low but not negligible nor unprecedented. --FuocoVivo (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

What I said is my opinion (based on logical conclusions). What you said is your opinion. And the sources you quoted are their opinions too. Like I argued in my comment above, they don't have information other than what you and I have; they didn't present compelling argument to support their opinions either, not to mention that Gunter didn't express any. You are right: you and I (and some others who participate in this thread) can argue until the cows all come home when the logical end of the Launch Service (vs. the Launch Process or Launch Mission) is, and still may not come to an agreement, or an agreeable conclusion. First let me say I recognize your desire to end this "pathetic" edit war on this subject. It's my desire too. I started this thread of discussion with the sole purpose of reaching a consensus so we can avoid an edit war. I am not here to argue for argument's sake. And I am open to the "unclear" status too, provided the adoption helps to clear up (pun intended) the mess than drawing us deeper into it (I personally think that this launch can be regarded as a success is out of the question). Here are a few of my concerns (why "unclear" will make it messier) and arguments (why "launch failure" will help clear it up). Of course if you can provide your arguments that adequately address the concerns and arguments I have, I am all ears.

First of all, you are creating a new category "unclear". How do you suppose the definition of this category is? And more importantly, how can it be applied in the future? The other thing about this classification as it applies to this particular launch is that it is actually not "unclear" as far as mission status is concerned: pretty much everybody, including yourself (besides a few die-hard ...) agree that this launch mission is not successful. The only thing "unclear" is the exact cause of the failure--whether the failure to "separate from the second stage" is caused by the payload adapter. Even the fate of the payload is actually pretty clear, that it ended up in the Indian Ocean. Note that all the assertions I made here can be backed up by information provided by the US official(s) to the press. We also know that the PA is provided by NG. Your sole argument now is (correct me if I am wrong) that because the PA is provided by a 3rd party, that would redraw the line where the launch process ends, correct? Let's put aside the issue when the launch process can be considered to end (I and 178 have argued that it ends after the deployment phase, but I digress), but even that is not "unclear", because according to my argument it is pretty clear that it functionally and logistically ends at the end of the deployment phase, and it's clear to you that it ends when the command is sent to the PA for it to seperate the payload. Now here is a hypothetical question: where do you draw the line IF the PA is provided by SpaceX? Would you agree then that it would end at the end of the deployment phase then? Do you realize that this would open a whole can of worms, that the introduction of 3rd party part would change functionality (at least the definition of it) of a process? What if the fairing is provided by a third party and it fails to open (like in the India's case)? What if the second stage is provided by a third party? An oxygen tank? An O-ring??

The second concern I have is regarding the launch statistics. How would you assign the status for each category of the statistics when the overall status of the launch is "unclear"? You see how it will lead us again to the uncharted territories with the comment below from Andrewpullin, right?

Update: someone just added a new column to the "launch by country" table called "unknown outcome" while leaving the statistics for Falcon, etc. as "success". WTF!! It's this kind of makeshift patch work I am worried about. Showmebeef (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Now my argument for labeling this a "launch failure": it obviously will clear up all the concerns I have just brought forward. Allow me to use another analogy to present my rationale (which I have brought up in another comment earlier);

SpaceX did not drop the baton; Northrop Grumman did. But as a team they don't get to stand on the podium, even when SpaceX managed to run a 9.8s 100 yard dash for its leg of the relay and handed over the baton perfectly. They succeed as a team; and they fail as a team. Showmebeef (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

