Talk:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Split Proposal

The past launches section has 333,000 bytes, taking up most of the article size. By splitting this section into 2010-2016 (74kB) and since 2017 (259kB), the article will go from 465kB to 391kB. The section may be renamed to recent launches. zsteve21 (talk) 09:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Split by decade (discussed above) is more standard for rocket articles. C-randles (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

this has been asked for years but nobody has put in the work. 2A02:2F0E:D519:3C00:5D54:68FA:FCEC:B6AC (talk) 11:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose I still don't see why it should be split just because it is long. You can scroll over the past lauch sections, or click on the corresponding section link in the contents. Splitting it only makes it harder to get a complete overview over all launches, but serves no purpos. The list cn get as long as it wants. This is a website, not a piece of paper with finite lenght. Gial Ackbar (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose There is no reason for a split. The only reasons I've heard is that some people's software have trouble with long pages or simply because it's "generally done", which both aren't very good reasons. They should file bug reports with their software providers (presumably open source) rather than complain about long pages. We can revisit this if the page exceeds multiple megabytes in size or after there's another decade of launches. Ergzay (talk) 06:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I think my specific split would be more preferable than decade split. Also, even if lists can be as long and endless as it wants, it doesn't really explain why lists should be long. I do not believe that splits would disrupt or cause any other negative impacts on getting the complete overview, but I do believe that splitting serves a purpose, such as more comfortable navigation and easier website maintaining. zsteve21 (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

List should be long and not split so that the reader can get all info on one page and is not needlessly forced to navigate between different pages. Also: Why would navigation be more comfortable if you have to switch between different pages instead of just one? I would say it makes it less comfortable. And how would website navigation be easier if there is one more page to maintain insteadt of just a single page? Gial Ackbar (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Because the reader would need to scroll down so much, even though there is a content list. I'm sure the reader wouldn't mind switching between pages as long as there is a link going between them. Also, I don't think it's about how many pages you have to maintain but the size of the page, because long pages can make editing laggy and be forced to crash, therefore making difficult. If you are still not convinced, then I respect your decision and won't do anything unless lots of people support my proposal. zsteve21 (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The rationale for splitting articles is outlined in Wikipedia policy and doesn't need to be rehashed here. See WP:SPLIT, WP:LENGTH, and WP:SPLITLIST. Jwolfe (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

FYI, for reference for others, those rationales refer to readable size, not wiki markup size. OP seems to be using wiki markup size for their rationale. "Please note: These rules of thumb apply only to readable prose and not to wiki markup size (as found on history lists or other means), and each kB can be equated to 1,000 characters." from WP:SIZERULE. Ergzay (talk) 06:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose the proposal as given. If at all, it should be split by decade or at another logical point, not at some arbitrary point. We're far enough away from 2019 that 2010-2019 and 2020-present is feasible. Jwolfe (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The page you linked stated "If there is no "natural" way to split or reduce a long list or table, it may be best to leave it intact, [...]". Spliting by decade is no natural way. A decade is an arbitrary amount of time. There was no significant change how those lauches worked when reaching a new decade. The only natural ponint at which I could see an option to split is the between delelopment version of the boosters (everything until Block 4) and the final version (Block 5). Gial Ackbar (talk) 09:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The point is to have people (on mobile) be able to get useful information out of this list. TV episodes have a main list of all episodes with minimal info available, and seson sublists with each episode details on the bottom. If this list were to be split somehow and here it would remain just the header of each entry, then this table would be manageable. Until then, splitting the list somehow would be appropriate. If you want a "natural" split then split it at Block 5 introduction. 2A02:2F0E:D519:3C00:5D94:2F0A:CAA9:168C (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I see one proposer for splitting at end of 2016, and three people opposed to this. I don't see this specific proposal reaching a consensus in favour. There seem to me 3 possibilities that might get consensus. 1. Leave as is. 2. Split by decade. 3. Split off notable launches. Perhaps we should focus the discussion on these. C-randles (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

A Block 5 launches fork could also work, since presumably this is the final version of F9/FH and it includes the repeated launches entries too. I.e. List of Falcon rocket (Block 5) launches 2A02:2F0E:D519:3C00:5D94:2F0A:CAA9:168C (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with a split, but I would prefer that just the section for past launches gets split out. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 20:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no reason for a split. The only reason I've heard is that some people's software have trouble with long pages, which isn't a very good reason. They should file bug reports with their software providers (presumably open source) rather than complain about long pages. IF we are going to split, it should be by decade, which is the norm for such pages. Ergzay (talk) 12:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Since the page is sorted into sections about past launches, future launches, and notable launches, it would be easiest to split based on that. Also this list does need to be split, since anything over 410K bytes is generally split. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 14:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

If a split by decade was done, any discussion of notable launches that are in that decade would move into the new page. Creating a new page only for notable launches will just maroon it into disuse. Also, splitting something just because other people do it is yet another non-reason for a split. 410K is tiny. If the size was something like 10MB then it might be worth it to split it as it would start to take significant amounts of time to load on very slow connections. Ergzay (talk) 06:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, please provide a source for the 401K being "generally split". The WP:SPLIT and WP:LENGTH pages make no mention of that size. Ergzay (talk) 06:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

First of all, this article isn't even sorted by decade, and the only decades listed are the 2010s and the 2020s. It would be much easier to just split by each section rather than sort through the sections. Second of all, 410K bytes seems to be the de facto splitting size (by "de facto" I mean that 410K bytes or more seems to be the size at which split discussions based on length are usually brought up), though it is not explicitly mentioned anywhere. Though now that I think about it, it might be closer to 420K. Still, this article is in the top ten largest on the wiki and is around 460K bytes. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 21:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

That's because there are so many references in the article, among other reasons. Ergzay (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Taking into account the discussions on this talk page, the consensus appears to be most favourable to splitting by decade, which would mean splitting out the 2010-19 content. The content for 2020 to present might as well stay here for now. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: Where was there a consensus? There had been several opinions (Split by decade, split by Block 5 booster, don't split). I don't understand why splitting by decade makes any sense. There was no significant change in the launches on Janurary 1st, 2020. This date is not a natural spitting point. The only last major change was switching from Block 4 to Block 5, so this would be the only naturl splitting point. Just because other pageses split by decades without a solit reason for doing so, this is no reason to do it here. Gial Ackbar (talk) 10:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

There are no natural points to split by date, so I used the standard arbitrary point of a change in decade, as has been raised by other editors. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip Please read WP:SPLITLIST, quoting ". If there is no "natural" way to split or reduce a long list or table, it may be best to leave it intact". Ergzay (talk) 02:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It's definitely best to split this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

You haven't explained why. Only that you insist it be done. Ergzay (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip I've reverted your edits that go DIRECTLY against consensus. Don't continue in these actions. Ergzay (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus against splitting. The actions I took were bold, to split the article in the way most supported by the talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

As I understand it, bold editing is encouraged but not when there is ongoing discussion. I mentioned decadal split being more standard on rocket articles but don't believe there is consensus here for that. C-randles (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I made my bold edit based on my perception of the discussion. So far one editor has opposed it directly, but I hope that editors can come to the conclusion that moving the 2010-19 entries into another article is the most reasonable solution, or that another solution can be found. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

3 editors have opposed it directly, though? You're intentionally not reading the discussion. Ergzay (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Every single statement in this argument except for a single person has against the proposed split. It's not Bold if there's already demonstrated consensus. Your decision to completely ignore all of the above discussion is not Bold. Ergzay (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

They opposed the proposal by Zsteve21. My split is not the same. Multiple editors are in support of splitting the article. None of this should be surprising, as this is one of the largest articles on Wikipedia. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Second Split Proposal

Here is an alternative. Since the article is a list, we could transfer the 'Launch Statistics' section and/or the 'Notable Launches' section into the 'Falcon 9' article, reducing the article size by 38kB. As this article is the second largest as I speak, a split would be reasonable and necessary. Even though it doesn't exceed the official 500kB boundary, any article with its markup sizes increasing towards it should be simplified/reduced. The amount of references may be a major factor, but I have no idea on how to reduce this. Any thoughts? zsteve21 (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, where is the requirement that the "second largest article" in Wikipedia always be split? If it then became the third largest article, would it need to be split again, or does this only apply to the second largest? Will the new second largest article then need to be also split?VarmtheHawk (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a meta-discussion, but in short the answer is yes. The largest, second largest and third largest articles should be split, or in some way have their size reduced. There are many articles on Wikipedia which are too large, just as there are many which are too small, and the very largest articles are obviously among those most at need of having their size addressed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

In what way is the article "too large"? It works perfectly fine as it is. Ergzay (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Its size greatly exceeds the ideal size for a Wikipedia article. This has been extensively covered in WP:SIZE and related guidelines. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

No. The Launch Statistics belongs in the page talking about the launches, not the Falcon 9 page. Secondly, there is no "official 500kB boundary". That's not something I've seen cited anywhere and every article about splitting does not mention it. Just the other day we had someone else complaining how there aren't enough references on this page, not that there's too few. Ergzay (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it's better split every ten years, so 2010-2019, 2020-2029, etc... Briskola (talk) 07:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I still heard no explenation why decades would be a natural splitting point. As I said before, there was no major change in the launches on January 1st, 2020. The last natural point to split was the change from block 4 to block 5. Why not split there? Gial Ackbar (talk) 09:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Splitting by years, decades and centuries is by far the most common, because it's easiest for readers to understand. There could be other ways to split the article though. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

