Talk:2019 in spaceflight

Oneweb nationality

The OneWeb flags are currently island of Jersey, but the OneWeb page says they're based in Arlington, Virginia. Anybody know which is correct? Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Grey Wanderer: My understanding OneWeb is only registered in the UK's Channel Islands. According to this BBC article OneWeb describes itself as a "truly global company" so it's not clear what flag should be used. — Sbsail (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Jersey looks correct, as the company's official headquarters. We are not supposed to second guess their corporate structure. — JFG ^talk 01:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Updated information has been added at OneWeb. The company HQ appears to officially be London. Should the flag be updated to that of the UK? Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Grey Wanderer: I found a 2018 press release in which OneWeb calls itself "a global communications company headquartered in the United Kingdom," added it to OneWeb article and replaced the flag. — Sbsail ^talk 23:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Gonets-M1

Creating a section here because I plan to remove Gonets-M1 2019 launch. According to ru:Сфера (спутниковая система связи) (and references in it) Gonets-M1 (or its future modification) will be used for a large constellation called "Sphere" providing broadband service. It's planned to be launched on Angara rockets starting from 2022. Because it's so far into the future and delays are expected, I'm deleting the 2019 entry and not creating a new 2022 entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbsail (talk • contribs) 00:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Sbsail: Many thanks for the information. — JFG ^talk 13:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Among your other changes, do you have a source for this switch from Angara back to Soyuz?[1] — JFG ^talk 13:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: The original plan to launch Gonets on Angara starting from 2018 was considered in 2016. Then a switch to Soyuz was considered in mid-2017 but according to the article the decision had not yet made. Then in September 2017 Roscosmos ordered a Soyuz 2.1b to be manufactured by November 2018 for Gonets №27, №28, №29 which are Gonets-M 17,18,19. Sbsail (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

An additional reference point. According to this April 2017 article the head of Gonets-M design/manufacturing company said a contract to develop Gonets-M1 had not been signed and it would take 3-4 years from signing a contract to the first launch. So Gonets-M1 cannot be even launched earlier than Q2 2020. I searched for news of Gonets-M1 development contract and couldn't find it. My understanding Gonets-M1 is in limbo and Sphere project will provide funding to develop a satellite based on whatever has been done for Gonets-M1. Unlike Gonets-M1 upgrade project Sphere has received funding. Sbsail (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Angara and Proton launches

According to Khrunichev press release only one Angara is ready to be launched in 2019. I've moved Luch-5M entry to 2021 and I'm removing highly speculative Kosmos EKS 14F154 entry (here is the revision before the removal). If you add a 2019 Angara launch please provide a well sourced reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbsail (talk • contribs) 23:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Now that an exact list of planned launches has been provided for Proton, we should probably remove the ones that had slipped earlier and are not on this list: Yenisey A1 / Luch 4, Ekspress AMU-3 + AMU-7, Elektro-L №4, and an Intelsat payload. They are still listed for 2019 by the Pietrobon source, but that contradicts the recent announcement. Not sure if they should move to 2020 or if some of them are cancelled. I'll place some {{needs update}} tags until we have solid information. On the other hand, Vorochko mentioned an Eutelsat payload which had not been previously announced. — JFG ^talk 00:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: There is a newer update. Number of Proton launches is down to eight. Blagovest No. 13L moved to this year. Late 2019 Eutelsat must have been moved to 2020. The article lists Q1 Inmarsat launch but I believe it's a mistake. I think it's Intelsat. I cannot find a confirmation that Inmarsat is ready to launch a satellite on Proton within next 5 months. — Sbsail ^talk 01:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

---

For the record Angara trial program was planned like this as of early 2018 (dates in parentheses are new dates as of March 2019):

• Angara A5 @ Plesetsk: 2018 (now December 2019), 2019 (now NET 2020), 2020 (now NET 2021)
• Angara 1.2 @ Plesetsk: 2019 (now NET 2021), 2020 (now NET 2021?), 2021 (now NET 2022?)
• Angara A5 @ Vostochny: 2021 (now NET 2023), 2024, 2025