You're right that the mission outcome is clear (even if not 100%, given the classified nature of the mission), but this is about launch statistics and, again, I (and others) don't agree with you that this is a launch failure and that the launch outcome is clear. Saying it is a 'launch failure' would not resolve anything: it means forcing on the reader an opinion that doesn't have a clear consensus, here or elsewhere. You say 'where would you draw the line', the fact is I don't want to, because we wouldn't be able to reach a consensus. Anyways (and I say this only because I want to demonstrate how 'launch failure' is not the only logical outcome, not to force 'launch success') the point is not that the payload adapter was provided by a third party, but that it was built and provided by the payload customer itself, 'custom-made' specifically for this payload. The examples you provide to support your concern are not related to Zuma: those things involve a contractor supplying parts to the LV maker, NG here is not a SpaceX contractor. If any subsystem fails on the Falcon 9, third party or not, it's responsibility of the LSP, and it clearly is a launch failure. Here the anomaly was experienced by a customer owned interface, which is a different thing. You say 'what if a stage is made by a third party': that proves my point because if the stage is contracted to a TP by the LSP than there's no doubt about responsibilities, but if the stage is part of the payload (i.e. customer provided kick-stages, or sometimes spacecraft themselves act as third stages raising their orbit) and fails than it's not a launch failure. However, as others have said, here we don't even know for sure the dynamics of the failure and drawing a line is even more difficult because of this. That's why 'unclear' is the way to go for me, at least as far as the 'outcome' in the 'orbital launches' table is concerned (the statistics tables/charts at the bottom of the page is another, more complicated story).

So, to address your concerns (again, only about the outcome, not the statistic):

-The mission outcome can be stated in the description while using 'unclear' instead of the usual nomenclature for the launch outcome;

-How would we use 'unclear' in future situations: only in the unlikely event that, because of the lack of detailed and official info, a failure that can't be compared to previous examples on this page can't be described as a launch failure/spacecraft failure with large enough consensus. This launch is exceptional for the nature of the failure and the classified nature of the mission, a very rare coincidence. Obviously we will drop this definition as soon as the situation gets sufficiently clear and we can reach said consensus. This will not become a slippery slope because undeniable, clear precedents for every other failure/anomaly exist on this page.

I think this is agreeable, regarding the statistics I'm thinking about different proposals that we could choose from. --FuocoVivo (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

By giving the opinion that this is not a launch failure, you are drawing a line. By insisting the launch process does not end after the payload is deployed (but earlier), or attempted to do so, you are drawing a line. How is this NOT drawing a line?! And by getting into the very details of a third party part, i.e. whether it is a subcontractor or not, we are again getting into some uncharted or gray areas, which should not be the business of this list, and something for you, or me or some other editors to decide. That's why the outcome should be simply determined by whether the payload is deployed to the correct orbit or not, and which is the goal of a space launch. It is easy to verify, even for this classified mission.

Again, the status of outcome is not really "unclear"--it is clear, because we know that the payload is lost. it is the cause for the failure that is "unclear", and hence where the blame should be placed, which should not be the business of this list. I therefore think the use of "unclear" for the outcome is not justified. Not to mention the use of "unclear" as the status for the outcome will cause serious issues with regard to the statistics tables.

With this said, I am actually thinking that a "TBD" status for the outcome (which I rejected earlier) would be a better choice at this point (if for nothing else but to end this "pathetic" edit war). We simply delay the decision for the status of the outcome, until there is more information to swing the decision one way or another (with remarks clearly stating why TBD is chosen, by enumerating the available info). And we just leave out the statistics for this launch from all the statistics tables (as mfb has suggested earlier which was done for the failed Amos-6 launch) (i.e, not "success", nor "failure", nor "partial failure"), since the overall status for the outcome is "TBD". We can put all available info in the remark section in the orbital launch table and statistics tables. This will eliminate the targets for all the edit war warriors over which they are fighting. Let me know what you guys think. Showmebeef (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