For every version transition except the first one (including Block 4 to Block 5), SpaceX has had at least one mission of the old version after introducing the new version. There were even three missions where the first and second stages were different versions (see Falcon 9 Full Thrust). So the rocket version is not a natural splitting point. Plus, it requires specific knowledge about the Falcon 9 that most readers lack. On the other hand, pretty much everyone understands decades. It would be perfectly natural and expected to see a split by decade for someone coming from List of Atlas launches (2010–2019) or List of Thor and Delta launches (2010–2019). Jwolfe (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm currently not in favor of a split, but when a split is eventually made (there is a technical hard size limit of Wikimedia pages, but we're still a long way from that) I think it should be split on a natural boundary that's independent of details of the rocket itself. Atlas for example still gets split by decades even though one of the splits is right in the middle of the Atlas III to Altas V transition. However, this article isn't at a point it should be split by decades yet as there would only be a single full year in the remaining page (2020), so several more years are needed before a decade split would be appropriate. Ergzay (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

And when the split is done, we should be careful about it as we have to figure if and how to split statistics and notable launches between them. I'm a fan of keeping statistics combined, but we should also have decade-based statistics, and notable launches per decade and summary notable launches among all launches. This is not a simple thing to be figured out and should be done carefully. Ergzay (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

So your'e saying that the "official boundary of 500kB" that zsteve21 claimed is real?VarmtheHawk (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The only real hard boundary is a 2 mebibyte (2,097,152 bytes) boundary. Ergzay (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no "official boundary" for articles. There are relatively few articles that exceed 200,000 bytes (only 4000 out of 6 million articles), but this article is more than double that, being the second-largest article on Wikipedia. That's only the "mark-up" size as well, being the size that we have control over. The web page is actually larger due to all the other Wikipedia elements and use of templates, so the byte sizes are indicative relative to other articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I understand you have a personal drive to chop every article you can find that's currently near the top of the list into a smaller article. But how is that relevant if the editors of said article don't want it to be smaller? Do you have a source that the web page size is actually larger? Ergzay (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

If you have issues with me personally, take it to my talk page. This page is for discussing improvements to the article. Addressing the size of this article is an improvement to the article. For example, there are far too many references. We could remove many of the references and greatly reduce the size of the article without needing to make other changes such as splitting, but splitting is also an option and one that other editors have been discussing, even if specific proposals have been opposed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip A few months ago we had another influential and pushy editor come in and insist that there wasn't enough references. There was a big discussion that followed and people worked to add more references. See: Talk:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches/Archive 9#Sloppy sourcing Please research the history of this article more to find the way it is. If you want to improve the existing sources to better sources that is always welcome. This type of page needs lots of sources, at least one per launch, more if additional things occurred about the launch or if the first source doesn't describe the satellites. Ergzay (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

There are about seven references per entry. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Better way of handling rideshare missions

I have a suggestion regarding rideshare missions. Right now we list all of the upcoming suspected rideshare missions as standalone entries in the upcoming launches table. I don't think this is how we should be doing things because this page is a list of launches, not a list of missions. It causes inflated numbers of missions, especially for next year. According to this table there are currently a record 45 missions planned for 2021. If you go back to the end of previous years, we always vastly overpredict the number of missions in future years, often because of these rideshare missions.

I think if there is any suspicion that the mission is destined for a rideshare mission (ex: SSO launch and low mass), it should be added to the closest rideshare mission (in time) and moved around as needed to adjust for changes in plan. Ergzay (talk) 09:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Every mission is one launch and vice versa. It is common that many planned launches get delayed, so the actual launches are always below the plans a year earlier. --mfb (talk) 09:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but that's not what the table shows. Here's a couple that are probably rideshare: BlueWalker 3, MethaneSAT, SWOT, O3b mPOWER, and SARah.Ergzay (talk) 09:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

We can't just assume that they are rideshare missions and include them to whatever fits best. That would violate WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Gial Ackbar (talk) 10:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

O3b mPower 700kg * 3 = 2100kg. While usually more mass on a flight, Sentinel-6 was only 1192Kg. SARah-1 approx 2200kg is flying with a co-passenger - that doesn't sound like a dedicated/many satellite rideshare mission to me. SARah 2 & 3 1800Kg each for 3600Kg sounds enough to be a flight rather than a rideshare. SWOT ~2000Kg with 2 deployable solar arrays for power might also be sounding as if it might have its own flight? Others like Bluewalker 3 (~1500Kg) and certainly MethaneSat at 350Kg are more likely to be dedicated rideshares. If the mass and other details available like orbit etc suggests rideshare is likely and the launch date seems to agree with a particular dedicated rideshare then perhaps it would be enough evidence to show on rideshare as 'probably including sat name' rather than showing as a separate line? For MethaneSat we have "window opens 1 October 2022" which would seems to reasonably match Transporter-6 so combine might be sensible? BlueWalker 3 could be Transporter-4 but perhaps 1500kg is an indicator against doing that? C-randles (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we should make judgement calls on a per mission basis rather than automatically assuming them to be standalone. Missions also change sizes as they go through planning and may move to a ride share and then move to a standalone as requirements change. We should make best guesses based on available information as some choice needs to be made whenever adding a mission to the table. Ergzay (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

It's equally WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH to assume that they aren't rideshare missions and propose them as standalone missions in the list. As @Mfb stated, "every mission is one launch and vice versa". Ergzay (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

In that case, those payloads should not be included in the list at all unless we know if they are a rideshare (and with what) or a standalone mission. Gial Ackbar (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Tell that to the people who keep adding them... So you're proposing we strip out any missions that we aren't confident on whether they're ride share or not? That's probably like half the future launches, especially ones that are far out in 2023 and 2024. Ergzay (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes. If it is not confirmed by reliable sources that those are launches, not just payloads, it must be removed. Better have no info than wrong info. Gial Ackbar (talk) 12:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I have satisfied myself that MethaneSat is on Transporter-6 so I have added some payloads to Transporter-6 and removed MethaneSat separate table entry. I am less sure about others. Information about future is less certain and often also less clear. Some info in article that notes the uncertainty seems better than deleting all info because we are not sure whether it is on dedicated rideshare or not. So I think I would prefer to add a 'Possible rideshare' tag than delete the info. C-randles (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Just be sure that information you add to the article is referenced. War (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, but what do we do about the future launch statistics chart? We intentionally cut it down to only include the next year's launches, but there's still uncertainty there. Ergzay (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Bluewalker-3 could well be top of stack slot on Transporter-4. I have suggested add 'possible rideshare' tag and then it may make sense to exclude from estimated launch count. There aren't that many top of stack slots. Many could get delayed, many could get transferred to Starship ... so rideshares shown as launches may only be a relatively small problem with the launch number estimate in graph. Just do what we can like that? C-randles (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@C-randles That sounds good, how should a 'possible rideshare' tag be implemented? Do you mean just adding a line into the description of the launch, or was there a better way of doing that? Ergzay (talk) 02:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking of something like Possible rideshare in the payload column after name of payload but if anyone prefers something better/different, feel free to suggest. That uses the following <span style="color:red">{{abbr|Possible rideshare|It is not yet clear whether this will fly as a primary payload, a secondary payload or on a dedicated rideshare mission}}</span>. C-randles (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@C-randles I've got no issues with it other than maybe the color. Red stands out a bit too much. Some less "shocking" shade like light/dark blues or dark greens. Ergzay (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Distinguishing from blue and red for links may well be sensible Possible rideshare <span style="color:darkgreen">{{abbr|Possible rideshare|It is not yet clear whether this will fly as a primary payload, a secondary payload or on a dedicated rideshare mission}}</span>? Add to EnMap, any others that merit it?