My understanding is that during the trial program the launcher design is subject to tweaks so it cannot be mass produced. Expect slow pace of Angara launches for the next few years. — Sbsail ^talk 01:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources

@Sbsail: Yes, I was working from the same source as you, RIA Novosti from 25 October. I agree that Inmarsat is probably wrong, which is why I did not include it. Now we need to find out what is happening to Ekspress AMU-3 + AMU-7, Elektro-L №4, the Intelsat contract and Yenisey A1. I would gladly move them to 2020, especially Intelsat, but we need a source. By the way, late Eutelsat is still possible: the SLP Studio source spoke about 10 launches but only named 9 of them, so that with Blagovest 13 back for Christmas 2018, we have the 8 Proton flights for 2019 including this Eutelsat. But now I wonder if it may be the Intelsat they are talking about…

On the other subject, indeed Angara has been very slow to get ready; this programme started in the 1990s! Apparently Rogzin has now placed a strong focus to push Angara vs Proton, so we'll see if events accelerate… — JFG ^talk 01:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: I think it's most likely Intelsat simply because it's easier to mix up with Inmarsat than Eutelsat (same first letter). Anyways I'll search/wait for the sources. Elektro-L №4 is easy to move. Give me a second. — Sbsail ^talk 03:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

---

Yenisey and Ellips were two related satcom projects to replace Meridian and Raduga. However they were not part of the defense budget but rather part of the Federal Space Program. Roscosmos who pitched them already paid for Yenisey-A1 prototype spacecraft and Proton launcher in 1995-2005 budget cycle. When a new budget cycle 2016-2025 started Roscosmos drafted a gimped version of Yenisey and Ellips projects (known as a single SSKMS (ru:ССКМС) project) that wouldn't not even provide full coverage. When it learned that the final budget was 30% less than the draft it killed SSKMS. As for Yenisey-A1, ISS Reshetnev who was paid to design and manufacture it, basically used the money for other budget-overrun projects. Roscosmos sued Reshetnev for failure to deliver Yenisey-A1 and GLONASS-KK-V. (kind of odd that a parent company is suing a subsidiary; it appears to be some kind of power play / internal politics) Considering that Reshetnev today is deep in debt and Yenisey & Ellips had been cancelled, Yenisey-A1 most likely is also dead. I'm removing it from the list (link to the revision before the removal). — Sbsail ^talk 17:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources

@Sbsail: Great story, thanks for digging out the details. There's one final thing where we are not clear: will the Gonets-M 17/18/19 fly on Angara 1.2 or on Soyuz? Pietrobon still has them on Angara but you stated that the next 1.2 flight would be delayed to 2020. In that case we must replace the sourcing information. — JFG ^talk 19:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@JFG:The second reference at the payload line was the confirmation. It says Roscosmos placed an open RFQ for manufacturing and delivery of Soyuz 2.1b for Gonet-M №27, №28, №29 launch (these are Gonets-M 17,18,19 in Western numbering). Delivery was expected by Novermber 25th, 2018. Checking the current status of the RFQ says it was awarded to Progress Rocket Space Centre. So everything looks fine for an early 2019 launch. I moved the reference to the date and added ria-20181025 reference that says one Soyuz launch with three Gonets is planned for 2019. Almost the same situation with Gonet-M №30, №31, №32 launch (these are Gonets-M 20,21,22 in Western numbering). Soyuz 2.1b launcher, November 25th, 2019 delivery date. The RFQ status says bidding failed because only one bidder, Progress Rocket Space Centre, showed up and a special commission was formed due to lack of competition. Standard red tape. It looks good for an early 2020 launch (we know that only one Soyuz 2019 launch is planned). I'm moving it to 2020. — Sbsail ^talk 22:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks. I have added the Gonets launches to Soyuz-2#Planned launches as well. — JFG ^talk 00:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

