Jump to content

Talk:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Regarding success of CRS-1 mission

The primary objective of the mission was to launch the Dragon capsule and deliver cargo to the ISS and return cargo from the ISS. This all occurred sucessfully. The secondary mission objective was to launch the Orbcomm satellite into its targeted orbit. This was not completed successfully, but was a secondary objective. Overall the mission was still a success. Even at that point though the Orbcomm mission itself was still released and completed many of its mission objectives including deploying solar panels and testing much of the communication equipment. That mission itself should be called a partial failure, but not the overall mission. Ergzay (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Right. To clarify, let's look at a few other scenarios, and what we'd have called them:
  • 1) The Dragon is released successfully, and the Orbcom sat was successfully deployed: full mission success.
  • 2) The Dragon is released successfully, but the second stage fails to ignite. The Orbcom sat is released in the wrong orbit (a variation on what actually happened): primary mission success, partial secondary mission failure.
  • 3) The Dragon is released successfully, but the second stage explodes upon ignition, destroying the Orbcom sat: Primiary Mission success, secondary mission failure.
  • 4) Dragon explodes after successful release, Orbcom sat placed in correct orbit: primary mission failure, secondary mission success.
  • 5) First stage explodes before separation, destroying primary and secondary payloads. Full mission failure.
Looking at the colour coding, in #1, the whole launch would be green. In #2, green, with beige for orbcom, due to partial failure. #3, green, with red for full secondary mission failure. In #4, mostly red, with a little bit of green to denote that the secondary mission still succeeded. In #5, fully red.
I think that colour scheme (or a similar variant) is inherently obvious, so I'm sure that people's issue is just with understanding that the secondary payload was a partial (not full) failure, while the primary payload was fully successful. — Gopher65talk 03:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
"Partial failure" means that the payload is still usable in whatever orbit it reached, or it can correct its own orbit. Since the Orbcomm is a total loss, this should be considered closer to case 3 than case 2; it was an outright failure. --W. D. Graham 08:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Considering Orbcomm as a "total loss" is a mixed bag. Orbcomm themselves put in an insurance claim for the spacecraft as a "total loss," but at the same time they stated to the media that they were able to complete most of the mission objectives of this test mission and were able to test most of the technology onboard. I would say the Orbcomm mission sits between a partial failure and a full failure because of this mixed message. Overall though the mission was a success because of Dragon doing everything it intended to do. -- Ergzay (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
When I first heard what happened, I assumed they'd claim total failure for the Orbcom sat. Orbcom has since stated that their primary goals (short-term testing of various pieces of new equipment in space) were met during the few days the sat was in orbit. Obviously they didn't accomplish their longterm goals (testing the new equipment over a few years). I assume that this "mostly successful" line from Orbcom was just a PR stunt to sooth stockholders. That said, unless we can find reputable sources questioning Orbcom's press releases, we have to go with the sources that just regurgitate their press releases. That's where the "partial failure" bit comes from.
The fact that we must rely on sources to question material from other sources is a weakness of Wikipedia's current ruleset. It would work fine if the MSM didn't just re-issue press releases, and copy word for word everything that Reuters and AP print. But because of that weakness in the media, we're stuck with that same weakness. Hopefully someone can come up with a way to resolve this problem. — Gopher65talk 13:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
This article is about the launch, not the satellite, so we could just ignore Orbcomm's claims. --W. D. Graham 09:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


Regarding the coloring then. Should the text at the bottom be in yellow or green? I'm personally in favor of green as it's a description of what occurred in the mission, and the primary mission was a success. Ideally we could have a hashed yellow/green, but I don't think there is a way to do that in the wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ergzay (talk • contribs) 03:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd say yellow, the launch as a whole was not a success. --W. D. Graham 09:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Order of planned launches in the table

Shouldn't forthcoming launches be in chronological order as far as possible? I'm inclined to move some of these around, at present there are 2014 launches in amongst 2015 launches. I don't want to change anything though if there's a valid reason for it being the way it is. Anyone have any thoughts on this before I start making changes? Chris Jefferies (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that table needs some updates, as long as you are working with pretty recent sources in assessing current launch dates. I think there are a couple of problems here, in general.
1) there is no necessary fixed launch order for a particular launch vehicle launch. It is all determined by contract of the launch service provider with their various customers. Some launch contracts provide an very large amount of flexibility in rescheduling the launch dates (for example, the recent CASSIOPE launch may have been moved out even farther, if another contract required a more date sensitive launch or had a significant cost increasing effect on SpaceX if some other particular launch were delayed, as the CASSIOPE satellite builder did not pay very much to SpaceX in order to be launched. And they apparently (by contract) must have agreed to accept a launch for that low price on a SpaceX demonstration mission: first flight of a new launch vehicle). What's more, the details of those specific launch contracts are almost never made public. So if and as things move around, the public sources for launch order tend to be updated only when some launch range or launch site begins to post information that the information intermediaries can get their hands on.
2) Wikipedia works on volunteer resources. So once a table row (and thus launch order) gets input to the article, and has sufficient sourcing to withstand review such that it stays in the article, then nothing gets changed until a willing editor comes along who wants to do the work to move things around. And it just so happens that wikisyntax for tables is sufficiently arcane as to scare off many newbie and intermediate editors.
Not only that but they've got the help page for editing tables pretty well hidden. --Aflafla1 (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
So go for it, and see if you can't make the article better. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I did this a while ago, but the table quickly gets out of order again due to SpaceX's ever shifting launch schedule. Feel free to correct any incorrect ordering you find:). — Gopher65talk 00:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something obvious here before messing with the table. As the latest details in the real world change it's up to us to track them as best we can and keep WP articles as up-to-date as possible. So that's what I'll do :-) Chris Jefferies (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've rearranged the rows according to the dates already in the tables. When I have time I'll do a second pass checking for more recent dates for each mission and moving the items again if necessary. It might be some time before I get this task done, though. Chris Jefferies (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Chris for your efforts in fixing up the table, and table row order. And on a side note, I think it was a great idea for you to remove the ordinal launch order numbering after flight no. 9. Just today, sometime a bit before your edits I believe, I had cleaned up the redir link at Falcon 9 Flight 10, and redirected it to this List article, as precisely what payload may be on flight no. 10 is not at all clear at present.
Please come back and help improve this article, or others, anytime. The encyclopedia is better for the wonderful volunteer work of so many! Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Last I read, Thaicom 6 was scheduled for launch Dec 20, 2013. The poster said this was still the date after the change of SES-8 to November 25. --66.41.154.0 (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm. The source provided in the article says that as of 27 Oct, it had moved from 12 Dec to "TBD". Do you have a source for the 20 Dec planned date? Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, not an authoritative source. Was on some spaceflight forum somewhere by a poster who seemed to have 'level 2' access. --66.41.154.0 (talk) 04:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