MethaneSat and Bluewalker-3 moved to being transporter payloads. SWOT has 15 Nov 2022 date (under review) but don't believe any transporter mission has had such a specific date. O3b mpower 4,5,6 going on expendable falcon 9 to insert nearer intended final orbit, so that doesn't sound like they are rideshares. SARah-1 sounds like it will have secondary payload. SARah 2&3 therefore also unlikely to be a rideshare. Any others that should be investigated? C-randles (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

EnMap is 980Kg and going to sun synch orbit. 650Km possibly a little high for normal transporter deployment but with its small thrusters might be possible. C-randles (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@C-randles If SARah-1 will have a secondary payload, is there any reasonably obvious mission that SARah-1 would be shared with? Ergzay (talk) 02:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what it is - could easily be something not in our table. Gunter has had this for a long time and I don't know if this may have become outdated. C-randles (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I've added a comment to the Launch Outcomes chart to not add the following year's chart column until half way through the following year to avoid misrepresenting rideshare missions. Ergzay (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

If anyone's interested to add it. Here is one more source [1] of a rideshare mission that could be added. Ergzay (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Added Possible rideshare to EnMap. Do we think number of launches in chart should be number of table lines excluding any with these possible rideshare tags? C-randles (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@C-randles That sounds like a good standard to me. Ergzay (talk) 12:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Removal of booster on ussf 44

After reading this, I am asking that should we remove the booster assignment on ussf 44 mission as a delay may make viasat 3 launch first and he may get the booster assignment as both are expendable and according to current standards 1068 assigned to viasat 3 is recoverable not expendable. The removal will clear the uncertainty for now Chinakpradhan (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

And till now no idea about 1070 Chinakpradhan (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

That it is expendable or recoverable Chinakpradhan (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

That it is expendable or recoverable Chinakpradhan (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Please tell User:Ergzay Chinakpradhan (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Please edit your comment rather than repeatedly adding more comments like this. It makes it difficult to read. To answer your question, I actually just removed Viasat-3 from Booster 1068 (before I saw your comment). The only source for Viasat-3 being on 1068 was a space fan twitter user. It should have never been added to the wiki in the first place. Also no, do not reassign booster 1064. Whichever booster the military users they will have chosen it a long time before launch and certified it for military use. It's possible that a later booster may even launch before 1064/1065/1066. The delay to USSF mission may delay other launches as well. @Chinakpradhan. Ergzay (talk) 14:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

USSF-44 payload

There's several issues with USSF-44 mission.

• It's listed as having several additional missions, however LDPE-2 is listed as having 6 payloads. Couldn't Tetra-1 be one of them?
• There's the line "Classified payload totaling 3,750 kg (8,270 lb)." and none of the sources for the launch list the mass size. Does anyone know where this comes from?
• The wiki page lists LINUSS A1 and A2, however the source for LINUS only lists a single LINUS payload. Does this count for one or two of the entries on LDPE-2? The naming also appears wrong as the source uses "LINUS-A 1" and "LINUS-A 2". [2]
• Finally, this source [3] lists USSF-44 as "Tetra-1 is manifested on the U.S. Space Force rideshare mission known as USSF-44, awarded to SpaceX in February 2019." emphasis mine. This seems to imply that USSF-44 has no single payload and is entirely a rideshare mission.

Ergzay (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Starlink Group 2-2??

Where is starlink 2-2?? launch manifest shows 2-3 succeeding 2-1?? Is the news of 2-3 launch after 2-1 right?? Please give the reasons for it Chinakpradhan (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The 2-3 for VSFB comes from here. There is discussion of it here and here not that we can use messageboard posts but they seems fairly sure that the 2-3 name used in the fcc report is the VSFB launch and 2-2 is a Florida launch (as shown further down the future launches list). Per LP the next Florida launch is crew-3 on 30 Oct, so 2-2 could well be Nov but that doesn't yet rule out Oct 31st. Nextspaceflight has changed to agree with this naming and does indicate 2-2 is NET Nov, so perhaps we should also indicate 2-2 is NET Nov? C-randles (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh I saw everydayastronaut.com is still showing 2-2 from vsb and that too before 2-3Chinakpradhan (talk) 05:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Spaceflightnow launch schedule has also now changed to agree 2-3 is from Vandenberg. C-randles (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Should we agree C-randles and Ergzay that starlink 3 is lost like many rockets while dessign or manufacturing or will it launch on a later date, coz the problem is that 2-1 is directly followed by 4-1 Chinakpradhan (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Chinakpradhan What matters is what SpaceX calls them, not what we want to call them or what makes sense Ergzay (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

By "starlink 3" do you mean 2-3? My guess atm, which we obviously shouldn't use, is pad 40 launches will be group 4 while VSFB will be group 2. Latest info is VSFB launch following Group 2-1 will be 2-3. I think we stick with that until a RS says otherwise. If you mean group 3, well no indication that it won't be done eventually even if they concentrate on shells 2 and 4 before doing 3. C-randles (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Ya C-randles I mean group 3 only Chinakpradhan (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

**Important Reminder for editors**

People seem to be ignoring the important notice at the top of the future launches section. I will repeat it here in the hopes that people read it.

• Begin Quote

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE EDITING THIS SECTION

Only officially announced missions should be listed, no rumors or speculation. The main source for the announcement should go after the payload name and not be repeated in other columns. When a more exact launch date is announced, we add a new source next to the date.

Please update the access date of the sfn_ls reference below when you transcribe an update from this source.

More precise launch windows are listed first, e.g. within a given year, we first sort missions by announced launch day, then by launch month, then by launch quarter. We then add missions with no tentative date but likely to launch in this particular quarter or year based on ancillary information. The chronological order of announcements should be a reasonable approximation of the effective backlog for a given quarter or year.

• End Quote

Ergzay (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

When moving launches from Future launches to Past launches, find new sources

I seen a few people doing this but @Chinakpradhan is notable for doing this. When you move a launch from a Future launch, at least one source indicating the launch success is needed before moving it. Otherwise all the sources are left talking about a future launch. In fact the majority of sources used on this page still remain as launch prediction sources. Ergzay (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Ergzay, this thought never came to my mind i usually leave that job for other editors as citations declaring success arrive a little later and i move a launch from a Future launch. just as launch webcast declares success. if you see my edits after the move i go on to edits the stats of other pages after that. even that was the reason why i kept drafts ready so that can easily make the move. ok but now will keep this in mind to add at least one source indicating the launch success that is needed before moving it. Chinakpradhan (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Chinakpradhan Thank you. People are much less likely to add a source if they see the launch has already been moved and there are already sources as it doesn't look like the sources are outdated. This makes it less likely someone will add a fixed source. If you can't find a source or you don't have the time to add a source. It's better if you actually delete any old sources (unless they're about the content of the launch) and add {{Citation needed}} tag if you don't have the time to add a source.Ergzay (talk) 03:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

How to get yGrid lines on bar charts of rocket launches / outcomes etc

Are the bar graphs using Template:Graph:Chart ? They start {{#invoke:Chart | bar chart Tried yGrid= (and yGrid= 1) in List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches#Launch_outcomes but no visible effect The Graph:chart template page shows it working for line graphs, and doesn't say it won't work for bar graphs. Does it need a linewidth or linecolour or something ? :

• or is Graph:chart not what {{#invoke:Chart | bar chart invokes ?
• Template:Bar chart seems just for horizontal bars
• Template:Chart redirects to Template:Tree chart

- Rod57 (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Seems  : {{#invoke:Chart|bar chart}} uses Module:Chart (which has no yGrid type option, and says may not work on mobiles), not Template:Graph:Chart. Maybe switch to use Template:Graph:Stacked to produce bar charts. If thought desirable. - Rod57 (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

CRS mission mass

All of the CRS mission masses seem to be wrong as they exclude the mass of Dragon itself. Ergzay (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

"Wrong" might be too strong a word. Listing the payload mass rather than the total mass to orbit is consistent with descriptions of Space Shuttle missions. The orbiter's mass generally isn't included. Fcrary (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Fcrary If the payload mass isn't "wrong" then the "payload" is wrong. The payload is described as the Dragon, not the cargo within the Dragon. This is a page on Falcon 9 launches, not Dragon missions so it should be the payload that Falcon 9 is launching. Ergzay (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we could change the "Payload mass" entries to "X kg including Y kg of cargo". But I can't find the mass of a Cargo Dragon without cargo. Do we have a citable number for that? Fcrary (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

What about, using CRS-22 as an example, "3,328 kg (7,337 lb) (excl. Dragon mass)". Ergzay (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

That would also work. Fcrary (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Ergzay and Fcrary, I have a opinion that since we are using payload mass not cargo mass as a heading in the section we should include Dragon mass as Crew Dragon mass is also included in this page. Moreover the comparison started that Dragon is compared to shuttle as non payload but as far as I know it's wrong since Chinakpradhan (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Even a shuttle look alike burn is said Buran was intended to be reusable, similar to the Space Shuttle Orbiter, but not a rocket stage as it had no rocket engines (except for on-orbit maneuvering). It relied entirely on the disposable launcher Energia to reach orbit.. I think Dragon is same here Chinakpradhan (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I got this info from super heavy-lift launch vehicles page. The main point I am saying if Dragon had rocket engines that help in rocket's launch it would have been considered as a non payload but that is not possible. Chinakpradhan (talk) 13:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

As I said, I'd be fine with ""X kg including Y kg of cargo", but I can't find a citable number for the Dragon 2 mass without payload. Without that, we can't give the total mass launched to orbit. Do you have a source on the empty Dragon 2 mass? Fcrary (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Splitting article versus launch tables collapsed as default up to year before the last one

The page has become really long. I see two solutions: default collapsing of the launch tables or splitting the article. --Robertiki (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I am highly against default collapsing the tables as this is very inconvenient for the reader. You first have to manually uncollapse all tables to search for specific information with CRTL+F. And there have already been split proposals before. unless there are new arguments why a split is necessary, this discussion does not need to be started again. Gial Ackbar (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