---

Back to Proton launches: according to a deputy premier minister no military launches are planned on Protons, only Angara A5, 1.2 and Soyuz launchers will be used going forward. — Sbsail ^talk 23:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Upon rereading the reference attached to the December Angara with Blok DM-03 (maiden flight of the upper stage) it's clearly named as the second flight of Angara. That means Repei launch on Angara is not happening in 2019. I'm removing it. Perhaps it slipped to 2020 but we don't have a reference that is not speculation. Link to the page before the removal — Sbsail ^talk 03:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The mistake in the 2019 Proton launches manifest news article is resolved. It was neither Intelsat nor Eutelsat. It is Anik G2V: https://ria.ru/20181222/1548471431.html — Sbsail ^talk 03:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Elektro-L №3 is not in the article above. There is no news about it but there is no reason to think it's been cancelled so I'm moving it to 2020. — Sbsail ^talk 04:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Anik 2GV is no longer scheduled to be launched in 2019.

GLONASS launches

According to the announced 2019 Russian space program only three GLONASS launches are planned. I have found and placed references in the article for all three (K1 N3, K2 N1, K2 N2) so I'm removing the other speculative entries and ask to please provide well sourced references if replacing info or adding new launches.

According to the interview with the head of ISS Reshetnev all nine K1 satellites will be launched on as needed basis not on schedule. M satellites will also be launched as needed. He said first two K2 will be launched as soon as they are manufactured because the designers need to test a lot of new subsystems before they are mass produced. K2s are expected to replace all M and K1 satellites in the constellation. Only 9 K1 satellites are scheduled to be produced. — Sbsail ^talk 00:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I have updated List of GLONASS satellites#Planned launches accodingly. Same for Soyuz-2 planned launches. — JFG ^talk 05:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@JFG:Thanks for the list update. I was going to update it but you beat me to it. I'm a little bit confused by the numbering in this article and the list of sats article. Is it supposed to be manufacturer assigned numbers or just sequential flight numbers? Who assigns serial numbers in the list of GLONASS sats?

According to a trade magazine publication where COSPAS SARSAT hardware designers published various info first two K1s are №11Л, №12Л while first two K2s are №13Л, №14Л ("Л" (en:L) most likely stands for "Летные испытания" literally "Flight test" or "In orbit test"). K2 numbers are also confirmed by this recent RFQ placed by ISS Reshtenev (It's titled "Reserving a new zone for the nose cone fall necessary for conducting launch of Soyuz 2.1b with Fregat upper stage with spacecraft GLONASS-K2 №13L, 14L"). They are offering about $40,000 USD starting price for that unless a bidder bids lower). I was not able to find the number for the third K1 but I'm guessing its №15. — Sbsail ^talk 07:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind. I figured it out. The so called "Serial #" is actually called "Ground Control System #". At the same time spacecrafts have manufacturer numbers assigned as soon as design starts. I think first two K2s №13L, №14L will get Ground Control System numbers 703 and 704 (following K1s №11L, №12L 701 and 702). — Sbsail ^talk 19:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