BRD on changes to projected launch dates

There was a recent edit to the article that modified a number of projected launch dates for future launches based on new info but left no new source, and in fact specifically left the new launch dates adjacent to old sources, sources that were explicitly "last accessed" sometime in 2013. I reverted, and said "we need to add a new source; it plainly won't do to leave old 2013 sources to support new March 2014 assertions."

Let's discuss this on the Talk page per WP:BRD—so that we might avoid an edit war—since the editor involved reverted back and asked me, via the edit summary: "Why do you revert instead of adding it then? Help out wikipedia by adding the source. http://spaceflightnow.com/tracking/index.html"

The reason for my revert was rather straightforward. User:CapeCanaveral321 made a number of numerical changes to launch dates in the article, and left no new/updated sources for the changes made. Worse yet for the reader of the encyclopedia, old sources—sources that presumably supported the old projected launch dates and had explicitly been "last accessed" (seen via the |accessdate=foobar parameter in the {{cite}} template) at various times in the past—were left adjacent to each of the new launch dates. This makes Wikipedia incorrect as as that old source, last accessed at some point in 2013, is clearly not the correct citation for the new statement being made in the article by CapeCanaveral321 here in March of 2014.

To answer the second part of the question in the edit summary, which was why I didn't add the source, there are two reasons:

  1. I didn't have the source to support the claim being made by by CapeCanaveral321. In this, I assume good faith and am confident that CC321 does have good and useful new information.
  2. Wikipedia leaves the "burden of identifying a reliable source with the editor who adds or restores material."

Hope that explanation is helpful. N2e (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the source properly thanks. CapeCanaveral321 (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. There's still one thing to talk about, that might improve the article for both readers and for future editors who touch these numbers, but I've got a bit too much on my plate to start that discussion now. Will try to get back here at a future date and discuss it with you (or maybe just do it on your Talk page). N2e (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Table Legend

What does NET stand for? Is it "Next Estimated Time" or "No Earlier Than"? Those are the only two I could think of that make sense. We don't actually say anywhere what that means. Does the table need a legend to explain terms like that (and LEO, SSO, etc), or are wikilinks and interwikilinks good enough? — Gopher65talk 13:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You are correct, it is esoteric, if abbreviated, prose. It stands for "No Earlier Than", and is commonly used for launch schedule planning where dates are set up, acquiring the commitment of a large number of resources (range tracking, launch pad, flyover risks to (sometimes, billion-dollar) payloads that might be scheduled from adjacent launch pads, payload readiness, launch window, etc.) Thus, these dates are typically stated in NET terms in launch schedules. Meaning: they won't move forward, but could move backward for any (large) number of reasons.
Now, as for clarity in the WP article. Probably best if explicated in a table legend/bottom, as there is no point in spelling it out when it will (likely) appear many times in any table of prospective launch dates/times. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Aug 26 launch and Spaceflight Now

The August 26 launch time references Spaceflight Now, but Spaceflight Now doesn't give the time.

I've followed Spaceflight Now for years, and it seems to me that it isn't updated as frequently as it used to. In the past, it was updated within minutes of a successful launch or a scrub, but not now. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Whoops, try https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/events/2014/august/launch-falcon9-asiasat6.aspx - someone selling tickets for seeing a launch should be a good temporary source until better ones are available. ;) Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 05:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I've never bought a ticket for a launch, and I've seen several. I have bought a ticket for the tour four times.
Do you agree that Spaceflight Now isn't updated as much as it used to be? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

What about Falcon Heavy launches?

Well, since the FH can be said as an extension to the F9 family (much as the Delta IV Heavy is an extension to the Delta IV (Medium) family), shouldn't these launches also be on the list too? I'm adding them right now so if anyone has disagreements please put it here. ;) Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to adding FH to the article for now, or the way you did it. But I would think that FH is sufficiently different than F9 v1.1 that it may warrant a separate table, at least once FH flights start occurring. But I'm not committed to that outcome, just expressing a thought. We can discuss it further sometime in 2015. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Source data from SpaceX no longer has dates for future missions

SpaceX has changed the public information that they put on their website for their future launch manifest. They are publishing/highlighting the next mission (currently CRS-5 in mid-December) with a date, but SpaceX is not listing any date information whatsoever about the future missions following the next scheduled mission. Moreover, the future launches on the manifest are now listed in an "interesting" way alphabetically, some by customer, but some by name of mission. A bit odd; but this is the source data we will have to work with for SpaceX in the future, unless we have other sources that provide speculative launch date information that we can use in Wikipedia.

