Talk:List of Astra rocket launches

Thoughts on adding a "partial failure" or "test objectives achieved" option?

Rocket 3.2 failed to reach orbit and is therefore a failure by the general standards here on Wikipedia. But I wonder if we're properly representing that this was a test flight -- Astra claim that their goal today was to reach nominal MECO. See paragraph five of this article. Other Wikipedia articles for spacecraft test flight campaigns (e.g. List of Starship flights) and even established rockets (e.g. Ariane 5) include "partial failure designations" or "most test flight objectives achieved". Thoughts? (Paging User:AndrewRG10 and User:CRS-20). Thanks all! -Dndlp (talk • contribs)

Original message on 16 December 2020 at 01:07. Resolved later on 16 December 2020. Dndlp (talk • contribs) 06:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly think it should be classified ss a failure due to consistency. Far too often recently we've seen people trying to bring the level of success down for s rocket just because it exceeded expectations. It is better to be consistent and keep it as a failure but if an overwhelming majority come out of this discussion saying it should be a partial failure than I'll go with what people want. -AndrewRG10 (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To add onto why I believed Starship should have a different auccess scheme is because the current state if Starship program is development with incremental advances with a test fail re-test policy which hasn't been seen in rocketry since WW2. Orbital launch attempts are a different category and have always measured failure based on whether they reached orbit. I don't think too many people will be happy with having to go through all orbital attempts since the 50's and re-labelling them as partial failures just because they exceeded expectation(on top of the issue if having to find sources saying it exceeded expectation) -AndrewRG10 (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AndrewRG10, thanks so much for your message. I completely understand, and to be clear, I'm not particularly wedded to one labeling method or another. When I first labeled the launch as a success, it was only because of the early reports that they had reached stable orbit, which were obviously wrong. Consistency is very important, but I just want to make sure we're properly reflecting that this was a test flight. Though I have experience with editing space-related articles here, I haven't run into a similar situation (hence these messages). It seems that User:CRS-20 is in favor of the partial failure designation, but if we feel like it would be better changed, then I'm totally open to it. I'm not sure how much more input we'll get, seeing that this is a small page, but I welcome any further thoughts you or anyone else has. Thanks so much again for your thoughts and have a happy holiday season! Dndlp (talk • contribs) 03:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas to you too Dndlp I see your point about it being a test flight but the thing is all early flights of rockets are test flights. OFT is called a failure even though the name Orbital Flight Test literally states it is a test fligt. Falcon 1 flight 2 is called a failure even though it failed at a similar time to the astra launch, in that last minute before orbit. I strongly think consistency needs to be maintained and that being if the objective was to reach orbit and it doesn't do that, it is a failure. If the objective was to reach GEO but it gets to LEO and not much further than that, it's a partial failure. Although I am more than happy to hear your point of view if that should be changed. -AndrewRG10 (talk) 08:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orbital aimed flights have much stricter definitions of success vs failure because of the existence of "litho-breaking" or "aero-breaking" - once you can't reach the orbital velocity with a rocket, the thing on it is almost always going to be toast unless it's designed to return to Earth/other bodies. Hence all such launches can only be classified as a failure, even if the thing on top is a dummy or a block of metal. Sub-orbital launches have much more varied criteria depending on the launch's objectives. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 10:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all! Sorry for the delay -- took a holiday break. I think the best option would be to say that it was a failure for consistency, especially because the number of flights will likely increase steadily and we want to have a clear standard. Like I said, I have less experience with this situation, so I really appreciate everyone's insight! I'll make the changes now and if anyone feels strongly then they can change it as needed. Thanks again everyone! Best, Dndlp (talk • contribs) 21:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I just updated the page. If you have any comments or concerns, let's discuss them! I want to make sure that we're all in agreement about this page because as the company grows, this will be an important resource. Thanks again everyone! Dndlp (talk • contribs) 21:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glad we could come to a consensus about the latest launch. I support the first two launches designation but I'll be willing to have discussion about wording or the designation if someone brings it up. But that can wait until next year. -AndrewRG10 (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely favorable wording

"the vehicle suffered an anomaly and returned to the ground" and "the vehicle aborted, resulting in a return to the launch site"? Why the euphemisms? Did Challenger "descend to the ocean"? No. It "broke apart" and "disintegrated". Did the Delta II GPS IIR-1 mission "return to the launch site"? No. The "flight termination system was activated ... causing it to explode." Can we be a little clearer about how Rockets 1 & 2 ended? Khakiandmauve (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree, I've edited that as I don't think more discussion is needed as it's borderline misinformation. AndrewRG10 (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TROPICS-1 failure information and incorrect propellant for Aether

I'm writing this because I have no idea what the proper standards are for this sort of thing, and I'm unsure how to fix an error regarding the propellant of Aether.

As of today, Astra released a report on their findings of the TROPICS-1 mission (https://astra.com/news/conclusion-tropics-1-mishap-investigation/).

The short version is that the fuel used had a thin margin of error between the temperature it reaches when cooling the combustion chamber, and when it begins to boil. Due to this slim margin, the Florida heat increased the temperature of the fuel just enough so that it boiled. This now gaseous fuel entered the injection plate, partially blocking it and leading to a reduction in the fuel flow of cooling channels surrounding the combustion chamber. As a result of this, part of the wall in the combustion chamber was burnt through, leading to an increased fuel consumption as extra fuel was dumped into the chamber directly. In addition to all this, some thermal barrier coating had eroded - which although noticed, was deemed a non-issue initially.

Now for the part I have no idea how to do. During this same release, it was mentioned that they use a "Kerosene-like" fuel, that has a higher vapor pressure than RP-1. This means that the Aether engine (and possibly the delphene engines too) don't use RP-1 which is what is currently listed in the article.

What I'm unsure of regarding this is *how* exactly to include this information, but I feel including this somewhere is necessary. I'm unsure if the little widget thing would still look good if it read "Kerosene-like fuel/LOX" rather than the much shorter "RP-1/LOX". As it doesn't use RP-1, "RP-1/LOX" is inaccurate. But at the same time, all we have to go off of is "Kerosene-like" which to me suggests it isn't any form of Kerosene, but something else entirely.

Frankly, I have no idea whatsoever what this fuel is. And as the source by Astra only indicates that it's not Kerosene, if someone were to find candidate fuels, I'm not sure if that would be sufficient proof to write it down.

Anyway, I just thought I'd post this for consideration so that the article can be improved. As I'm a newbie I don't feel comfortable adding this information to the article itself, and, as previously mentioned, the issue surrounding the fuel. Historic Rad 39A (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]