That is certainly the case. One thing I never understood is why they start all serial numbers with 700. When they switched from GLONASS first/second generation to GLONASS-M, they re-used 711 etc, which can be sometimes confusing. Apparently the same thing is happening with GLONASS-K/K2. The Swiss database tracking the status of all GNSS satellites has chosen to prefix the -K series with 800 instead of 700.[2] Good to know. If you could look at the note I left about sourcing in the GLONASS list, we need to understand what is the source of the listed retirement dates, because they don't match the slot history documented in that source. — JFG ^talk 20:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Both K1 and K2 2019 launches slipped, not rearranged. There is actually no date for the M launch in the Russian news. Although Q1 is a good guess. The M launch was probably inserted due to K1 and K2 slippage. The most recent article published just days ago still says that M launches will be performed as needed without any tentative launch dates provided: https://ria.ru/20181217/1548089966.html — Sbsail ^talk 03:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: FYI http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/russia-man.txt GLONASS dates are from early 2018 schedule. The dates were recently unofficially released to RIA Novosti and anik user at NASA Space Flight forum who published the info at https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30175.msg1944119#msg1944119 but the schedule was created in early 2018. Other updates published in 2018-2019 overwrite that schedule. October 2018 plan to launch only three GLONASS satellites in 2019 is more recent than the recently released 2018 schedule. In fact Russia may launch only one GLONASS satellite in 2019 as the chief GLONASS designer said a month ago: "They [K1 and K2] are in the [2019] manifest. I wish could see them [in space] earlier. But launching them to replace currently working satellites is not efficient." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbsail (talk • contribs) 20:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes I remember the RIA Novosti articles from 2018. I just assumed that recent changes at Pietrobon's page stemmed from more recent information. Are you sure those are going back to early 2018 plans? — JFG ^talk 21:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The forum thread also mentions this May 2019 RIA article,[3] which does list an accelerated schedule for 2019 and 2020. — JFG ^talk 21:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@JFG:Yeah, that May 2019 RIA article is misleading. They released old information as if it's fresh. Roscosmos issues public tenders for various jobs well ahead of time. For example it has just opened a tender for performing various launch related activities by 25 Nov 2020 for the last three remaining GLONASS-M satellites. The tender will take several months to close and award money to the winner. It's pretty clear the last three GLONASS-M will be launched in 2020. Potentially one of them can be launched in late 2019 if the next GLONASS-K1 and K2 are both not ready. The acceleration makes no sense as the chief designer basically admitted a month ago that they are not launching the first K2 as soon as possible because they want to save money. — Sbsail ^talk 04:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I understand and I agree. I should probably undo all my recent updates to List of GLONASS satellites. Bummer. — JFG ^talk 08:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Ingosstrakh published a detailed Russian Q4 2019 launch manifest (slide #9).. Only one GLONASS-M launch is in the manifest so I'm moving the rest to 2020. In addition a 2020 launch manifest was also published but later deleted. Three slides have been archived here. As far as GLONASS launches are concerned it's not reliable. 6 GLONASS launches listed in 2020 while the chief GLONASS designer said just a few months ago that they won't launch to replace satellites that still work OK. — Sbsail ^talk 19:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Please delete Spaceflight Industries

The Falcon 9 launch with PSN-6 and the Sparrow lunar lander was organized (ride-share) by Spaceflight Industries, but it is not a spacecraft or payload by itself. Thanks, Rowan Forest (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

There are other payloads that Spaceflight has said it is manifesting on that flight, but they have not been announced/finalized yet. For now, Spaceflight is the proxy in our list for the other spacecraft that they will be organizing onto the flight. The phrasing could be improved though. Astrofreak92 (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Iranian launches

It doesn't look like Iran will share a ride on a Russian rocket to launch its satellite(s). Apparently it plans to launch Dousti satellite on a domestic rocket. Two more satellites are planned to be launched on Simorgh (see Q1 entry in 2019 article). That accounts for three satellites ready to be launched as of October 2018. I'm removing speculative Dousti payload from Kanopus launch. In case it needs to be restored here is the link to it. Once Kanopus launch is performed all payloads will be published here — Sbsail ^talk 17:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Chinese launches