If a reader needs to search the tables uncollapsed he needs only to disable javascript before searching. The other way doesn't work. I have to manually collapse each table before starting to peruse the recent launches. Anyway, opening the article has become really slow. And editing is painfully slow. At this point a split is overdue and so no need for collapsing. --Robertiki (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Robertiki "If a reader needs to search the tables uncollapsed he needs only to disable javascript before searching" This is not a reasonable expectation. Most internet users do not know how to do this and some browsers make this exceedingly annoying to do even for people who are knowledgeable (Firefox for example, requires use of the hidden about:config menu and switching of a config parameter there.) Ergzay (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Collapsing wouldn't help with loading and editing the whole page, the latter is getting a real pain. We could split out either 2010-2019 or both 2010-2019 and 2020+, similar to the list by decade of other rocket families. (@Robertiki: You can use the table of contents to jump to recent launches) --mfb (talk) 07:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

As I mentiond before, the year 2020 is no natual splitting point as it involved no major changes. If a natural splitting point exists, it would be the change between the development versions (Block 4 end everything before) and the final version Block 5. But we should not just pick a seemingly random date like January 1st, 2020 for the split as this would put lauches of Bock 5 in both parts, instead of keeping them together. Gial Ackbar (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

And how well are you getting on with that argument at say List of Proton launches (2000–2009) where Proton K and M versions are mixed? C-randles (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Just because it is done badly there does not meen it should be done equally badly here. You can start discussion there to re-orcanise the splitting there if you would befrer to split the Proton launches by version K and M. Gial Ackbar (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

In case it isn't clear, I am comfortable with split by decade especially when split by type is not a strict chronological split. Given this, why would I start a discussion there? You on the other hand might want to see how the discussion goes. C-randles (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

We went through this whole discussion over whether to split the article, and if so, how to do so, just two months ago. There was no consensus to change it (or a consensus to leave it as is, if that's a better way to phrase it.) We don't need to rehash those same arguments all over again. This is about whether or not to collapse the tables by default. Since that does not solve the problems it's proposed to solve (load time and ease of editing), I'm against that. But please don't use this as a repeat the recent discussion of splitting the article. Fcrary (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

That's the situation you get if many users favor a split but a few users are strictly against any splitting attempts and then call it "no consensus" each time. A possible split is part of the title of this section and the first comment, this section is not only about possibly collapsing tables. --mfb (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mfb Just wondering, you said that editing the whole page is a "real pain" but I don't experience this. How is it a "real pain"? Ergzay (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Every keystroke takes about two seconds to appear. If I type multiple in a row then the first one appears after a second, and the rest of the sentence appears the earliest 5-10 seconds after I pause typing. Marking and deleting some text, copying in text - all these things take multiple seconds for every action. That makes every edit annoying. On other pages, or if I only edit a shorter section, all that is instantaneous. You can blame the laptop I'm using, but this is something affecting multiple users now. --mfb (talk) 08:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Guys, come on. Why are you taking the pain in your head. There are List articles longer that this article (exclude r7 family) first think of them then this article. My nominations of such articles are List of H-II series and H3 launches and List of Long March launches Chinakpradhan (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Moratorium on any attempts to split the article for 90 days

There's been several attempts by activist editors to try to force the article to be split even though the majority of main contributors have no interest in having it split. I'm wondering if people would be in favor of some kind of agreement that no such split will happen for some time so as to reduce stress of people having to watch the article to prevent such split-vandalism by the likes of User:Onetwothreeip and others. Ergzay (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Additionally I'm interested in hearing from people who are against the split, when you think it would be appropriate to split the article. For me personally I'd be interested in splitting the article by decade once we have more than 2 decades worth of launches with the notable launches for each decade moved into that decade's page (with perhaps a few especially notable ones on the summary top level page). See pages like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlas_launches Ergzay (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I would support any decision made by the team working the article, but the split by decade ala Atlas launches seems to make sense. I'm sure this will not be acceptable to some as their objectives appear to be to simply reduce the size of the article with no regard to technical merit. Their multiple obfuscations are not worth listing, but their quoting of WP:SIZE really tells it all, as the article is completely consistent with the guidelines therein. That really should be the end of the story, but I doubt that it will be.VarmtheHawk (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The article is almost at 500,000 bytes, so it is not consistent with WP:SIZE. I support splitting the article in a similar manner to List of Atlas launches, although an article for the 2020s launches may itself eventually need to be split in the future. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip Specifically, what exactly in WP:SIZE do you think implies that that size is not okay? The only reference to byte size in that page is about readable prose size, not wiki markup size that you are using. And even if it were the case, for size there are numerous caveats for list type pages as they are not normal articles. Ergzay (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The readable prose size limits are for articles that are written primarily in prose. This article is written primarily in tables, so we use the size of readable data in tables. The guide is strongly against articles being over 100,000 bytes and there are certainly considerations for list articles to exceed the limits that are placed on prose articles, but not to the extent that would allow a list article to be 500,000 bytes. The underlying issue with this article is that there are too many references, which is what is making the article size so large. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

There is literally nothing true in this paragraph. And, since the issue has magically morphed into one of references, shouldn't the warning at the top of the page be changed to one about too many citations?VarmtheHawk (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The article could be split, references reduced, or both. Other considerations could be made to improve the article as well. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip Can you point to something in the wikipedia guidelines that says that "readable data in tables" is equivalent to "readable prose"? Can you explain why exceeding 100,000 bytes (assuming it's referring to "readable data in tables") somewhat for tables is fine, but exceeding it greatly is not okay? It's fine if you want to think that, but if you're going to convince everyone else of that some kind of source or example would be helpful. If you think there's too many references, feel free to remove references if a single reference already cites all the information in that table row. Ergzay (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you would be convinced by anything I would show you. The prose size limits are there for the ease of the reader in reading the main content of the article, which is typically the written prose for most articles. When assessing the size of a prose article, we typically don't consider tables, images and other elements to be the primary content of the article, but that's obviously not tenable for articles which primarily contain those elements. In an article that is primarily a table such as this one, the consideration changes to the content in the tables, as that is the main focus for the reader. We should stick to discussing how we can improve the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry for entering this debate late, but I don't think splitting the article is necessary or appropriate. I have two specific concerns. First, could someone (probably Onetwothreeip, who seems to be the only advocate of splitting) explain why that is a good idea? There has been lots of discussion of guidelines (which no one seems to agree about) and references to WP:SIZE. But WP:SIZE discusses multiple reasons why an article might be too long and why or why not it should be under those circumstances. To me, it seems like this discussion has muddled and mixed up those various reasons. Could anyone advocating for a split clearly state which one of the criteria in WP:SIZE is the issue? Or is it simply a case of someone who hates long articles pointing to any guideline that editor can seize upon to justify a personal preference? Second, the Falcon 9 has only been flying for 12 years. If there is a consensus to split the article, splitting by decades make absolutely no sense to me. That would result in an article of more-or-less the same length (2010 to 2019) and a fairly short article on flights in 2020-2021. I don't see how that would be an improvement. Fcrary (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

2010-2019 more or less same length huh?? Would have 80 table rows. 2020- would already have 50 rows for past launches and 83 for future launches totalling 133 and this is likely to grow. Removing 80 from 213 is a good chunk and more so as notable launches might be split 80:50. However, agree that a couple of splitters shouldn't get their way if regular editors here are generally against it. C-randles (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@C-randles I think what Fcrary meant to say is that 2020- article would only contain a single year's completed launches, which makes the list of launches page mostly about future launches rather than current launches. IMO the list dedicates too much space to future launches and should mostly be historical focused, though it's still a useful reference. Splitting off everything 2010-2019 would reduce much of the point of the article. Ergzay (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

(IMO, I'm in favor of splitting by decade, compared to others who aren't, but I want to wait a few more years before that's done to give more substance to the remaining part of the page.) Ergzay (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not opposed to splitting the article by decade. If the article was split today, there would still be 49 past launches in the main article. Prior history is only one click away. I am opposed to a moratorium. As the discussion continues, I am finding the arguments in favor of splitting more compelling than the arguments against. Jwolfe (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the opportunity Fcrary, but it is far from only myself advocating a split. Editors were discussing splitting the article before I started commenting in it. The reason for splitting this article is best summarised as making it easier for readers to access and view the overall content, which may be better done over more than one article. Our size guidelines do allow for articles to exceed 100,000 bytes, but this article is a few times larger than that. It's true that a split by decade would essentially mean one article of 2010 to 2019 and one article of 2020 to present, and the former would be much larger than the latter, but the latter would still itself exceed 100,000 bytes and be considered a large article on its own. The latter article will also get larger as there are more rocket launches to add. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Let me try again. WP:SIZE includes several reasons why a article shouldn't be too long, and also mentions exceptions to all of them. Which specific one of those reasons do you think applies to this list. Without knowing that, I can't read WP:SIZE and decide if this list should be an exception. Fcrary (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

TV episodes lists have fixed the issues by creating dedicated templates that help trasnlusion from subpages onto the main list episodes. For example all the current information could be moved into decades articles, and from each of those decades, the headers of the launches (i.e. eliminate from the main page like 70% of the text). see: List_of_The_Office_(American_TV_series)_episodes and the original tables like those in The_Office_(American_season_1). 188.24.140.23 (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

That's worth considering, but the text in this page in the text areas is much smaller than those episode summaries, and there's a lot more text in the header than there is in those episode summary headers. We also use a lot more sources. I don't think it will have much effect. Also people were complaining specifically about the byte size of the page, no one was complaining about the prose size. Ergzay (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Size of the page immediately decreases when only half of the text is transcluded. Also, a lot of the references in the headers of each entries could be moved into the bottom text that would not be transcluded, and thus greatly trim on the data amount sent to a device opening this page. It just needs someone patient enough to setup the correct templates and the outcome should be way better. In the old days, the TV series episodes lists suffered the same issues when brought up at FL, and the transclusion thing fixed all that, and nowadays, all the new episodes lists are far faster to edit, while still easily keeping it clean. 188.24.140.23 (talk) 09:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I would add to the ones complaining about the size of the page. Opening the page has become too slow. And editing is now a pain, having a long wait each time I click Show preview to check the changes before publishing. I skipped already to do some edits for that reason. At this point a split is overdue. I would remember that consensus is not about numbers, is not a vote, but about what is reasonable. --Robertiki (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that splitting the article by decade makes sense. Several other launch vehicles families with over 100 launches (Ariane, Atlas, Proton, R7, Thor/Delta, Titan) have been done that way.