In scope of this article (about spaceflight) term "launch" denotes delivery of spacecraft to orbit, not completion of "launch service". Rocket and payload adapter both are delivery tools and successful delivery depends on both. 178.49.232.223 (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that overall this was clearly a mission failure, so that needs to be clear in whatever is ultimately stated on the page. As to whether it was a launch failure I feel things are a little more blurry as FuocoVivo suggests. Until we get official information (if ever), it is impossible to know if the launch succeeded. I know many people are claiming that no deployment = launch failure. I would agree 100% if this was a case where we knew the payload adapter was at fault. However, unless there is information to the contrary that I haven't seen, it is possible that the spacecraft failed, and therefore did not request separation so that the second stage could ensure it dragged this secret spacecraft back down to its demise. Perhaps the spacecraft started checking its own telemetry / navigation and something went wrong. Or maybe it did a check on its solar panels and realized they weren't going to deploy. There could be any number of scenarios that would cause NG to want the spacecraft to hang onto the second stage for that assured destruction so that it wouldn't get stranded somewhere for snooping powers to get a look-see. The point is, we just don't know.

How do we want to present this information in our tables? I feel like the launch outcome should show as "UNKNOWN" with further details such as "Launch Success but Spacecraft lost as it did not separate from 2nd stage" (or something similar). A compromise might be to list it as a "FAILURE" or "UNKNOWN" on the country stats - as it was clearly a US mission failure overall, but then on the rocket type,family and configuration stats, show it as a "SUCCESS", as those are referencing the launch vehicle itself, which we have been assured performed nominally - However, this could get confusing and cause people to think the stats are in error. Either way, we just need to hope that in 50 years or so we get a report that finally puts this argument to rest. Those are my opinions based on what I know and have read... Essentially I am agreeing with CFLNFL, with a bit of wiggle room for compromise. Ultimately, I am comfortable with whatever the community decides should be the final record for this mysterious scenario... We know the Falcon 9 succeeded its part of the mission, as is documented elsewhere - while as for the overall launch, it continues to be "UNKNOWN" and that I think is the best way to reflect it in the outcome Andrewpullin (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Zuma: trying to sum up and decide on an agreeable proposal

So to sum up the lengthy and tiresome Zuma case:

We know (most certainly but not 100% given that this is a classified mission and cover-ups, however unlikely, are possible and have happened historically) that the Zuma mission has failed. This is a mission failure but this list is more about launches than missions. The difficulty here is agreeing on whether this is or isn't a launch success.

I disagree this list is more about launches than missions, based on the fact it also tracks the status of the spacecraft AFTER it is deployed to the orbit. I think this list is more about missions than just launches (which is part of, and the initial phase of the mission). That said, I agree that the focus on this launch mission is whether the launch process itself is a success or not. Showmebeef (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

What we know from first-hand, official sources:

• Falcon 9 has performed nominally and no investigation is being performed on the LV either internally or by 3d parties (Sources: NASA, SpaceX, USAF);
• Northrop Grumman (payload and payload adapter provider) can't comment on the mission given its classified status (Source);

What we know from anonymous US govt sources reported by trusted media sources (not official):

• the spacecraft failed to separate from the upper stage and reentered Earth's atmosphere "No one has officially confirmed this on the record, but sources have told Ars that, after the launch, the Zuma payload never successfully separated from the rocket. Instead, it remained partially or completely attached to the second stage and re-entered Earth's atmosphere after 1.5 orbits." Source.

There's speculation that this was a Payload Adapter failure. We have no details on the anomaly itself and its dynamics.

I also want to add the following:

What we know from previous similar cases how this list has categorized the outcomes:

India's (attempted) launch of its IRNSS satellite (failure to release satellite since the fairing failed to open) and Russia's (attempted) launch of its Kanopus-ST (failure to separate from the Volga upper stage). Note that both failed to launch their payloads in rather similar fashions. And both are categorized as "launch failure". We should make an effort to maintain consistency (at least for this list), instead of making an exception for a specific case. Showmebeef (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Our 2 practical issues:

1- The 'outcome' in the 'orbital launches' table
In every previous example only two options were used in case of a (non partial) failure: 'launch failure', 'spacecraft failure'. Mission failure is not acceptable since this list is from a launch POV and makes a distinction between launch vehicle and spacecraft. While this is most likely not a spacecraft failure, arguments have been provided both for and against classifying it as a launch failure, here and on specialized websites. In fact, specialized launch log websites tend to classify this as a launch success or not diving into the controversy at all ( 1, 2, 3).