As far as I see Steven Pietrobon (who is the reference for most Chinese launches) copies all or virtually all Chinese launches from spaceflightfans.cn (SFF) with some compilation of data from Gunter Krebs. Just a few days ago they both copied SFF mistake of putting SaudiSats in the recent Long March 2D launch. So I consider SFF to be the primary source (they seem to compile data from public announcements in Chinese media). — Sbsail ^talk 08:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Perhaps we should switch our generic <ref name=china /> citation to the SFF source then? You mean this list, right? — JFG ^talk 15:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: Yes, that's the link I was talking about. By the way Pietrobon is listing incorrect info on Russian GLONASS 2019 launches (see the talk section above). His site should be used with caution for launches that have the original news not in English. It's always good idea to double check his info. — Sbsail ^talk 03:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I looked through the history of Kuaizhou 1A (aka Fast Boat 1A) entries at SFF, they never listed Kuaizhou 1A payloads throughout 2018 while Gunter Krebs added Jilin payloads back in 2017 just by guessing I believe. Now SFF lists one Kuaizhou 1A launch in April and four in 2019. We usually don't list launches without payloads if they are based on a vague announcement like "Rocket X will be launched N times in YYYY year" so I'm removing speculative Jilin-9..12 entries. — Sbsail ^talk 08:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

TCStar 1 aka Thaicom 9 is on hold per the reference. Abandoned according to this article or another — Sbsail ^talk 14:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Commercial crew delays

Expect more delays but no new launch dates announced. Uncrewed flights likely first half of the year, crewed flights likely towards the end of the year. Something to watch. --mfb (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

ALINA moon lander

According to the section, the ALINA lander will be launched by the Falcon 9 rocket. How is the Falcon 9 able to deliver something out of Earth's orbit? Falcon 9 is an orbital rocket. --212.186.15.191 (talk) 09:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

When you exceed escape velocity, your payload is freed from Earth's gravity and it transitions to a parabolic or hyperbolic orbit. However, that is not even necessary to send a payload to the Moon: a simple lunar transfer orbit is sufficient: it looks like a very elongated ellipse, which can offer a free return to Earth if lunar orbital insertion is missed. — JFG ^talk 11:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

If the payload is light enough Falcon 9 can deliver it to an Earth escape trajectory. See DSCOVR for example. "Orbital rocket" is used to distinguish rockets from "suborbital rockets", i.e. rockets that can't reach at least low Earth orbit. Many orbital rockets can reach orbits beyond low Earth orbit. --mfb (talk) 13:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

DSCOVR used a Langrangian point to get into a solar orbit, but the Falcon 9 isn't going to and it can't reach escape velocity or a lunar transfer orbital velocity, can it? If yes, why would a Falcon Heavy and a BFR be necessary for flights to the Moon? Crewed lunar flights could be carried out with the Falcon 9 then.
--212.186.15.191 (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

A Falcon 9 can definitely perform lunar transfer; the only question is how much mass can it send there? Pick a simulator and try computing it. Falcon Heavy can carry much more, because the combined power of the three core stages can lift a bigger payload to the same speed, or the same payload to a faster speed. In both cases the second stage, which is the same on both rocket configurations, has a lot less effort to do. — JFG ^talk 20:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Trans-lunar injection is easier than reaching a Lagrange point. FH and BFR are needed to have larger payloads. F9 can launch something light to the Moon but not a Dragon capsule for example. F9 can't do a circularization burn or land on the Moon, that is the task of its payload. --mfb (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I've learned something. Thank you for the helpful answers. --212.186.15.191 (talk) 10:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

First Time Launches

Would be nice to have a reference in the introductory section regarding first time orbital launches, especially for smallsat launcher hopefuls. From a quick glance I saw LauncherOne, FireFly Alpha and Vector-R.208.66.241.14 (talk) 04:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, plus a bunch of Chinese privately-developed rockets. Will see what I can do. — JFG ^talk 09:06, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Comparison of orbital launch systems is well-sourced. Needs a check if they are still up to date, but that is a good start. --mfb (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I picked up all 2019 announcements from there. — JFG ^talk 07:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Soyuz launches