At any rate, I think that editors interested in this particular Wikipedia article will need to think a bit about how we represent the future missions here, and especially how we change the table's implicit chronological ordering that we have been, and are currently showing, based on now outdated and superseded sources. I'm starting up this Talk page section to initiate the discussion. I'll offer a few thoughts below.

But first, here is a quotation of the current launch manifest, which I simply put in standard Wikitable format, taken from the SpaceX manifest web page on 26 November 2014 at approx. 15:00 UTC:

Future Missions — per SpaceX manifest web page as of 26 Nov 2014
Customer Launch Vehicle
Airbus Vandenberg Falcon 9
Asia Broadcast Satellite/EutelSat Cape Canaveral Falcon 9
Asia Broadcast Satellite/EutelSat Cape Canaveral Falcon 9
Bigelow Aerospace Cape Canaveral Falcon 9
Bulgaria Sat Cape Canaveral Falcon 9
CONAE (Argentina) Vandenberg Falcon 9
CONAE (Argentina) Vandenberg Falcon 9
DragonLab Mission 1 Cape Canaveral Dragon & Falcon 9
DragonLab Mission 2 Cape Canaveral Dragon & Falcon 9
DSCOVR (USAF) Cape Canaveral Falcon 9
Falcon Heavy Demo Cape Canaveral Falcon Heavy
Inmarsat Cape Canaveral Falcon 9
Inmarsat Cape Canaveral Falcon Heavy
Intelsat Cape Canaveral Falcon Heavy
Iridium – Flight 1 Vandenberg Falcon 9
Iridium – Flight 2 Vandenberg Falcon 9
Iridium – Flight 3 Vandenberg Falcon 9
Iridium – Flight 4 Vandenberg Falcon 9
Iridium – Flight 5 Vandenberg Falcon 9
Iridium – Flight 6 Vandenberg Falcon 9
Iridium – Flight 7 Vandenberg Falcon 9
Jason-3 for NASA Vandenberg Falcon 9
SKY Perfect JSAT Corporation (Japan) Cape Canaveral Falcon 9
Koreasat Cape Canaveral Falcon 9
NASA Resupply to ISS – Flight 5 Cape Canaveral Dragon & Falcon 9
NASA Resupply to ISS – Flight 6 Cape Canaveral Dragon & Falcon 9
NASA Resupply to ISS – Flight 7 Cape Canaveral Dragon & Falcon 9
NASA Resupply to ISS – Flight 8 Cape Canaveral Dragon & Falcon 9
NASA Resupply to ISS – Flight 9 Cape Canaveral Dragon & Falcon 9
NASA Resupply to ISS – Flight 10 Cape Canaveral Dragon & Falcon 9
NASA Resupply to ISS – Flight 11 Cape Canaveral Dragon & Falcon 9
NASA Resupply to ISS – Flight 12 Cape Canaveral Dragon & Falcon 9
NSPO (Taiwan) Vandenberg Falcon 9
OHB System AG Vandenberg Falcon 9
ORBCOMM Cape Canaveral Falcon 9
SES (Europe) Cape Canaveral Falcon 9
STP-2 US Air Force Cape Canaveral Falcon Heavy
Spacecom (Israel) Cape Canaveral Falcon 9
Thaicom Cape Canaveral Falcon 9
Thales Alenia Space Cape Canaveral Falcon 9
ViaSat Cape Canaveral Falcon Heavy

So let the discussion begin. N2e (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on future launches table

It seems to me that that the latest SpaceX (primary source) info, with no dates, supersedes the old data from the formerly-published SpaceX manifest(s). So if we have reliable secondary source with a date, we can use that as a date in the table, as long as we include a citation. But if not, any future launch dates based on looks in previous months at the (now outdated) SpaceX manifest should either just remove the date from the table, or qualify the date with an {{asof|yyyy|mm|lc=y}}. So if it was based on a July 2013 look at the SpaceX manifest, we might need to show the launch date in the table as "2016 (as of July 2013)" followed by a full citation that supports that statement. N2e (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The NASA launches should all have very precise dates listed by NASA (ISS launch dates are determined long in advance due to scheduling issues), so that's easy. Many of the other ones have - at the very least - launch year dates (often with a NET quarterly estimate as well) attached to the press releases that originally announced them. Both press releases from SpaceX and the payload provider. In some cases there have been updates issued by the payload customers as to the estimated launch dates.
Yes, agree that that cargo runs contracted to NASA will typically have long-term planning dates, and the near-future missions will have short-term NET (no earlier than) dates. And I also agree that the press releases that originally announced a contracted commercial launch will be fine sources. However, it will make a bit more work for the various editors of this particular "List of..." article, as many editors have often made changes to the dates in the table without sources, or "hoped" that some single (often outdated) source from the past would support their addition of a new/updated launch date. N2e (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Because of that, I don't think SpaceX's reformatting of their launch manifest table should have any significant impact, beyond perhaps a few missions that will have to sit at the bottom of the list in a (separate? Yes? No?) section with a note on them that says something like "no estimated launch date has been published". However, we never really had any clue when they were going to launch (editors just plopped them down on random places on the list, somewhere near where SpaceX had them on their ever shifting semi-random list), so I think that's probably a good thing. Maybe one that we should have done before. — Gopher65talk 23:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I think you are mostly right here. What I think will happen, is that the new SpaceX manifest methodology will remove the crutch of being able to use a single (unfortunately, often outdated) source for a large percentage of the future launches in the table, and will probably result in a larger percentage of the future launches moving down to the bottom of the table, or just having their date field blanked out when no current info is publically available (and, as often happens, the current date is beyond the original target date of the launch per the contract and press release). N2e (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 10 January 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Seems fair enough per nomination, and no significant policy objections. Note that if a split is desired between the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches, that can be discussed separately, but at present the article does deal with both. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 12:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


