Talk:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches

Proposal: Eliminate the recycled booster symbol

I really think the "recycled booster" symbol is just clutter. While it may have made sense in the early days, nowadays it's just clutter, redundant with the booster launch number suffix. I propose to simply delete it (and the associated captions) from all tables. Although the improvement seems obvious to me, this is a large-scale edit on multiple pages, so it seems worth discussing here first.

If someone can propose a way to visually distinguish new boosters, perhaps a symbol or a background tint, that might be interesting. I haven't found a good Unicode symbol for the purpose (possibilities are the baby emoji 👶, the "sun" symbols ☀ or ☼, or "sparkles" ✨, but nothing's particularly clear), but there are a lot so maybe I'm missing one. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney: Thanks for the feedback. I reverted two analogous edits to List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches (2020–2022) and List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches (2010–2019) myself pending discussion. Yeah, I'm not very happy with that symbol, either. It's U+2728, in Dingbats (Unicode block) and not an emoji block, so I had hoped it was more common. I also figured out that it makes sense to switch over in 2018. In 2017, there are only a few reflown boosters. In 2018, they overtake new-built (13 to 10, counting Falcon Heavy as 3), and it becomes overwhelming after that. Anyway, can you suggest anything? I've been thinking about the sun ☀ U+2600 and four-pointed star ✦ U+2726. (Both also come in outline versions, but I prefer the solid.) It was mostly the name "sparkles" that associated strongly with "shiny and new" in my mind. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney: I just experimented with U+267A RECYCLING SYMBOL FOR GENERIC MATERIALS ♺ and U+20E0 COMBINING ENCLOSING CIRCLE BACKSLASH ◌⃠   but the former seems too wide to combine well with the latter: ♺⃠   There's also U+1F3D7 BUILDING CONSTRUCTION 🏗, but it's hard to recognize at body text sizes and I'd rather stay in the BMP. Is there a code point for the WEEE "no trash" symbol? The symbol isn't useful itself, but that might be a fruitful code block to look through. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

If accessibility is our concern, we would choose one of the symbols in the table below, as they are the only ones consistently parsed by screen readers. We could also go with a background tint like the mint green color   used on the List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters article, or we could just let the .2, .3, .4, etc. tell the story.

Details, see: Template:Asterism/Symbols

Accessible symbols for tables

Unicode symbol	Pronounced as	HTML entity	Template name	Template usage
*	"star" or "asterisk"	*	{{asterisk}}	transclusion
†	"dagger" or "single dagger"	†	{{dagger}}	substitution
‡	"double dagger"	‡	{{double-dagger}}	substitution
#	"number" or "hash tag"	#	{{number sign}}	transclusion
°	"degree" or "degrees"	°	{{degree}}	substitution
→	"right arrow" or "rightwards arrow"	→	{{arrow}}	substitution
↓	"down arrow" or "downwards arrow"	↓	{{down-arrow}}	substitution
←	"left arrow" or "leftwards arrow"	←	{{left-arrow}}	substitution
↑	"up arrow" or "upwards arrow"	↑	{{up-arrow}}	substitution
′	"prime"	′	{{prime}}	transclusion

-- RickyCourtney (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney: All those symbols seem too ambiguous; the dagger is best, but it's also used in genealogy to mark "death", which doesn't match the desired "birth". So I just now reinstated the edits (Special:Diff/1241236692, Special:Diff/1241238150, Special:Diff/1241239466) with a green background rather than the ugly emoji. How does that look? 97.102.205.224 (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I am okay with it, however it’s the inverse of the treatment on the List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters article, so maybe make that your next edit to keep testing the waters. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I like the recycled symbol for reused boosters. It appears that only one or two of the many who frequently make edits on the pages with that symbol have a problem with it - which in my opinion is not a good reason to make changes.

I am interested to see what will happen once non-SpaceX launch vehicles start reusing their first stage, and how those editors might choose to highlight those boosters that are flying for the second or more time. AmigaClone (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@AmigaClone I'm also in favor of having some markings for differentiation (color makes it easier to see), however we've gotten to the point that reused boosters are the norm so I think we should invert what gets labeled. First booster launches should get some kind of color (maybe indicating the fact that its new/safety unknown) while the norm is no label at all. For older missions when there was few or no reuses, we can have two different colors with one for reuses and that same color for first flights. Ergzay (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I fully agree the differentiation should be done on the new boosters, as they are now the exception rather than the rule. I wouldn't care if it were left up to the .1 .2 3. etc., but the mint works quite well. However, I think that scheme should be consistent across all three articles, even if it makes the 2010-2019 one look a bit silly. Narnianknight (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

launch statistics in log-scale

is it possible? or make some problems? last 2 failures are invisible in the statistics Dwalin (talk) 10:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

They aren't invisible, and making them more visible would be disproportionally representing two anomalies. Redacted II (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Starlink satellite counts in table or not?

