Talk:2024 in spaceflight

Spaceflight: Timeline of spaceflight Mid‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the timeline of spaceflight working group.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Iranian Space Suborbital

How does it say Iran has 120 suborbital launches? Are we counting ICBMs now or something?(I have since edited this) Puffy310 (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page and related pages do count ICBMs, they are suborbital launches just with military instead of scientific or commercial payloads.Astrofreak92 (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted this, for the following reasons:

- Iran didn't launch any ICBMs at Israel. It launched short/intermediate range ballistic missiles. Missiles fired during conflicts are inconsistently / idiosyncratically tracked on this series of space history pages, at best.

- If one were tracking such launches, then Russia has fired hundreds of ballistic missiles into Ukraine this year. Why are those not counted?

- Recent IRBM tests from other nations (eg. both the US and North Korea) are undercounted / not counted (often they're not newsworthy).

- Singling out a single actor for thorough counting is clearly an example of propagandistic bias.

195.224.203.26 (talk) 11:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian MRBMs would be counted because they all (as far as public information provides, at least) exceeded 80 km in altitude.

There have been no American MRBM or IRBM tests in a very long time. Tests and combat firings of the ATACMS system won't exceed 60 km.

American ICBM and SLBM tests are noted when they are announced. Same with North Korean tests. Same with Russian ICBM and SLBM tests. Same with British and French and Indian tests. If anything, Chinese and Iranian tests will be under-reported because good luck finding public information about those.

Russian ballistic missiles used against Ukraine (or Ukrainian launches against Russia) are Iskander and older Tochka types that tend to apogee lower than 80 km. If Russia acquires and starts using Iranian MRBMs, they should be noted.

Strikes launched by the Houthis from Yemen have been included in past years.

The Iranian strikes against Israel are going on the list. It's not propaganda to note that used suborbital rockets as weapons.

Torlek (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that this is the only entry (At least, the only one I'm aware of) on any of the space pages that lacks strict accounting both in number and type. The source line item in the list of suborbital launches groups 120 launches of at least four different missiles into one line item. One of the sources used even indicates only 110 instead of 120 launches. Including them in a pie chart where every other item is accounted for directly is incongruous. Ego protegam (talk) 23:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starship missions suborbital

Shouldn't the Starship IFTs be counted as suborbital flights? While the system is intended to be capable of fully orbital flights, those missions are planned to put the vehicles on still marginally suborbital trajectories. Zuruumi (talk) 00:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the time the launch sequence is complete for initial IFT flights, their orbit have an intended perigee (closest approach to the center of the Earth) tens of kilometers above Earth's surface. Admittedly it's an orbit with enough drag to cause the vehicle to land before completing one orbit.

Suborbital missions on the other hand are those that would reach the surface of the Earth after the launch sequence is complete even if there was no atmosphere to cause drag. AmigaClone (talk) 08:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should ISRO launch vehicles be combined to the same family in the orbital launch statistics section?

I was looking at the source for 2025 in spaceflight and it looks like the plan is for the ISRO vehicles to be combined in to a family called "ILV" (ISRO/Indian Launch Vehicles?). I was considering doing the same thing for this years statistics as well to help consolidate the graphs a bit more. Even though they don't necessarily share much architecture, they are operated by the same agency and share commonality in their name GSLV, SSLV, PSLV, LVM3 etc. This has previously been enough to group different types of vehicles into a single family, e.g. seen in the case of the combined Long March group.

Any thoughts or objections to me doing this? Lomicto (talk) 10:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was the way we used to do it. Specifically, they used to be grouped under SLV, hearkening back to the original Indian Satellite Launch Vehicle. At the end of last year, a particularly insistent Indian editor started breaking them up and grouping them in weird ways. I, at least, got tired of fighting them and having each major iteration in its own column seemed to mollify them. Torlek (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Overview" getting out of control?

2024 has certainly being a banner year for spaceflight, but the "overview" section seems to have grown beyond what one would expect from an introductory synopsis. Unscientifically, it's coming in at 4.5 page-scrolls, with 2022 and 2023 being less than half of that. Is it perhaps time to start trimming it down to only the more significant development? 149.22.140.132 (talk) 12:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. I definitely think some of the topics under the Lunar Exploration section are longer than they need to be. Especially SLIM and China Lunar Exploration Program parts. Lomicto (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon Heavy as part of Falcon 9

In the By type section, the Falcon Heavy statistics are included with Falcon 9. What is the rationale for that? Falcon Heavy is not a Falcon 9 configuration; it's a separate rocket. It seems to me they should be listed separately. Narnianknight (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the rationale behind it is that it essentially is the same rocket strapped together in a "configuration" of 3 instead of one. Thus, it makes more sense to differentiate between them in the configuration section. The same thing was done for Delta IV and Delta IV Heavy. It's the same type - just in a different configuration.

It does make it a bit more confusing when Falcon Heavy isn't called Falcon 9 Heavy though. Lomicto (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I figured, but the Delta precedent doesn't really make sense in this context, because both the Heavy and the Medium are Delta IVs, but Falcon Heavy is not a Falcon 9 (9 refers to engine count). The difference is mostly in the naming rather than a fundamental difference. It seems a stretch to call them the same rocket. Narnianknight (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect when you claim Falcon Heavy is not a Falcon 9 configuration. Falcon Heavy is basically a Falcon 9 with a second Falcon 9 booster, a modified Falcon 9 core booster, two nose cones, and the attachment hardware.

Both side boosters (B1023 and B1025) on the Falcon Heavy maiden flight had previously flown as Falcon 9 first stages. Also, one of the two side boosters on the sixth Falcon Heavy (B1052) mission flew five times as a Falcon 9 booster between the third Falcon Heavy mission and the sixth Falcon Heavy launch. AmigaClone (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]