List of Falcon 9 launches → List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches – Falcon Heavy launches are already included in the body of the list and the rockets are closely related in terms of development and technology. It would make sense to rescope the list to reflect this. Alternatively we could merge with List of Falcon 1 launches for an overall List of Falcon launches. W. D. Graham 11:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Support - I was the one who added the FH launches to the list due to their common origins, and somehow I did not think of the title issue. Well, that means I agree with this. ;) Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

If we're going to go this route, we might as well merge all the Falcon launches together and add the F1 in there too. — Gopher65talk 23:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Split off Falcon Heavy, when they start doing those, instead. We already have separate Falcon 1 launches, so let's split off Falcon Heavy. The list will only get longer, so segregating the FH launches would be better for presentation. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    The difference there is that the Falcon 1 was a completely different vehicle, whereas the Falcon Heavy is a close development of the Falcon 9. --W. D. Graham 19:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notable missions

The way the article has evolved, there is a section prior to the list of all Falcon 9 launches entitled "Notable missions". I'm just accepting that as a given at this time.

However, I'm wondering about what other editors think about the specific notability of the CRS-2 mission. Every launch system is notable in terms of news coverage of the launch, there's always something that is a bit "off-nominal" in the mission, and CRS-2 was no exception. But I'm thinking CRS-2 was, for the most part, a routine mission.

On the other hand, I will probably add soon Falcon 9 Flight 9, as this was the first ever successful "soft landing" of a first-stage orbital booster rocket to the surface of Earth. While only a test flight, that aspect of the launch vehicle's flight test did receive extensive coverage in major news media, both within the space media but also in the general media. N2e (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Well I actually oppose adding this section in this article at all. This is a list (ahem) after all, and I think the "notable launches/missions" section should actually appear in the main articles of the rockets themselves, not in the list of launches section. After all, do you see similar sections appearing in the List of Atlas/Delta/Ariane/Soyuz/Proton/Titan/Shuttle missions/........ articles? Nope.
Then again, such sections are basically subjective (I mean how much is "notable" anyway?), but that's another point.....
Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 08:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
@Galactic Penguin SST: I would support such a move. After all, with SpaceX often pushing the technology frontier forward, nearly every mission has been quite notable, including several since the five or so now listed in the notable section (e.g., first geo, first booster return test, first successful booser return test and simulated ocean landing (zero velocity at zero altitude), etc., etc.) Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
It appears there was a consensus achieved, of the only two editors who commented (Galactic Penguin SST and N2e), that this could be moved out of the article. Since I participated in the !vote, I will abstain from making the change myself. However, if the section remains in this article, then it will need to be updated for some of the recent quite-notable flights where SpaceX has been advancing their post-flight reusable technology development testing, with certain "first-ever" events receiving considerable press attention. N2e (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: split the "Launch history and manifest" into two tables

Currently, the "Launch history and manifest" table is one mongo table of approximately 50 rows, covering all 15 historical launches and all 40 or so future launches on the manifest.

Proposal: Break the table into two article sections, with each section having a separate table. First section: "Launch history", containing sourced notable summary information about historical launches to date. Second section: "Future launches", containing notable information about future launches, as long a sources are provided for the various assertions. Rationale: easier for readers coming to this article for one purpose or another to get the information they want. Also easier for editors to edit in wikicode tables that don't have 50 rows.

  • Weak Oppose - None of the other launchers that lists future launches have such an arrangement, and I think listing them together shows a little bit of, erm, continuity within the table. That said, this is a rather subjective look so I may change my mind if I see more convincing arguments in support of this. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral Hmm not sure what my grudge against this was. Honestly either way should be fine. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: better for navigation — I often want to check the future launches, but have to scroll through the history first. Wild8oar (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: give it a whirl; we can always revert if it doesn't suit. -Arb. (talk)

 Done—I made the changes to have these two long lists be in two separate sections, per consensus. N2e (talk) 12:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

DragonV2 abort launch missing?

The Dragon_(spacecraft) page lists a January 2015 in-flight abort test from Vandenberg ... it's not on this list. Greg (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a sub-orbital launch, not a fullscale orbital launch. Doesn't count. Just like we don't list Grasshopper/Falcon 9RDev test hops. — Gopher65talk 22:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
It's fullscale up to the abort. If the launch fails before the abort, SpaceX customers will be alarmed. They don't care if Grasshopper blows up. Beats me, I just thought that it quacked like a duck. Greg (talk) 06:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Well it won't use a live second stage for example. I would admit that the line is rather unclear (see Ares I, Saturn I or India's GSLV Mk III) but I would probably not add this into the list unless SpaceX themselves consider this as a F9 launch instead of, say, a F9R-devX flight. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 08:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Galactic Penguin: the line in the current article is rather unclear. So it could go either way. I can see why this list doesn't cover the standard F9R Development Vehicle flights, but the coming in-flight abort test is a fairly standard F9 v1.1 (non-reusable) booster, sans second stage, and I could see it coming out on the side of the line where it gets a row in the table. Either way, I'll support the consensus outcome. N2e (talk) 09:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
We should wait to see what they call it, but I would lean towards including it. The early single-stage Saturn I launches, for example, are listed as Saturn I launches, so I don't think the use of an inert upper stage justifies exclusion in of itself. --W. D. Graham 17:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Agree with WD Graham and others above. Adding this comment just to prevent the conversation from being archived, as I expect it will become an important topic to re-discuss in the next few months. N2e (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
We'll probably get more information in the weeks following the pad abort test that's coming up soon. — Gopher65talk 17:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Of "Scheduled", "Under Contract" and "Range approved"

One of the editors here have changed the wordings for status of future launches - "Scheduled" for some launches and "Under Contract" for some further ahead. The original word is "Planned" for all future launches, as in all other rocket launch lists that lists future launches.