According to this article 19 launches are planned from Baikonur in 2019 and seven of them are Proton launches. That leaves us with 12 Soyuz launches. All of them are accounted for: one EgyptSat-A, three Progress MS-11,12,13, four Soyuz MS-12,13,14,15 and four OneWeb launches. The rest of Baikonur Soyuz launches should be either carried over or removed. — Sbsail ^talk 06:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm removing Smotr-R and Smotr-IK because (a) they were announced in 2015 to be launched in 2018. When nothing happened in 2018 they were carried over to 2019 article without any news I can find (b) Gazprom Space Systems has just published a year end summary. No mention of Smotr. They one reported that design of satellite construction facilities has been finished and is now going through federal certification. No satellite design or prototype reported. No dates. They said that 90% of their revenue comes from communication services and the business is doing good (up 6% YoY) so it's possible they will just construct communication satellites. Who knows. (c) On their website Smotr is described in just five lines that didn't change for years. — Sbsail ^talk 06:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Article Image Update

Should we move to either add or change the image in the Infobox to be the flyby image of Ultima Thule from New Horizons? That seems like the current most significant image from the year UnknownM1 (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Similar to the 2018 page? Sounds good. We can change it to a better resolution in the future. --mfb (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

EROS C on Start-1

I updated Start-1 article. Read the last paragraph of History section. Basically Start-1 was not marketed since 2008 (per the head of MITT, Start-1 manufacturer) and till at least late 2018. Maybe now they are starting to market future 2022 launches. So EROS C cannot use Start-1. We usually don't list satellites that don't have a launcher assigned to them so I'm removing EROS C. — Sbsail ^talk 01:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

National Firsts

We should add Israel to the list of national first, for first moon impact. It may have been a failure, but Israel is still one of only a handful of countries to have an object reach and impact the moon. Walkyo (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The infobox doesn't have a suitable entry for that. We could add lunar landings, or add a generic text field for firsts (to be named in the infobox). --mfb (talk) 05:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, but needs to be thought through. Which of the myriad "first" achievements should we highlight? First probe? First contact, even if it's a crash? First successful landing? On which celestial bodies? Should these achievements be linked to a country? Private companies do not represent countries. Even when considering only national exploration programs, many of them are collaborations between various countries. Currently we highlight first spaceflights, first satellites and first astronauts. Shall we add first Moon landing, first Mars probe, first Venus flyby, first space telescope, first EVA, first sample return, first space tourist, first weather satellite, first spy satellite, first space collision? The more I think about it, the less attractive this idea sounds. — JFG ^talk 09:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

First unmanned Moon landings are going to become more frequent starting this year and the in the following years. India’s effort launches this month. I think a new parameter could be cool, but only successful landings should count. I wouldn’t think we should expand much beyond that, except for perhaps first landings on other planets. Certainly the idea of highlighting first spy satellite/sample return/tourist is too expansive. Grey Wanderer (talk) 05:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Souyz flight 5 July 2019

The inventory of secondary payloads (cubesats) presented in the wikipedia article "2019 in spaceflight" differs quite significantly from the one manifested in RussianSpaceWeb: http://russianspaceweb.com/meteor-m2-2.html. I would think the RussianSpaceWeb one is actually more reliable. Does anyone want to do something about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.79.42 (talk) 14:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Two payloads were pulled, one (GOS) got a new name. That's the downside of prefilling the information. It's not that the info is from unreliable sources, it's just outdated. RussianSpaceWeb most likely got the info from https://www.roscosmos.ru/26335/ after the launch. Feel free to help copy/correct. It's a wiki. — Sbsail ^talk 03:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

2019 Collage Ideas

Hey I was just curious if anyone had any suggestions for the collage for this year from what we have so far? I was also curious if there was a consensus to rotate the current picture a bit more. Thanks! UnknownM1 (talk) 03:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Crew Dragon (uncrewed test flight)? Chandrayaan-2 if it manages to land softly, Chang'e 5 if it returns samples? --mfb (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hayabusa2, has done the bulk of its science in 2019 (and hopefully it’s second sample collection this week). It should depart the asteroid Ryugu later this year. The spacecraft arrived in 2018 but is not in that years collage. Grey Wanderer (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)