For those that dislike the idea of the partial lists being only two items, I have a suggestion - rename this article to 'List of SpaceX Falcon Launches' and add the five Falcon 1 launches in their own (short) article. If that was done the revised article would have three 'daughter' articles

2006-2009 SpaceX Falcon launches. <--- the five Falcon 1 launches.

2010-2019 SpaceX Falcon launches.

2020-2029 SpaceX Falcon launches.

The last decade might need to be further split depending on the number of Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy launches. AmigaClone (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This still has the problem that different flights of the same booster will end up in different sub-lists, making it difficult to search for all flights of a specific booster .(There is the list of boosters, but it has very limited details about the missions flown by the booster.) Therefore I still think that splitting by booster type (everything before Block 5 in one list, Block 5 itself in the other) would be the more natural point for splitting, if a split needs to be done at all. Gial Ackbar (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

5 Flights in One Month

Was December 2021 the first month that SpaceX launched a total of five Falcon 9 (or Falcon Heavy) rockets? If so, should we demote that in the comments for the flight on December 21st?

user:mnw2000 20:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Even if it is, unless there is a third party referencing that milestone, I don't see it as noteworthy. Gial Ackbar (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

It's likely some source will have mentioned it in passing, but there is a lot of randomness involved for such a record and I don't think it is noteworthy even if some source mentioned it. --mfb (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I noted several third party references to the 'three launches in three days (70 hours)' but none of 5 launches in a month. An argument for mentioning December 2021 as being the first time SpaceX has launched the Falcon 9 five times in a month is the fact that in this article there is a mention in the last launch of November 2020 that SpaceX completed four launches in a month for the first time.

On the other hand, between November 2020 and December 2021, there have been 6 times where SpaceX has launched 5 or more missions in a 30 day period.

• 5 missions (21 November 2020 to 19 December 2020)
• 5 missions (23 April 2021 to 15 May 2021) - 3 Launches 39A
• 5 missions (29 April 2021 to 26 May 2021) - 3 Launches from SLC-40.
• 5 missions (4 May 2021 to 3 June 2021) - 3 launches LC 39A.
• 5 missions (11 November 2021 to 9 December 2021)
• 6 missions (24 November 2021 to 21 December 2021)

I realize, this information would be likely be considered 'original research' by Wikipedia standards. AmigaClone (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Basic arithmetic and counting, is almost always permissible. --Robertiki (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Problem (Starlink mass)

@Ergzay and Mfb: what accounts for 4-12's extra more 35kg weight than for same stack of 53 sats in 4-1Chinakpradhan (talk) 06:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the 4-1 value is rounded to the nearest 100 kg while the other one is not. --mfb (talk) 06:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chinakpradhan Be careful to not over edit. Don't go massively changing things on all missions. This number is only relevant for sats from this and maybe future launches. Ergzay (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ergzay i am in no rush and even wouldnt change others as they are ok for now. moreover Trevor Sesnic the page creator apologized to me. Chinakpradhan (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chinakpradhan That wasn't an apology to you. Please be careful assigning undue weight to things. Ergzay (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

So whom must be changed should I change 4-1 mfbChinakpradhan(talk) 06:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mfb: New data arrives https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1505058886130311169?s=20&t=8JArwLzMV0MFr6FYbRtJWQ which tells not to believe everydayastronaut.com Chinakpradhan (talk) 07:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Starlink payload masses were always an estimate. Good to have a new data point. --mfb (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

How many starlink launches to show as planned

[4] suggests 52 launches in 2022. Currently 3 completed and 35 commercial and 2 starlink planned in table making only 40. Is this enough to add 1 starlink per month? Is it possible that starship might take over starlink launches sometime in second half of year? Are starship flights included in the 52? Thoughts? C-randles (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The comment at the beginning of the Future launches section specifically states "Only officially announced missions should be listed, no rumors or speculation." Following that guidance, only confirmed Starlink and Starship launches should be displayed in the table regardless of the 52 launch number. Yiosie 2356 23:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@C-randles As mentioned here, I've returned the count of upcoming Starlink missions to 1, as that is all that is on the chart. Ergzay (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

So we should add G4-8,[5] G4-9,[6] and G4-10.[7] because these come from 'an official source'? There is also [8] from VSFB but it doesn't give a name and while it may be Starlink it presumably also might not be. The July 2021 spaceflightnow ref for VSFB starlink saying "SpaceX is expected to launch an average of one Starlink mission per month from Vandenberg over the next year, and there will be a regular cadence of Starlink flights from Cape Canaveral, too." hasn't been particularly accurate, perhaps that should be demoted to being a rumour? C-randles (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Added 4-9 and 4-9. I am doubtful of 4-10 flying in February and haven't got a ref for March, so I haven't added it yet. C-randles (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

splitting discussion won't go away

the page is slow to load, slow to edit, and tedious overall to search through. there are so many wp:FL that could be used as a model for splitting this. it's already 4+ years since this page has been first proposed for splitting, and asides from minimal trims, there is nothing being done about it. 2A02:2F0E:DE07:BF00:4C88:5F60:B92B:BCEC (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The page is not slow to load or slow to edit. It's working perfectly fine. If you are using a bad editor/program to edit Wikipedia then maybe that is the cause. Ergzay (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The last hundred references on this page are no longer loading due to a script error caused by exceeding Lua time usage (found in the page source: "Lua time usage: 10.048/10.000 seconds"). Looks like the time has finally come to split this article. Yiosie 2356 06:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

That works... I like having current launches on the same page as the overview and statistics, so I would prefer moving the 2010-2019 tables to a new page and keeping the rest here. That's 80 launches, so the solution should work at least until mid/late 2023. Statistics can be transcluded to have them in both. I'm fine with a full decade split too, however, if that's what others prefer (two new pages, making this article here only the general overview). Do we keep the full "notable launches" section here? It's much shorter and has the important historic launches. --mfb (talk) 07:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Yiosie2356 I'm not seeing any error here. All 982 references load for me. Ergzay (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

It appears that the script error fixed itself sometime in the last few weeks. Regardless, the post‐expand include size is currently at 1,885,639/2,097,152 bytes and growing; it will be necessary to split this page once that limit is exceeded in the not-too-distant future. Yiosie 2356 04:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Yiosie2356 Where is the hard limit at 2 MiB documented? This is the first I've heard of that limit. Ergzay (talk) 05:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Stated here. "The maximum limit for Wikipedia is set by the MediaWiki software default article size limit, 2048 kibibytes (specifically, 2,097,152 bytes).

Exceeding the post-expand limit will result in templates in the article appearing incorrectly." Yiosie 2356 11:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Since this page is a FL, this should probably remain the up to 2019 page. Also, the page grew 100k (a quarter) in size in the past 12 moths. 2A02:2F01:F112:4A00:CDE2:E53:7DA9:9E60 (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Someeditor should create the split page so IPs can edit it. 188.27.42.181 (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

IPs can edit the page currently. What is the problem? Ergzay (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Link to List of spaceflight launches in January–June 2021

Recently @Robertiki: has added a link to the List of spaceflight launches in January–June 2021 in the see also section. I do not think that specific link sbould be included as the topic differs to much from this article. Why would we link a list off all space launches from a specific half-year in this list. Also, why only link that specific half-year and not all, which would leed to a way too long linst. I think the better sollution would be to include the linked list into the Spaceflight lists and timelines template that is already used at the buttom of the article. That way, a link would be present, but at a more approriate point that the "see also" section. Gial Ackbar (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

First point: why not link a See Also to every other launch ? Second point: the list of any launch is daisy chained so starting from the first you can get to the next list. What is missing is a page linking al lists of any launch as in the human flight link I also added. Third: including the list into Spaceflight lists is acceptable: but there is some work to do. I won't oppose that solution. But still now the link is useful as it is. --Robertiki (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the general Human spaceflight link as already present, as you suggested, in the Template "Spaceflight lists and timelines". What is missing is the list of any launch in the said template (box). --Robertiki (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Then I would suggest you add the link to that template instead of to the "see also" section. Gial Ackbar (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I have started following talk which explains the problem. That template is already present in the present page. --Robertiki (talk) 12:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