I have to ask, what is the distinction between them? I know that the rationale for the change is that some have more concrete dates than the others, but where's the divide line? Right now I have tweaked it such that all launches in 2015 uses "Scheduled" and the others are "Under Contract", but isn't that arbitrary?

Somehow I don't think this distinction is necessary, and if one single "status" word is used I would prefer "Planned", as any future launches that have launch contracts signed is a "planned" one, even those that are just "launch options" that don't even have a payload assigned right now. "Scheduled" would pose the problem of whether those with "TBD" dates are "scheduled", and as I wrote earlier any launches that are under contract is a planned one.

Any comments about this?

P.S. Earlier there was even a "with range & launch license authorities" tag for near term launches that have range approved dates. I don't think it should be done because confirmation of a "ranged approved" date is very hard to come by (it was not until very recently that we have journalists able to track down such detail), and it begs the question that no one else listed that for other rockets (look at similar tables for the Atlas V and Delta IV, for example) to the point that I don't think it is useful to put this fact down, even if it can be proved. Let's see if there are opposing views.....

Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Galactic Penguin SST—Agreed. That area of the table needs some work, and is not fully consistent on the distinction. It came about because "scheduled" (which was formerly the word used in all future launches) was both clearly incorrect and also unsourced for many of the rows in the table.
When I looked at a bunch of the sources about a month ago (2015-02-14), for most of the far future launches, the most one could say is that they were "under contract"; while some of the very near term future launches (one to three ahead in the queue) were both clearly "scheduled" and also scheduled with the particular local and national authorities to make the near term date have some meaning. So that is what led to my attempt to improve the article by having a three-way distinction:
  • "Scheduled (with range & launch license authorities)"
  • "Scheduled"
  • "Under contract"
It appears that most of that bold edit was left, and has remained, while some parts have been modified by other editors. I'm not tied to any particular worlds right now; I just want whatever article statement made in the table to be correct and verifiable by one of the cited sources provided in that particular row of the table.
I am happy that you brought the topic up on the Talk page. N2e (talk) 12:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I suggest to use "Scheduled" for launches with known dates (and time?) only. --mfb (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Seeing that quite a bit of work is required to separate "Scheduled" launches for those with dates and "Under contract" launches for those without, I now suggest that the list should use "Planned" for all of them instead of having to check which is which. As I said earlier, any launches with contract signed or are intending to sign one is a "planned" launch....... ;) Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
That seems reasonable to me. I'm certainly not willing to undertake the rather large and longterm task of maintaining a list of the three various states of SpaceX launches: "scheduled... unless there is one of a plethora of possible helium issues that will delay the launch by 1.5 months", "scheduled, range approooo... wait, is it still range approved? Yes? No? Range went down yet again because the Airforce switched the range maintenance contract to a crap company with known delivery issues?", and "Under contract... wait, no, SES bailed again. No wait, it's back on. Probably.". That's a lot of work.
Not all of the launches have clean dates associated with them yet. Those can be separated out at the bottom. All the launches with estimated dates can be updated once or twice a year as time permits, without the list ever getting too far out of date. We could also automate the list. I believe the people at TMRO maintain a public domain list (with database pushes upon updates, I think?) of launches (including SpaceX launches) that is as up-to-date as publicly released information permits. — Gopher65talk 02:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, I concur that the data from different sources will make it challenging to make the distinction. But still, I think we owe our readers some statement of status that indicates the vast difference between "contract is signed, mission is at least 3 to 5 years out" and "launch is on the near-term schedule with the launch licensing and range/tracking authorities, and is lined up to happen in the next one to ten weeks", and that we should not just use a one-size-fits-all word of "planned" for all future launches.
I'm in favor of having status indicate whatever the reliable sources will support; even if that makes it a bit harder for us as editors. But I have no problem with building consensus for a smaller number of defined terms (maybe just three or four) that distinguish between the two cases above, where "under contract" and "NET date on near-term schedule" are quite different, but so are the NASA missions that seem to have a placeholder date out several years, and then get manifested on the year-out launch schedule when closer in.
Sounds to me like "Under contract" works for the far out stuff; "Scheduled" works for firm dates (with month AND day) with a reliable source; and something else for the one to three missions out that are in-line with FAA licenses and on the Range and USAF range plans for the next dozen weeks. N2e (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmm....I thought the use of the launch dates is already a "statement of status that indicates the vast difference between "contract is signed, mission is at least 3 to 5 years out" and "launch is on the near-term schedule with the launch licensing and range/tracking authorities, and is lined up to happen in the next one to ten weeks"". If a launch gets close to the listed date and no indications that final launch preparations are taking place, one could just edit it out.
Again, I refer to the situation that no-one cares about the "status" of most Atlas/Delta/Ariane/.....launches, especially here in Wikipedia. This seems to be only a specific problem for SpaceX related (and remember, some of the terms like "range approved" are very specific to the Cape/VAFB and you won't see anyone speaking that the next Ariane 5 launch is "range approved" because when a launch date is set in CSG it usually means that the CNES range authority has approved it already), and I feel uneasy in using more than one status word here. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 06:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe that the mere presence of a date in the Date column is sufficient status, simply because (depending on the source and what the source says) that date can mean many different things. Moreover, since so many of the dates are far out—approximate target years or quarters, at the time the launch contract is signed—then those dates are especially suspect. Moreover, some of the dates claimed in the Date column are sourced from an old 2013 SpaceX manifest that SpaceX has backed away from for many months by now. That is simply not sufficient to support the distinction you are implying is possible from the presence of a date in the table.
It is, of course, quite different for the very near term dates that are days to weeks out, and for which we have sources that indicate such. Since this is an encyclopedia, we ought to aim for accuracy, and say no more than the sources support.
Would you like to propose some different subset of terms? The article is currently using "Under contract" and "Scheduled" terms now. Would you like "Manifested" or something else that perhaps is less indicative of an explicit date that is scheduled? Both mfb and I have previously expressed some concern about using the term "Scheduled" when no firm date/time is explicitly known/sourced. N2e (talk) 04:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
What about using "planned" or (as you said) "manifested" for all future launches? Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I like the sound of the word manifested, although I'm not quite sure what it means in this context. What would we use that to mean? "Planned" or "scheduled"? — Gopher65talk 15:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Galactic Penguin SST — Well, I think "manifested" is not explicitly wrong for any of the launches for which we have a reliable source, whereas "scheduled" clearly is. And it is just a single word, rather than two words (such as is "Under contract"). So it has that going for it.
On the other hand, it is pretty vague, and is likely to cause readers to ask the same question Gopher65 asked above in this discussion; it doesn't really say very much about "Status" (the title on that column), which might be what the reader would most like to know. Moreover, I don't think we'd really have a way to prevent other editors from adding additional information to the status box, as long as it is based on verifiable and cited sources.
So I guess I wouldn't object to the consensus if you and Gopher think that is the word that should go, for now, top to bottom. But I suspect it may not be a stable equilibrium long term, and the issue is likely to come up again in the future. So once again, coming up with a Talk-page-discussed consensus on several words, which do make a distinction amongst the various major types of status in the Future launches table might yet be advisiable. N2e (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Possible corrections