Proposal: given the difficulty of reaching a consensus here, the scarcity of detailed information, the classified nature of the mission, the tendency by established launch log website not to classify this as a launch failure, classifying this either as 'spacecraft failure' or 'launch failure' seems inappropriate. Hence the proposal to introduce a new, alternative nomenclature that renders the uncertainty of the situation: 'Unclear'. Obviously this nomenclature will be dropped once/if the situation gets clearer and a consensus can be reached. The launch description can clarify that this is a mission failure, citing sources.

2- 'Success' or 'Failure' in the launch statistics/charts
This is even more difficult because it's either Failure, Success, or Partial failure, there's no room for other options. In determining this we should keep in mind that these statistics are launch statistics, so a success here doesn't mean that the mission was a success (numerous precedents where overall mission failures were listed as launch successes here). So the core issue is the same as before: determining if this is a launch success or not, expect here we don't have a third option (and I think creating one is not optimal and a major departure for the history of this page). One thing clear IMO is that this isn't a partial failure, given how only missions in which the payload can be recovered (at least partially) after an anomaly can be classed as such. Here the entire payload was lost. The choice is between (launch) Failure and Success.

Proposal 1 (the one I back): We list it as 'Success', with the remarks stating it's a mission failure. That's because while both choices appear not completely correct and agreeable, launch success is the one that has the most consensus (see established third party launch logs, for example on Nasaspaceflight.com, spacelaunchreport.com and others, see 1, 2, 3) and is backed by the most valuable, direct sources (SpaceX, NASA, USAF, Iridium's Matt Desch et al.). Overall it is the most true: we know for a fact that 98% percent of the launch went as expected, as for the last 2% things get confused: we don't know the details, we don't know for sure that it was a payload adapter failure, we don't agree on the fact that -even assuming it was a PA failure- it should be classed as a launch failure. Overall it seems best to say it is a launch success based on the 98% of the launch we know for sure than outright say it's a failure based on the last 2% we know almost nothing about.

Proposal 2: We list it as 'Failure', because the almost certain fact that it didn't separate from the upper stage isn't compatible with the definition of 'launch success'. I don't like this option because the consensus isn't there, here and elsewhere, and there's no clear rule that states as much. However I'm biased and I think Showmpbeef and 178 can make better arguments to back this option.

Allow me to make a variant version to your proposal 2:

Proposal 2a: We list it as 'failure', with notes in the remark section stating the following known information known to us (which we have already done for the 'orbital launches' table) such as that the payload failed to separate from the second stage and fell into the Indian Ocean; and that SpaceX has issued statement claiming that it has done all its part successfully, and that USAF has decided to keep the certificate status unchanged. This classification of the status is consistent with the known fact (that the payload was lost during the launch process), and consistent with how this list has categorized previous similar cases. Note that the information available to us at this point is that the Launch Vehicle has performed successfully, while the outcome of the Launch Process, which would include the deployment of the payload to the correct orbit, is a failure. The simple introduction of a 3rd party part (presumably the payload adapter which was assumed to have caused the failure), even if provided by the payload provider, should not change the definition of this phase of the launch process--otherwise we will have a ton of problems dealing with future cases where 3rd party parts are involved and which may have contributed to the failure of the launch process. To declare this launch as a "success" is in sharp contrast to the fact that the payload is a total loss. As I have argued elsewhere in this thread of discussion: SpaceX did not drop the baton; Northrop Grumman did. But as a team they don't get to stand on the podium, even when SpaceX managed to run a 9.8s 100 yard dash for its leg of the relay and handed over the baton perfectly. They succeed as a team; and they fail as a team. This list is NOT about attributing fault to a particular team member, but whether the goal of delivering the payload to the correct orbit is achieved (or whether the baton has crossed the finish line or not, in my analogy). Showmebeef (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposal 3: We change the table to introduce a fourth option: 'outcome unclear'. This is understandable but to me it seems forced, inconsistent and not optimal. Discuss if you want to provide arguments in favor.