I've also started a discussion on this on the boosters page, but I think this should probably be discussed here instead as there's more traffic. I won't revert it on this page here for the moment until we can get some discussion on it. Recently a large change was made by @RickyCourtney (if you've already replied over there just move your reply here) to this page and to the Falcon 9 boosters page changing how Starlink missions are handled. Instead of listing satellite version (on the boosters page) and satellite count, now they simply list the mission name with a link to the Starlink missions table. I think it's useful to have the number of satellites as part of the mission table entry as we've done that for other launches like OneWeb launches. Ergzay (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ergzay: It felt redundant to have it in the payload box (which is small) when its now also in the (much larger) prose box, where it can be presented in a more complete context. For example:

Launch of 21 Starlink v2 mini satellites, including 13 with direct-to-cell connectivity, to a 535 km (332 mi) orbit at an inclination of 53° to expand internet constellation.

The other (major) benefit to my change is that readers can also pull up additional details on the launch by clicking on the (Group #-#) link in the payload box which will take them to an anchored spot on the List of Starlink and Starshield launches page.

So the information is still there, it's just presented differently.

-- RickyCourtney (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I think having the anchor links to the Starlink satellite list page is a good idea and I'm definitely for keeping those. I just think it's better to be able to easily visually see the satellite counts of the launches, just as we have for other constellation-type launches. Ergzay (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

On a related note, on the List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters page, which is already very large and space is at a premium, I really do think the satellite counts of the launches is unnecessary and adds bulk to a page that is focused on the boosters, and not on the launches. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Pinging some frequent page editors for their thoughts @C-randles @RIP B1058 @Lazaro Fernandes @AmigaClone @Mfb Ergzay (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I prefer to count starlink satellites in the table example 21 22 satellites Lazaro Fernandes (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed ‍—🪦NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 01:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Same. We always list the number of satellites in that spot (if >1), don't see why Starlink shouldn't follow the pattern. --mfb (talk) 07:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed for the same reason. AmigaClone (talk) 08:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney see SDA missions there different layers of different satellites are separately mentioned ‍—🪦NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 14:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

For eg. "Transport and Tracking Layer (Tranche 0B) (11 Transport and 2 Tracking Layer satellites)" ‍—🪦NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 14:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

To me, that feels like a lot information to be attempting to place in the payload box. That could be presented as “SDA Tranche 0B (13 satellites)” in the payload box and use the prose area to expand on the different purposes of the satellites. RickyCourtney (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I can add the count back into the payload boxes. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you and sorry for the trouble. Ergzay (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney put the West coast launches from vandenderg and East coast from Florida, v2 mini starlink satellites as it was before so the table is not repeated, the table says 21 starlinks and below in the description it also says 21 starlinks. I don't know who removed the east coast v2 mini starlink satellite and an west coast v2 mini satellites on description. Lazaro Fernandes (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Lazaro Fernandes I'm not sure what you're asking here. RickyCourtney (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

in the main table of that launch it has Starlink (21 satellites) and below it it also has type: Launch of ~21 Starlink v2 mini satellites, including 13 with direct-to-cell connectivity, to a 535 km (332 mi) orbit at an inclination of 53° to expand internet constellation. so as not to repeat saying that it is 21 satellites I prefer that you put as it was before east coast v2 mini starlink satellites or west coast v2 mini starlink satellites in case of launch in vandenderg. Lazaro Fernandes (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

An East Coast v2 mini Starlink launch to their Generation 2 network. Launch in Flórida and A West Coast v2 mini Starlink launch to their Generation 2 network. Including 13 satellites with direct-to-cell connectivity. Lazaro Fernandes (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

launch in vandenderg Lazaro Fernandes (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney Lazaro Fernandes (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

before it was like this Lazaro Fernandes (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The problem with that is there's no real difference in the west coast and east coast Starlink satellites. There's no, or at least very few, other launches where in the prose box where we call out that it was a west coast/east coast launch. We let the Cape Canaveral, Kennedy or Vandenberg launch site listing tell that story.

The "Generation 2" was also misleading because it has more to do with licensing than the sat type. In other words, the Generation 2 network has both v1.5 and v2 mini satellites. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney There's a difference in satellite counts between west coast and east coast because of the different DeltaV requirements. That's why removing it from the description is no good. It's not called out for other launches because those launches either have sufficint margin for the location they're launching from for that to not matter, or the launch location was specifically chosen for that payload's destination orbit. Starlink is unique in that it launches from both sides of the country with but varying satellite count. Please restore those west coast/east coast references into the description. Ergzay (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney Please restore the east vs west coast launches in the descriptions. Ergzay (talk) 06:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ergzay Sorry I didn’t see this earlier, but I still don’t see a great case with references establishing notability of East Coast vs. West Coast. Also, I’d also say that it would help to start by establishing that in prose… somewhere. Perhaps on this page, the Starlink page or the Starlink launches page. I went looking for some sort of explanation for its inclusion before removing. The closest I see is in the discussion of the record supposedly broken during Flight 234, the launch of Group 5-7.