DSCOVR and Sunjammer are being launched on the same rocket (source). DSCOVR appears to be a joint NASA/NOAA/Air Force mission, but I'm not sure (see here).--Craigboy (talk) 07:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, that may have been on a tentative manifest or schedule at some time in the past, in the event, it did not occur. DSCOVR has now launched (in January 2015), and Sunjammer was not co-flown on that flight. N2e (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Sunjammer was cancelled after NASA audited the small company (LGarde) they'd contracted the spacecraft out to, and found that it was lying through its teeth to them about every aspect of production. According to former employees (a downsizing followed the contract cancellation), the company wasn't prepared for a project of that size and technical difficulty. Management assumed that they could just use NASA money to subcontract out much of the work to low cost contractors, and then take the rest of the money as profit. Didn't turn out that way. No one would bid for the prices they were demanding, and they couldn't do the work themselves. NASA took stock of the situation, realized to their dismay that the mission was not salvageable (virtually nothing had been done, although lots of money was spent by LGarde), and cancelled the contract. Good for NASA for realizing when it was time to quit!
I have heard nothing about NASA's intentions to restart the Sunjammer project with a different contractor (hopefully), but for now it is dead as dead can be.
That makes me sad, because I was really interested in Sunjammer. — Gopher65talk 19:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
User:N2e, the really sad bit is that Sunjammer was intended to be to solar sails what Deep Space 1 was to ion propulsion. Sad:(. — Gopher65talk 19:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Wow, I did not know that. Yes, that is sad. And especially so for the technology demonstration of solar sails that might have been.
Even sadder, there is regularly a very large amount of inefficiency and waste of taxed resources whenever the "space industrial complex is involved in the normal way it has been with space transport during the first 50-60 years of the space age. I hate to see this; but I suspect most taxpayers and voters of the various space-going nations are rather powerless to change it.
On the other hand, I am happy to see the upsurge of rapid and unrelenting technology development and reductions in the price of access to space throught the private efforts of SpaceX, and hopefully, others to follow. I'm hopeful that, even this one company, might break a bit of the logjam sufficiently to begin to enable many more and other opportunities for space utilzation through ordinary market forces in the next couple of decades. N2e (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

LightSat currently in the wrong launch

From the kickstart page https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/theplanetarysociety/lightsail-a-revolutionary-solar-sailing-spacecraft, it's clear that there's no way LightSat is going up in 3Q2015 -- it won't be finished by then. And it says it's on the "first operational flight of Falcon Heavy". And it's not going to LEO. So I'm thinking it's likely going on the LEO/MEO launch in 2016, which is the second flight, and has the US Government as a customer. Greg (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

That wording is pretty vague, but I'd take "first operational launch" to likely mean the first launch after the demo launch. That will have to take place second quarter of 2016 in order to meet contractual obligations to Via (who are going up on the third launch - though whether this is the 3rd launch or the 4th (third are demo), no one is sure). The first demo launch of the FH has been pushed back to NET Jan 2016, according to Via, while SpaceX tries and tries to land F9 first stages:). I'd guess they don't want to throw away 3 cores on the demo launch unless they have to. Via however has said that if their FH isn't ready by 3rd quarter 2016, they're switching to a different rocket (probably a Proton). That's why SpaceX *has* to launch the heavy first quarter 2016, at the latest.
However, finding reliable sources for that is tricky. AFAIK the last reliable source we have puts the FH demo launch NET 3rd quarter 2015. That's now wrong, but sourcing that is hard. — Gopher65talk 03:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I see that Galactic Penguin moved LightSail-B to the 2016 FH launch. Done. Greg (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Which of the first six Falcon 9 missions are sufficiently notable to be in the "Notable missions" section of the article

Now that six missions have been flown, and all six missions have been placed in the "Notable missions" section of the article, I suspect it may be time to discuss by what criteria a mission gets the extra subsection paragraph or two summarizing the mission in this article, beyond the entry in the growing table which would ostensibly contain all Falcon 9 missions.