CRS phase 2 contract increased

According to the CRS page, SpaceX got 3 more CRS launches with NASA source, up from 6. 6 is still mentioned here, such as for CRS 25 'the fifth of six' , etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Resupply_Services#Commercial_Resupple_Services_phase_2 Dg21dg21 (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

We also show that with CRS27 saying three more were awarded. Fifth of six is perhaps better at telling you where we are up to with each contract. Currently says 'Fifth of six new cargo missions NASA awarded in 2015 to SpaceX under the CRS-2 contract to be flown after the initial 20 missions of phase 1 were completed in 2020.' That may have been appropriate for CRS-21 & 22 but perhaps after that it is a bit of a mouthful to refer to the date of end of phase 1 20. Maybe it would be better simplified to something like 'Fifth of a total of nine awarded under phase 2 of the CRS contracts.' ? C-randles (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

CRS-26 appears to be missing. CRS-25 and CRS-27, 28, 29 are all listed, but not 26. Jesse Schulman (talk) 10:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Nextspaceflight shouldn't be considered authoritative

Nextspaceflight while it often has good information has no information on how good their source is for any piece of information, whether it's an industry insider friend or an official speaking off the record completely changes how we should consider the information for this page but none of that is indicated on nextspaceflight. Given that I don't think we should be using information from the sight unless there is some other secondary source. Ergzay (talk) 09:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

B1074 has been spotted at McGregor as reported on NASASpaceFlight forums. I don't think mass deleting information without even attempting to verify sources/look for other sources is good.

There are alternate sources if NextSpaceFlight does not publicly states its sources. Have you looked at NextSpaceFlight's Discord group or gotten in touch with the people there? Perhaps they can advice on sources. Raftonyxdevoutly (talk) 12:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I did try to look for sources, for the record, but didn't happen to see that one. Ergzay (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Looking more carefully though, that is just a twitter user and it doesn't state whether it's a side booster or a core booster so there's not enough information to add it to the list. Ergzay (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Also I'll finally add that a discord isn't a valid source for this type of information either. NextSpaceFlight should be providing how they got their info in the first place, for all we know it could be someone going by process of elimination and making complete guesses. Ergzay (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know, NASASpaceFlight also does not disclose their sources (most journalists don't disclose their sources). They also speak to SpaceX insiders off the record.

Does that mean all sources besides SpaceX are not considered authoritative and should be removed? Raftonyxdevoutly (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

If they say "an industry source" that's sufficient to be trusted as they're stating what kind of source it is. If they give no info at all then it's not to be trusted. WP:CRYSTAL "Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable". Ergzay (talk) 09:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

You say, "if they say "an industry source" that's sufficient to be trusted", but in your reply to @GigaShip, you're asking for an authoritative source. If places like NextSpaceFlight speaks to industry sources about launch details, is that enough or not?

"Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable".

Well, NextSpaceFlight isn't predicting the future. They speak to sources and put information up, y'know, kinda like journalists do. Unfortunately your edit history shows that you may not be open to being wrong, or even having your thinking challenged.

We know SpaceX speaks off the record, otherwise we wouldn't have insight into things like Starship research at Boca Chica. Some of the names that are referred to there are SpaceX's internal names, not community information.

I do not approve of mass deleting information before have the discussion on whether we should mass delete that information. Raftonyxdevoutly (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

> If places like NextSpaceFlight speaks to industry sources about launch details, is that enough or not?

NextSpaceFlight doesn't give any comment at all about where their information comes from. It's utterly opaque.

> I do not approve of mass deleting information before have the discussion on whether we should mass delete that information.

If information is unsourced (or poorly sourced) it can be deleted without discussion.

Ergzay (talk) 11:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

>NextSpaceFlight doesn't give any comment at all about where their information comes from. It's utterly opaque.

So will every good journalist out there. Are you going to remove every piece of information that now comes from a journalist who doesn't comment about their sources?

WP:V states that "Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced." Nowhere does it say that if it's unsourced or poorly sourced, it can be deleted without discussion. Raftonyxdevoutly (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

But "NextSpaceFlight" is not a "journalist". It's a website. With journalists you can check to see if they have been historically accurate and trust them based on their known history. A site with no names and no history and not even any documentation on their general practices is not something that you can use. Ergzay (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

>@GigaShip: "I have askes Alejandro Alcantarilla, which initially provided those booster assignments, about his sources. He said he couldn't give specific information, but he trusts his sources. And I trust him. From what I've seen, his sources haven't been wrong."

Fits everything you want out of journalists, right?

>NextSpaceflight has no edit log nor articles that are fixed in time to be able to reference.

This is why sources have a date when they are retrieved.

>It's impossible to actually check if they're accurate or not because everything is constantly in flux on the site.

So, kinda like everything that isn't deterministic? Journalists report what they know at the moment. When facts change, so do their reporting.

>There is no way to look back in time to see if their prediction was accurate.

Is this even a requirement when presenting sources on Wikipedia? Raftonyxdevoutly (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Here we go, I've sourced information from a third-party about the legitimacy of Next Space Flight.

This is from a moderator on the NASASpaceFlight forums:

>>Enough with the "fan site" bashing of NextSpaceFlight.  We've already done 1 deletion and 1 edit in this thread in less than 24 hours.

>>Stephen Clark at SFN often does not source Launch Schedule updates in (or from) SFN articles.

>>Ben Cooper does not source his updates for the Launch Photography Viewing Guide.

>>They all use confidential sources, including NextSpaceFlight.

>>NextSpaceFlight is often first and correct in updates for near-term future American launches, and particularly SpaceX Falcon 9 and Heavy launches.  And, that's why we launch thread contributors source them in such launch threads in this forum.

When asked by another user on how the information is sourced, NASASpaceFlight forum user 'alexphysics', who updates NextSpaceFlight states:

>>The way journalists confirm stuff... through sources

NextSpaceFlight is used by NASASpaceFlight for updates on launch times, launch locations & boosters.

My justification for why NextSpaceFlight is legitimate concurs with third-party information from NASASpaceFlight.

SpaceX-centric community (including NASASpaceFlight) vs. @Ergzay. I'm going to say that the community trusts NextSpaceFlight.

Is one dude going to dictate how the page is edited? Because if so, that goes against how Wikipedia is meant to run. Raftonyxdevoutly (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. The community has used and trusted NextSpaceflight for a long time. NextSpaceflight isn't any different compared to Spaceflight Now's launch schedule and Ben Cooper's launch viewing guide. And this isn't suddenly going to change. GigaShip (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I think NEXTSpaceflight should be considered authoritative. I have askes Alejandro Alcantarilla, which initially provided those booster assignments, about his sources. He said he couldn't give specific information, but he trusts his sources. And I trust him. From what I've seen, his sources haven't been wrong. Besides that, just mass deleting information isn't the way to do it. Instead open a discussion and use the [Citation needed] tag if you think a claim is not correctly cited. GigaShip (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Especially removing the USSF-44 booster numbers is really unnecessary since those assignments have been known for multiple years GigaShip (talk) 08:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@GigaShip If they've been "known" for multiple years then provide an authoritative source. Must I remind people, Wikipedia forbids original research WP:OR. Relying on this "collective community knowledge" (which is essentially what nextspaceflight is) is a terrible source for Wikipedia. I'll also mention WP:CRYSTAL "Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable". Ergzay (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the guidelines and policies. There is no expectation that editors be able to trace all information back to a primary source. NEXTSpaceflight is a source, and if their reporting is consistently accurate, then they are a reliable source. That's as far as we need to go. Things like WP:CRYSTAL is about what the editors can do. There is nothing wrong with putting predictions by a reliable source into an article. Fcrary (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

NextSpaceflight has no edit log nor articles that are fixed in time to be able to reference. It's impossible to actually check if they're accurate or not because everything is constantly in flux on the site. There is no way to look back in time to see if their prediction was accurate. Thus you can't use the site. Ergzay (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

You are asking for things no other source needs to have. Why would you apply far stricter standards for this particular website? --mfb (talk) 07:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mfb I do not think I am using inconsistent standards. NextSpaceFlight would classify as "user generated content", thus it should be treated the same as Twitter. Do you disagree that NextSpaceFlight is user generated content? If not user generated content then it is at least "self-published" which would entail it needing to be published by an "established expert on the subject matter". However NextSpaceFlight doesn't even have a name so there is no way to establish that. Quoting WP:RSSELF: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Ergzay (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Why are you only reading replies where you think you're correct?

You clearly don't think that the NextSpaceFlight team is credible and refuse to look at their work as journalism, despite NASASpaceFlight's usage of their data. You know the person who founded NextSpaceFlight works for NASASpaceFlight, right?

Multiple people have supported NextSpaceFlight as a valid source. When will you stop holding this page hostage? Raftonyxdevoutly (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Not only do you keep asking for things no other source needs to provide, you also jump around in the things you ask for, changing them in every other comment. This isn't a productive discussion. You start with the conclusion "it must be unreliable" and keep asking for more things forever, even when they have been provided before already. The consensus is obvious, it's you arguing against everyone else here, can we stop this now please? --mfb (talk) 04:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Linking to the section about future launches twice instead of just using the table of contents?