This is, I think, a good summary. Please vote and state your opinion. --FuocoVivo (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I support your proposal for issue 1, and support proposal 1 for issue 2, although I would be fine with proposal 3 as well. --mfb (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I vote for proposal 1 for both issues 1 and 2. Both the outcome column entry and the launch statistics/charts should contain:

Launch success, satellite status classified

Because of the classified nature of Zuma, the media does not have any more reliable information than the brief statements from SpaceX, the Air Force, and Northrop Grumman.

Here are those statements:

• :SpaceX - "Falcon 9 did everything correctly on Sunday night".
• :The Air Force - "Based on the data available, our team did not identify any information that would change SpaceX's Falcon 9 certification status".
• :Northrop Grumman - Spokesman Tim Paynter has said “we cannot comment on classified missions.”

So neither we nor the media know for a fact what the status is of Zuma because it is classified. To guess the Zuma status is just speculation.

Wikipedia encyclopedia entries should not contain speculation. Encyclopedia entries should only contain documented facts. It is Northrop's satellite. Only Northrop knows it's status. They were asked about the status. They gave the status as classified. So we must report the status as classified in our encyclopedia.

As for the outcome of the launch? That is clear. The Launch was a well documented success.Marshall Griffin (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

You can't jump over 30-meter deep pit 98% successfully. If you had made only 98% of distance it's 100% failure and you are dead. At least if you jump to transport yourself to other side such as space launch perfomed to transport spacecraft to proper orbit. Space launch failed to deliver spacecraft to orbit is a failure regardless of the circumstances. It's ok to classify outcome of this launch as "unknown" because lack of confirmed info, but not because "F9 performed normally", F9 is not only part of this launch. 178.49.232.223 (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Your analogy fails. In this situation you can successfully float at the 98% point on 30-meter deep pit, so it's not a good example. Ergzay (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Space launch is one-way. When you launch spacecraft, you can't cancel. You either deliver it to orbit or you fail (even if it stuck at "98% point" indefinitely which is not physically possible). 178.49.232.223 (talk) 08:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal for Section 1. The mission status is "Unclear" as we don't know exactly what occurred and we don't know what failed or if anything failed. For section 2 I support proposal 1. I strongly disagree with Proposal 2 and Proposal 2a. Proposal 3 I would be acceptable to but seems needless extra work for a one-time situation. Ergzay (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion seems to have petered out. If most sources (excluding those widely held to be biased and not reliable) consider the launch a success but the mission a failure, that's how we should show this. Introducing a new designation would be a possible compromise, not one I would support, but one I could accept. Marking the launch a failure is unacceptable to me. ++Lar: t/c 17:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Taurus-1

That launch in February seems a bit suspect, and the citation looks like thinly veiled :OR
Quick google search shows that it's a 2U amateur radio cubesat, so I don't see how it could rate its own dedicated launch.
http://www.amsatuk.me.uk/iaru/finished_detail.php?serialnum=568 84.52.53.254 (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Falcon Heavy "type"

On articles for previous years, Delta IV Heavy is listed as a configuration of Delta IV, with Delta IV as its type, and Delta as its family. By analogy, wouldn't that make Falcon Heavy a configuration of Falcon 9 rather than its own type? There are differences between FH center cores and F9 cores, but I assume there are differences in Delta IV cores as well so I'm unsure if there's a real distinction between the two cases. I'd like to revert the latest changes marking FH as its own type, but I figured I should ask first. Astrofreak92 (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see Delta IV Heavy included in the Delta IV "type", but I'm fine with both options. --mfb (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree that we should be consistent. Architecturally, the move from Falcon 9 to Falcon Heavy is very similar to the move from Delta IV to Delta Heavy, so I'd keep them grouped. We also had recent consensus at Talk:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches#Simplifying for All Falcons reaffirming that both models should be handled together. — JFG ^talk 22:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Falcon 9 Block 3 and Block 4