Backround: Note that, most launches have been traditionally covered, if notable, in the article on the mission's primary payload. So these sections are very brief overviews of notable launches, and not the full kahuna.

Secondly, note that there is currently a discussion going on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight, considering revising the WP:LAUNCHES essay that has, in the past, tended to side with having no separate article in Wikipedia for the launch itself separate from the primary payload, even if the launch is separately notable from the payload and the spaceflight mission of that payload.

With that as background, back to the discussion of criteria for sufficient notability to have a summary subsection in this article. In my view, it could be argued that four, or five, or perhaps even all six, of the first six missions are sufficiently notable. But I think we ought to develop that consensus, and the rationale for all six missions, if we want to have the article not merely irrationally list all future F9 missions as we have the first six. What do other editors think about this topic? Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

So we just saw the 21st Falcon 9 taking off.... Time for an update of the "Notable missions" section then. My humble proposal is:
  • add the failure (F9-19)
  • add the successful landing (F9-20)
  • remove 'CRS-2' (except for the small thruster issue, this was a regular CRS mission)
  • (maybe) remove 'First flight of Falcon 9 v1.1' (F9 has already had another update in meantime. Is every new versions of the rocket a notable mission? Maybe.)
Kcauwert (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, note that another editor has started a much more contemporaneous (in 2016!) discussion below.
Since noone responded on the question I wrote here in 2013, I'm suggesting we go there to discuss it. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup

I believe, if someone wants to take the time, this table should be cleaned up to match those tables of other launch lists, particular with the notes on the right hand column and not underneath. It's hard to read as it is now.

Adding a comment to get a date/time stamp in here. The previous comment appears to be unsigned, and this section will never get moved to an archive without a date/time. I'm agnostic on the previous editor's suggestion, have given it no deep thought at all. N2e (talk) 03:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
True. For example the list of Atlas launches could be a great example. First, I also highly support placing the comments column to the right side. However, the comments should be much more concise to achieve this. A first step could be removing the detailed descriptions of the landings. I think we could place a reference to the Falcon 9 booster landing tests article in the introduction and that should be enough for the landings. Secondly, I feel that grouping the launches per year would organize the list much better than it currently is. Any more ideas? Kcauwert (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm agnostic for the most part on leaving the table as is, or moving the mentioned info to the right column. I'll just note that too many columns are bad, especially for mobile readers, which are an increasingly large part of Wikipedia.
However, I do think that the plan (for future launches, when it is known) or the attempt (for historical launches, where we know such a controlled-descent test was made) is a very important part of the sort of info that should be summarized in a "List of launches" table. In other words, if the tables that exist today are radically altered, as proposed above by a couple of editors, then I strongly support having an entry, somehow and in some column, that the landing attempt was made (obviously with the appropriate link). For launches since the start of 2013, this has arguably been the most notable aspect of the majority of SpaceX F9 launches, based on reliable source news media attention to the launches. So if the tables are mod'ed, I'll give some more thought to how to do this in an abbreviated and minimal text way to get the info into the table.
Moreover, there is no necessary reason to make the SpaceX launch table, as a general matter, match any other particular launch table in Wikipedia, as there is no single Wikipedia policy on what launch tables should look like. Also, in several ways, SpaceX launches are doing rather many more different things between adjacent launches, even of the same model of rocket (e.g., say the five Falcon 9 v1.0 launches, or the 15 Falcon 9 v1.1 launches, or the next many Falcon 9 full thrust launches.) My two cents. Tables can be different in these matters, and with SpaceX Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, probably will need to be, at least at some relevant margins. N2e (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
All valid points of course. Still, I've compared the table with those of some other launchers: Ariane, Proton, Soyuz, Atlas, Long March... and unfortunately have the feeling that the Falcon table is the least organized and tidy and the most difficult to 'read' of all. For me, the two major points contributing to this are 1- the significant amount of text in the comments/remarks row and 2- the color coding of every complete line. Therefore, if we don't want to add another column to the right, could we maybe try to limit the comments/remarks row to one single line for every launch? For example, the six lines currently describing F9-19 could be rewritten as "Vehicle breakup at T+150 seconds after a strut which secured a helium bottle inside the 2nd stage LOX tank broke." All the other information is then assumed to be details that should go in the mission article. Additionally, can we maybe only color code the success column for each row (instead of the whole row)?
What you think? Kcauwert (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

v1.1 vs v1.2

I've provisionally changed the v1.1 in the next few launches to v1.2, and linked to the "beyond v1.1" second of the v1.1 article. Sources are starting to refer to it as the 1.2 in order to differentiate it from the now retired v1.1. Unfortunately SpaceX hasn't come out and said what terminology they are using. "v1.2"? "v1.1 Enhanced"? "F9R"? "Falcon 9 6S (now with real 4G!)"? Dropping the version number all together and just calling it "F9"? Sticking with "v1.1" and just not differentiating? Who knows. I've left the "dated info" templates on there, but changed them to November, since that is when the next flight will most likely take place. Presumable at that time SpaceX will be forced to use the new name of the rocket in press releases, and we'll see what it is. — Gopher65talk 19:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I changed all other future launches as well. --mfb (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that, even as late as the 16 October SpaceNews source used as a citation in the article for the new launch order, the media still has no single name for this. SpaceNews calls it, in today's article: "a modified version known variously as Falcon 9 Upgrade and Falcon 9 v1.2". Interestingly, that source does not even use the "Falcon 9 Full Thrust" term, which some other source did, I believe, and some editor has used a lot of "F9 FT" entries in the table in the Wikipedia article.