Recently @Robertiki: has added two links to the section of future launches, one at the start of the into section, and one at the end of the intro section, just in front of the TOC. I don't see why this is necesarry. The section can be reached simply by using the TOC itself. Befor adding thos two lines, the intro section itself was just short enough that the future launches where still visible in the TOC (at least at my sreen resolution, other screen resolutoions might differ). I therefor think those linkes should be removed again as they provide nothing the TOC itself cannot provide. Gial Ackbar (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

You insist to measure common access as from your connection and your screen. The other point you insist is opposing the article split (now 3,552 lines, 49,797 words 518,043 bytes, now almost 20 seconds required for a simple edit). That's discriminating. I have to scroll down to see the wanted link. Now to the point: should we make a poll to know how many access the page to search for information about the next launches ? --Robertiki (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

No i do not instit to measure it just by my sceen, that was just an example i was giving. Even if you have to scroll at other screen resolution, is it relay so hard just to move the scroll wheel of your mouse a few times? And why link the future launches specificly, and not any of the other section. Every section might be interessting to other readers, and that way you would just duplicate the TOC. Gial Ackbar (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I wanted a solution like any launch page, were the launch list is not splitted (making the job of updating more cumbersome in Falcon page) but we have a mobile link (see line: {{TLS-Separator for upcoming launches}} <!-- Move this just before the next scheduled launch -->). And why they have done something like that is my reason. It is also a suggestion for you how to modify the page before others will do it. --Robertiki (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I would not mind that way. If you edit the article in a way that it works like in the linkes article, and remove one of the two linkes from the intro section, I would be fine with this. Gial Ackbar (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Were should I put the following header after removing the section header title "Future launches" ?

Future launches are listed chronologically when firm plans are in place. The order of the later launches is much less certain, as the official SpaceX manifest does not include a schedule. Tentative launch dates are cited from various sources for each launch. Launches are expected to take place "no earlier than" (NET) the listed date. 

--Robertiki (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest right below the TLS-Separator for upcoming launches, but I am not sure myself if this is the best place. Maybe someone elso has a better idea. Gial Ackbar (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I have looked in the code and it is a daunting task starting from 2022 (the table has to be fully edited). Perhaps starting from 2023 and leaving until 31 December 2022 the simple link ? --Robertiki (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Robertiki Before we go about completely rewriting the table format, how do you propose keeping the table headers the same given there is different column information between the future launches and the already launched vehicles? What would you put for the "launch outcome", "booster landing", and "flight no." columns for a future launch? Are you proposing completely removing those columns?

Personally I'm against the merging of the two tables for exactly this reason. Ergzay (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Is it time to do a split ?

What happened today, with Ergzay thinking I had made two upsetting insertions of the link to Future Launches section (Chinakpradhan had moved it down at bottom of opening section and I did'nt see it), is one consequence of the slowliness of editing the cumbersome page. How the splitting could be made is exampled with the "List of spaceflight launches in January–June 2021" series of pages. --Robertiki (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The way it is split there simply does not work here. As I have mentioned before, splitting by date would put launches of the same booster into different sublists. Therefore that would be not a natural point for splitting. The only natural point I see would be splitting by booster typ. Everything until Block 4 could go in one list, and Block 5 as the final version could go into a second list. Gial Ackbar (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that we should split by Booster type as they are still all Falcon 9. They are not different rockets. Ergzay (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I have faced difficulty with the visual editor being slow - although the source editor is fine for me.

If we were to split this, my suggestion would be to split by decade, and move 2010-2019 launches to another page. One step further would be to move 2020-2022 launches to another page & we have a list of future launches in one page. Raftonyxdevoutly (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

What's the problem with having different launches of a booster on different pages? If someone wants to look at all launches of a booster they'll use the list of boosters anyway. --mfb (talk) 04:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The list of boosters has no sufficent info in the table. It neiteh inlcudes the details of the paiload, like mass, nor the target orbit (LEO, MEO, TLI, GTO, GEO or wherever the payload was put). Therfore it is much more convinient to just CRTL-F through this list to see what a booset did than using the booster list. Gial Ackbar (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Furthermor: Wikipedia:Article_size#Lists,_tables_and_summaries states, as I had mentioned before: "If there is no "natural" way to split or reduce a long list or table, it may be best to leave it intact". There was no natrual change in the launches just because a year or a decade changed. So by this policy, years or deacades cannot be used as splitting points. The change from Block 4 to Block 5, however, is a natural change so it could be used for splitting. Gial Ackbar (talk) 09:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the need to have all payload masses and individual orbits of the final payload (not of the booster!) of every booster launch on a single page. The final Block 4 launch was after the initial Block 5 launch, the split you propose would ruin the chronology of the list. --mfb (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

We should only split by decade (or a half a decade if a decade is too large). I disagree with moving future launches to a new page. 2020-2022 should be on the same page with future launches. It becomes a destructive mess in the edit log to be moving future launch entries to past launch entries if they are on different pages. Ergzay (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Robertiki I'm not sure what you're referring to. The page is no slower to scroll when editing than when reading the page. Additionally it only takes 2-3 seconds to save the page when finished editing. However, I agree that it's time to split the page because we're quickly approaching mandatory rendering limits for Wikipedia's software of 2MB of "post-expand size". At time of posting it currently says "Post‐expand include size: 1920227/2097152 bytes". Ergzay (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I also would suggest its time (or past time) to split this table. I would suggest using a splitting the list with 2010-2019 launches on one list and 2020- on a second one, with the possibility of the later eventually becoming 2020-2024 and 2025- if the current launch cadence holds another two years. AmigaClone (talk) 08:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to back this. 2010-2019 and 2020- on another one, and then we discuss as the launches continue to build up. Raftonyxdevoutly (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Just came here to suggest this same thing because this page is starting to get a bit large. I think your proposal makes the most sense (ie. splitting to List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches (2010-2019) -note this is currently a redirect- and List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches (2020-present) or something like that) and I wanted to say that I support it. Thingg^⊕⊗ 01:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Limiting it to the present would kick out future launches. --mfb (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@Thingg I agree on the 2010-2019 page, however 2020-present shouldn't exist as the 2020 and forward page should include all upcoming launches that are known. Ergzay (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@Thingg For now, the second page of launches could be named List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches (2020-2029), which is closer to what other list of launch vehicles that include future launches do. AmigaClone (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there an update on where we stand regarding the split? I believe we should move 2010-2019 launches to another page & provide a link at the 'Past launches' section before the list of 2020 launches. I'd be comfortable sandboxing a test page before we publish the move. Raftonyxdevoutly (talk) 09:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

For those interested, these already exist:

• List of Thor and Delta launches (1957–1959)
• List of Thor and Delta launches (1960–1969)
• List of Thor and Delta launches (1970–1979)
• List of Thor and Delta launches (1980–1989)
• List of Thor and Delta launches (1990–1999)
• List of Thor and Delta launches (2000–2009)
• List of Thor and Delta launches (2010–2019)
• List of Thor and Delta launches (2020–2029)

81.181.130.106 (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

As I see, thep page just got splitted, but there are still some reference errors as some references are only definded in one list, but used in both. You might want to fix that. Gial Ackbar (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I edit in between software validation runs at work, appreciate if other editors could help clean up the references. Raftonyxdevoutly (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

these links werte restablished by me after shifting they lost thier reality @Ergzay@Gial Ackbar@Mfb. Chinakpradhan (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks like all citation errors are fixed. The list of boosters has ~80 links to years (one per flight) that should go directly to the new page and there are probably links from other articles, too. None of these are urgent however, we can wait until the split is stable and then work on these links. --mfb (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Raftonyxdevoutly It would have been good if you had followed the Wikipedia guidelines on splitting. WP:PROPERSPLIT Ergzay (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Note taken. I initiated the split since the discussion was dead & some action was going to have to been taken at some point.