@Almightycat: While I agree with you that Falcon 9 Block 3 does not need to be marked "retired", I think there's a misunderstanding in your edit summary: Falcon 9 block 3 is a minor revision without a known debut, it shouldn't be in "retirements". Actually Block 3 has a well-known debut, which is the introduction of Falcon 9 Full Thrust in December 2015. Previous versions of the rocket were v1.0 "Block 1" and v1.1 "Block 2". Now Block 4 has been flying for a while but is still considered a minor variant of Block 3 in most sources, hence our grouping it with Block 3 under the "Full Thrust" denomination. Block 5, on the other hand, may warrant its own line item and intro date (currently planned for April 5 with Bangabandhu-1), because it incorporates many changes from the currently-flying variants, and will be the first human-rated Falcon. Then at some point, when Block 4 boosters stop flying, we will mark the retirement of the "Full Thrust" variant. — JFG ^talk 22:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure i agree with you on how the Falcon versioning works. I think the debut of F9 "Full Thrust" was a block 1 and then somewere among the line the launches they moved from block 1 to block 3 and 4. There was a employee comment on Reddit(yeah i know) that stated that the CRS8 rocket was block 1. Another point that I think supports my view is the fact that Spacex has only ever acknowledged 4 Falcon 9 versions(v1.0, v1.1, v1.2(FT), block 5), this makes it seem more likely that block 5 is a point upgrade to the F9 "Full Thrust". Almightycat (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Block 1 and Block 2 equivalence to v1.0 and v1.1 is established by SpaceX's own project documentation from 2009.[2] Beats Reddit handily. Now I understand better why suddenly this confusion on block numbering is popping up all over SpaceX articles… — JFG ^talk 01:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Page 10 in the linked document states that the block 2 is 55 meters long, that is the length of v1.0, v1.1 is 68 meters. I think there was a planned block upgrade to v1.0 that was scrapped in favor of v1.1(or maybe block 2 launched). It seems most likely that blocks is used internally to differentiate rockets within the mayor revisions. Almightycat (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Either that, or SpaceX later adjusted the "block 2" version to be the long one. Really hard to nail down without more authoritative sources… — JFG ^talk 19:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

So there is two options, either it's A: There has beem 3 major version where each revision has minor upgrades that gets called "blocks".Evidence supporting this is 1. that Spacex has mentioned blocks in the user manual posted above in 2009 as an apparent minor update within the v1.0 version, but the jury is out on that, and 2. there has been an employee on reddit that talked about a FT rocket as a block 1, the reddit mods have been historically good with verification of employees. If that's the case then that versioning up to now has been: v1.0(block 1, maybe block 2), v1.1(block 1-?) and FT(block 1-5).

And then there is option B: There has been 4 major versions with one of them having 2 minor revisons. Evidence supporting this is 1. Spacex has only publically spoken about 4 different versions and 2. The user manual from 2009 that referenced an upgraded F9 as block 2 may have been referring to v1.1 and the length of block 2 was increased from the same length as v1.0 to 68 meters after the user manual was published. If this is the case then the versioning up to now has been v1.0(block 1), v1.1(block 2), FT(block 3 and 4) and block 5.