So we will still have to clean this up once it solidifies. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The "Falcon 9 v1.1 Full Thrust" term comes from NASAspaceflight.com, which credits it as the internal SpaceX designation. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks for clarifying. So we have (at least) three names/descriptors currently being used:
  • Falcon 9 Upgrade
  • Falcon 9 v1.2, and
  • Falcon 9 v1.1 Full Thrust
That is what we will (soon, I imagine) clarify once SpaceX press releases, photographs, etc. make it clear what is the formal descriptor they are using for the new rocket design. N2e (talk)
SpaceX are apparently phasing out the use of the different version names and just go with 'Falcon 9' for all Falcon 9 variants. [1] We update the table accordingly (using for example only 'F9' and 'FH' in the 3rd column)? Kcauwert (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I've heard that too. SpaceX does seem to have a preference for current news stories to just call it "Falcon 9". But being as this is an encyclopedia, and there have been, in fact, significantly different versions of the Falcon 9 rocket (Falcon 9 v1.0, Falcon 9 v1.1, and Falcon 9 full thrust (which SpaceX itself called a half dozen different names during development, partly reflected in the discussion in this section of this Talk page)), I don't think it will quite do for this encyclopedia (or this particular article) to run them all together.
So I think we are rather stuck with referring to the version descriptors somehow, as they reflect these, in reality, very differently-spec'd launch vehicles on these flights that now space six calendar years. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Notable missions -> Landing and 1.1 FT is missing

I might write a paragraph myself later, unless someone else is quicker. I think it is certainly a notable mission, an upgraded version and the first landing. --mfb (talk) 14:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Also I would like to review the list of missions deemed notable, with the benefit of 5 years of hindsight and 20 launches. Currently the first 6 flights are all marked notable, and none of the subsequent ones. Here is my suggested list of which missions were truly significant milestones and why:
Once we describe those highlighted missions in the "Notable launches" section, we can also remove the long descriptions in the table of launches proper, reducing clutter. Comments welcome. I'll give it a go in a few days. — JFG talk 21:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I think you've brought up a good and worthwhile topic for improving this article. Note that the general topic was brought up once before, in 2013 (section: "Which of the first six Falcon 9 missions are sufficiently notable to be in the "Notable missions" section of the article", above), but at the time no one joined the discussion so it went silent, and unaddressed for several years now in this article.
Having said that, I think we should talk it out now. My sense is that, perhaps, the whole "notable" missions idea (and it's associated subsection in this List of ... article should be dropped altogether. It's notable stuff; but can be covered better in Wikipedia in articles on the launch or mission. My rationale is simply that, it would appear,
  1. the criteria for notability is rather vague and unclear; not sure it would be easy to establish a clear bright line for what is in and what is out. This is especially true since, given the wide coverage of SpaceX flights in general, and the frequent questions of new design and/or new objectives being often associated with each launch, nearly each and every single flight would likely meet the general notability guideline for a standalone article.
  2. it seems unlikely that editor(s) time is regularly and consistently available for keeping this section up to date (as illustrated by it being rather horribly out of date for three years running now).
That's my two cents on the matter. What do others think? Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I certainly agree to take it out of this page. I'm neutral about just deleting the content or transferring it to other articles (or maybe even create a "Notable SpaceX missions" article). Kcauwert (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I don't think we should remove that section entirely: it serves a purpose not for avid SpaceX fans but rather for the general public who might want to read at a glance what were the key accomplishments in Falcon 9 history. In the early years every flight seemed notable (especially to enthusiasts who are primary contributors here) so that coverage is unbalanced. Now with the benefit of hindsight, we can clearly outline which missions were noteworthy. My proposed list still covers a lot of launches (11 out of 21), which makes sense as the product was evolving rapidly and reaching new milestones. The ratio of notability will decrease as Falcon 9 transitions to its industrial phase -- after all, we don't see much excitement every time an Ariane sends a satellite on its way: flight 228 looks as routine as flight 227, and the section on Ariane 5 notable launches provides a concise narrative of key missions.
I agree that the page needs some cleanup, and I would prefer clearing the clutter in the table of launches by placing the long comments in the article body, nourishing the "notable launches" section. If/when this section gets too long, we could indeed transfer it to a separate page.
Lastly, to answer N2e's concern, this section won't need much maintenance once updated: past notable flights are already well-documented and the facts about them won't change. Only new flights that are particularly notable would need to be added to the section as they happen: probably 2 or 3 per year. Looking at the current manifest, the vast majority of planned flights are bread-and-butter commsat launches or ISS missions; the only obvious candidates for notability in 2016 are the maiden flight of Falcon Heavy and the demo flight of crew-ready Dragon V2. The first reflight of a used stage would obviously be another notable milestone. — JFG talk 07:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Well if we want to keep the section then I certainly prefer the way it is done in the Ariane article (no header for every flight and just a couple of lines per flight). I also have no objections to list of flights you proposed above. Go for it. Kcauwert (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Falcon 9 has a launch history section. Should we take the best bits of these two put it in a template that appears in both places (and only needs one location where updates are done)? Or is one of these places better than the other such that one or other should be deleted? Or should one be more thorough with the other have a see main article and a shorter summary? crandles (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
This article is a list already. We can move the non-redundant parts from Falcon 9 to the table here, and replace the list there with a link. --mfb (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches/Archive_1&oldid=1136261786"