The prior descriptions were grammatically problematic, particularly around the East Coast/West Coast descriptions and didn’t actually explaining what the point of the launch was (to expand an internet constellation).

Also, if we talk about the launch site as a variable for the number of satellites launched… that’s just one factor. Especially in the early days, the number of satellites launched varied widely. RickyCourtney (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about there. The number of satellites per launch was very consistent. The number only changed when they figured out additional performance of the rocket. It was extremely consistent across west coast vs east coast and the destination launch inclination. That's why it's just as notable as the inclination. Other wise the satellite count just appears to vary wildly without reason. Ergzay (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

My mistake, I was just looking at the Starlink satellite numbers, I forgot that these early launches were doing rideshares, so that changed the payloads a lot.

If you look across Group 4, when shooting to 53°, SpaceX was regularly launching 52 or 53 satellites from the Cape and Vandenberg. No major differences. The same has been true with the heavier sats in Group 8.

The only major difference in satellite counts I see are in just four launches: 5-7, 5-13, 6-15 and 6-20 when Starlinks were being sent 43° from Vandenberg. That's not a typical inclination for Vandenberg launches (per the Falcon 9 user guide). For those four launches, we could include a description similar to what's included on 5-7:

Launch of ## Starlink v1.5 OR v2 mini satellites to a 530 km (330 mi) orbit at an inclination of 43° to expand internet constellation. This launch was to a lower than normal orbital inclination for a West Coast launch, as launches to 43° are normally conducted from the East Coast. Due to the unique orbital insertion, this launch carried fewer Starlink satellites than a typical launch, reducing weight.

-- RickyCourtney (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Notable Launches

Should Notable Launches from before 2023 be included in this article? Redacted II (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

For a while the policy was to have the notable launches just on this page. Personally I think the notable launches section should just be trimmed down. Some launches were only notable at the time they launched and aren't really notable now. Ergzay (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Alright, in that case:

Falcon 9 Flight 1. Maybe notable? Not all that important.

Falcon 9 Flight 2. Notable elements concern dragon. Not really notable, IMO

Falcon 9 Flight 3. Somewhat notable: first Falcon flight to ISS

CSR-1. Slightly notable: engine failure. Only merlin failure during main ascent (I don't count 9-3's failure moment as being part of main ascent, as it was a second burn).

First Falcon 9 V1.10 flight. Semi-notable, was first soft landing attempt.

CRS-7. Very notable, given that it blew up.

Falcon 9 Flight 20. Possibly most notable uncrewed launch in history.

Amos-6. See CRS-7.

Zuma. Not notable: issues were due to the satellite.

Falcon Heavy test flight. Notable.

Demo-1. Not notable.

Demo-2. Notable: first crewed Falcon 9 launch.

9-3. See CRS-7 Redacted II (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Both Falcon 9 Flight 2 and Zuma could be considered notable due to payload separation (occurring for the first time in the former and not occurring in the second case.) AmigaClone (talk) 08:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe? But it feels like a stretch in both cases. Redacted II (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Redacted II IMO you should focus on whether the _mission_ was notable or whether anything dramatic/unusual happened during the launch. The first ever launch of a rocket will always be notable. I can't personally remember anything about Flight 2 or Flight 3 without looking at them. CRS-1 is notable for first flight of cargo to the international space station. Zuma was notable due to the conspiracy theories and surrounding media chaos about it. Ergzay (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Flight 3 was actually the first time a Dragon was berthed to the ISS. CRS-1 was the first operational CRS mission and was the only time a (secondary) payload was lost due to issues with the first stage.

Crew Demo-1 - the launch itself was not notable, but a mission highlight was: the first time an uncrewed spacecraft docked (as opposed to being berthed) to the US segment of the ISS. AmigaClone (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

is Crew-9 Notable? Redacted II (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, the Crew-9 launch could be considered nominal, but the mission was notable due to the second stage reentering outside the predicted zone. AmigaClone (talk) 10:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Redundant 100th launch logs

Flight 383/384/385 all currently claim something to do with the 100th Falcon launch this year, and the distinctions are subtle. I get that 385 is specific to F9 counts and excludes FH counts, but maybe that can be made more clear to a layperson. I think though that parsing the difference between 383/384 takes some more digging and should be corrected in the entries. Perhaps add a blurb to 383 "This was the 100th Falcon launch attempt this year including the failed Starlink Group 9-3 mission or similar. 134.216.166.55 (talk) 03:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)