My issue with B is mostly with how the naming doesn't make sense, calling FT "block 3" and then calling a minor revision withing FT "block 4". This doesn't make any sense to me if the blocks are supposed to be major versions. And circumstantial evidence also seems to point to A being more likely. Almightycat (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Your guess is as good as mine, and we can't WP:OR. We need better sources. — JFG ^talk 16:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Sub Orbital Flights Category

In the summary at the top of the page, should there be a category for 'suborbital flights' as well as the orbital launches/first satellite e.t.c., since they are listed at the bottom of the page and it would be helpful to have a quick reference at the top. If so, the same could be retroactively applied to previous years?80.42.153.121 (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the concern is that the suborbital category is incomplete because of clandestine missile tests, military operations (the missiles fired by Yemeni rebels into Saudi Arabia are suborbital), and other issues. We don't want to provide the impression that the list is authoritative. For orbital flights, we can be confident of that because all orbital launches must be tracked and recorded and violators are called out. Astrofreak92 (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

"Catalogued"

The number of "cataloged" seems to reflect the number of launches, with more launches sending up multiple sats e.g Ariane, Electron, and even the most recent F9 are we sure there are only 33 (as of 4/5) with a COSPAR designation. A quick search of the catalog shows 67 as of today. Whaleyjosh (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources

You are correct, but the "catalogued" item in the infobox is meant to count successful orbital launches, not how many payloads were deployed. We could add another infobox item for catalogued payloads, but that would have to be discussed at Template Talk:Infobox Year in spaceflight and/or at the WT:WikiProject Spaceflight. — JFG ^talk 17:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• It's a good idea to add such parameters as "catalogued payloads" in the infobox (also add a field: "record launch = 31 satellite"). 91.124.117.29 (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Update ALL pages

Hello! I just wanted to ask if we can add a note somewhere that if you update a launch on this page, to update it on its respective launch page. I know they can be in weird places, which I am trying to help fix, but its frustrating to go and see the launch page for each rocket and find it hasn't been updated but these articles have. Cheers! UnknownM1 (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

This is usually easier for users familiar with the corresponding rocket type. Often it is more than just the launch page - statistics and so on can be on many pages. This just leaves rockets no one cares about as problem. --mfb (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Separating schedueld and completed launches

I propose that the main table in this article should split completed and scheduled launches, like this. Why? Other spaceflight articles already do this (e.g. List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches), and at the moment it is difficult to tell at first glance whether a launch has actually been completed or not. There's a big difference between a completed launch and a planned launch, and I think this should be reflected in the article. As this is a major change, I thought I'd discuss on talk before adding it. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 15:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Support I agree and actually say we should go further and completely overhaul the current format and bring it closer to the formatting of the Falcon launches, Atlas launches, etc pages. I think it may have to be tweaked to fit this context, but the template I have over on my Sandbox page is a much better format for readability and information. Cheers! UnknownM1 (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose – This would require more editing each time a launch is completed, with risks of messing up tables, especially at month boundaries. Not worth the trouble. Any readers unsure about today's date may refer to {{now}}. That being said, I'm not opposed to introducing a visual clue about future launches, which could be automated in {{TLS-RL}}. — JFG ^talk 12:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Partial support with a small changes. The idea of splitting is good, but as JPG said, many additional editing with separate sections inside the one month is a very bad option. My proposition is to add a lightgreen (or other colour) line for the "current moment of time"" with a text "↓ Future launches ↓" (as it was made in many sports articles). See this test version. Any objections? 91.124.117.29 (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

  I like the test version. A bit more editing effort, especially at transitions to a new month, but not too much. --mfb (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

  I also really like how it turned out. Definitly support keeping it! WolreChris (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support as well. I changed the color to a blue to see how it looks. I also changed "Future launches" to "Planned launches" to match the launch page standard. Cheers! UnknownM1 (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support – This looks good and easy to maintain. Thanks! — JFG ^talk 06:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

See also this experiment, yielding an instant pointer to planned launches in the TOC. — JFG ^talk 06:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Not so good as before because this link "edit" will send the editor to the new template editing. And "planned laucnhes" are related not only to April subsection. Also, the key text should be centered, I think. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Really, maybe use another background colour for separator, not similar to {{planned}}, for better contrast? Lightblue or lightgreen? 91.124.117.29 (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)