It's still kinda rich coming from the guy who wants to impose your arbitrary qualifications for sources on top of what Wikipedia recommends and then refuse to engage when called out for doing exactly that. Maybe you want to work on agreeing with all guidelines, instead of only those what suit your current mindset at the time. Raftonyxdevoutly (talk) 09:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't get where you're coming from. I never "refused to engage", and I stand by my opinion that it doesn't fit my interpretation of Wikipedia recommends for sources, but there was no point in continuing it as I'm in the vast minority in that interpretation. (I maintain that it's in fact everyone else who's ignoring Wikipedia's recommendations.) Also, personal attacks aren't allowed here. Let's get back on topic. I provided you with a step by step guide that is what should be followed for splitting. It's easily found linked from primary pages describing splitting. Ergzay (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the split, much needed and a long time coming! Castellanet (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

At the split, the page size dropped from 525,678 bytes to 297,415 bytes. 2A02:2F0B:B20D:2700:9CB:CE55:1E85:EC67 (talk) 09:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

50th successful landing of a Falcon 9 on Of Course I Still Love You

Launch 163 was 51th successful landing of a booster on Of Course I Still Love You. Launch 153 was 50th. Stats as of launch 163: LZ1-20, LZ2-3, LZ4-6, OCISLY-51, JRTI-34, ASOG-15. Agnaton (talk) 09:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Are there any reliable third party references for that. I don't think those pseudo-milestones should be included without third party references. Gial Ackbar (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

2023 Rideshare Missions

Now that someone has added the 2023 column to the Launch Outcomes chart, we should try to figure out which, if any, of the listed missions for 2023 are rideshare missions, just as we did back in late 2021. I didn't see any obvious rideshare missions on a quick look. Pinging a few people who were part of that discussion: @Mfb @C-randles @Gial Ackbar. Ergzay (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

dedicated SmallSat rideshares

Transporter missions probably deserve a separate wiki article. That list will be populated in the future with plenty of entries. 2A02:2F0B:B20D:2700:9CB:CE55:1E85:EC67 (talk) 11:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think Transporter missions need a dedicated wiki article. The content of each mission is well covered in lists like List of spaceflight launches in January–June 2022. Ergzay (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

A chart shifting

@Mfb @C-randles @Gial Ackbar @Ergzay i moves the booster landings chart to asds page as transcluding the chart was easier from asds to this page than transcluding from this page to asds page Chinakpradhan (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The reason is that this "|}" is sitting there on asds page as the result of {{col-end}} being present below the Booster Landing section of List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches. So I sorted out that problem. If someone can sort that out for asds page, revert back ( sorting this is impossible). feel free for your views and it will be a good way that someone who is to be updating that chart will arrive at asds page and will also update the asds usage chart Chinakpradhan (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer solving the technical issue instead. Moving the diagram will increase the risk that it gets outdated. --mfb (talk) 04:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I said if you solve the issue you can revert back. @Mfb Chinakpradhan (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I would say you should find a solution for the technical issue before moving things around. --mfb (talk) 10:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@mfb after a treasure hunt for 12 hours I got a way which worked and i have reverted to normal version with a bit addition Chinakpradhan (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

That solution looks good. --mfb (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

yes Chinakpradhan (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

2022 launched and 2022 planned

It seems a bad idea to have two sections with the same title of '2022'. I tried adding something hidden but that didn't work so I changed to '2022 Planned' but two different people reverted my change. So I will probably give up on this unless something gets consensus here. I see you can link to List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches#2022_2 so I guess it isn't a big issue that when you edit the section it jumps to the wrong place. C-randles (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

For 2020 (?) we introduced a similar distinction for that reason but it got lost at the transition to the next year. It can be a bit confusing but shouldn't affect viewers. --mfb (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@C-randles Why is it bad to have two sections named 2022? Wiki markup automatically changes the section to "#2022_2" as the generated anchor for when you click on it from the table of contents. If you want, you can add custom anchors for linking to it from other locations, if needed. Ergzay (talk) 08:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Reasons include: 1 Someone just looks for 2022 in index and clicks the wrong one. 2. Someone just adds #2022 to a link intending it to go to next planned launches not realising there are 2 sections headed 2022. 3. After editing 2022 planned launches it jumps to the 2022 launched section which is slightly annoying/disconcerting. None of these are serious and I am willing to give up on this, but personally I think it is better to fix it than leave it. C-randles (talk) 11:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

♺ symbol

Reuse has become so routine that it's noteworthy if a flight uses a new booster. We can only add the symbol to future flights once we have a confirmed booster assignment, which means something like 90% of the flights there are "wrong" in the sense that they will have reused boosters but cannot have the symbol now. I suggest removing the symbol for all boosters on this page (2020+) and (optional) adding a symbol for new boosters. The ♺ symbol is also used for Dragon capsules where reuse is more interesting, keeping it there or removing it for consistency are both fine with me. --mfb (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mfb I'm a fan of keeping it, simply to keep consistency with the 2010-2019 page where it was indeed significant. Ergzay (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mfb I also am a fan of keeping it. Besides the reason mentioned by @Ergzay it also serves to highlight that most launches by SpaceX use 'flight-proven' boosters. Perhaps a note in the paragraph about 'Future Flights' stating that most Falcon 9 flights likely will use a 'flight=proven' booster. The current flight plans seem to have new Falcon 9 booster. There are 4 Falcon Heavy flights potentially within the next year. At this point, it appears that one will use three new boosters (core + 2 side boosters), one will use two new boosters (Core + 1 side booster) with one flight-proven side booster, and two will each use a new core booster and two flight-proven side boosters. AmigaClone (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, let's keep it. Maybe a symbol for new boosters, so "no symbol" automatically means we don't know? --mfb (talk) 06:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? Ergzay (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

If we know a flight will use a new booster we could add a symbol for that. --mfb (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Fundamental problem with NextSpaceflight as a source

We need to stop using NextSpaceflight so much on this page and on the other Falcon 9 booster list. This page is almost becoming just a mirror of the nextspaceflight list. The problem with NextSpaceflight is that's fundamentally unverifiable. Additionally if you join the discord the source often becomes "I think this booster is probably assigned to this mission". It's a bunch of guess work by random people in a discord channel. It's not a source that is of Wikipedia quality. However they do seem to be often, but not always right, especially with launches that are close to happening.

So I have a compromise, how about we pick an arbitrary time limit, and that if the information is predicted beyond that time limit, it won't not used on either list page. This time limit is important as if the information is predicted too far out then it's almost certainly going to change. This is most important with things that can't be verified from press releases and news articles from known sources. My personal pick for arbitrary time limit is two weeks out, however I'm open to other suggestions, like 1 month or something. Ergzay (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

My impression is that there usually is a source. Most acceptable sources do not reveal their source either. I haven't joined the discord so I don't know, but it seems possible that Nextspaceflight knows some of these "random people" are not just random people and are actually people with inside knowledge. If things turn out to be wrong, it is hard to know whether the plan has changed and info was right at the time or if the info was wrong. What I do have a problem with is that Nextsf sticks to policies of showing NET dates and always with a month. So if a source says Q4, NextSF converts that to October. We need to, and are I think, wary of such dates particularly re first month of a quarter. (I sometimes call NextSF too enthusiastic in hidden notes). I am not sure we need to reduce our use of this source. If we are going for your compromise, I would suggest something more like 6 weeks but I will see what others think. C-randles (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Lets see what happens with Eutelsat. You said there was no public information that exist (presumably other than nextSF) but there was a Eutelsat launch listed on a SpaceX manifest https://web.archive.org/web/20200406123343/https://www.spacex.com/missions#future-missions-header C-randles (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

There is also https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=56825.0;attach=2120470;sess=54281 along with a comment that Airbus contracted with Intelsat for ground station support. The filing was from Intelsat. The satellite is not Intelsat's. "Hotbird F1" might be first flight of the Hotbirds more officially named 13F and 13G? That STA request provides a NET 17 October date. Your "no public information" seems dubious even if I am not completely sure about relevance of this letter. C-randles (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the forum thread, whoever I personally do not think that that thread is connected to Falcon 9. We will see. Ergzay (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. We should have kept that source in the page, if it was ever used. I'd be fine if we added it back in with that as a source. Ergzay (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

If we used that SpaceX manifest as a source to put it back in but refused to use NextSF (beyond x weeks), then we would know there is a launch, but have no clue when it was going to be. So where would we place it? Or does it become ok to use NextSF if there is some other source to confirm existence of launch? The latter is a bit different to what I understood your compromise solution to be so in this case your compromise solution may need clarification. C-randles (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I would put it at the end of the year, just like any other mission where we don't know the date. Ergzay (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it suddenly becomes okay to use NextSF if there is some other source to confirm it's existence. Ergzay (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

End of which year? The SpaceX manifest didn't give any year or date. IMHO two different sources are better than one. C-randles (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Ariane 6 doesn't fly til 2023 but Eutelsat has 4 satellites expected to launch 2022. There are 4 Ariane 5 launches left[9] the last being JUICE and 3 dual payload flights. For those 6 slots, Ariane 5 page lists Eutelsat Konnect VHTS, MTG-I1, Ovzon-3, Galaxy 35 & 36, Eutelsat 10B, Hotbird 13F, Syracuse 4B, and Heinrich Hertz (H2Sat). 9 for 6 slots hmm., something suggests to me that while 3 listed Eutelsat sats might fly with Ariane 5, a 4th seems unlikely especially when there is evidence of a launch booked with SpaceX. But as you say, 'we will see'. Perhaps there will be more info after 6 Sept flight of Eutelsat Konnect VHTS. C-randles (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I have put the Eutelsat launch back in inc spaceX manifest as a ref. Ariane 5 page has sorted out what is flying on last three launches which includes 10B but not any hotbirds. I think combination of nextspaceflight plus SpaceX manifest inclusion makes this reliable enough to include despite our disagreement on reliability of Nextspaceflight. We don't seem to be reaching any consensus on this, but others like me find them reliable enough to use, eg [10]. C-randles (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Falcon Heavy or Falcon Heavy B5

Does anyone call it 'Falcon Heavy B5'? Do we need the B5? There was a falcon heavy launch before B5 but it doesn't seem useful to me - lots of small changes over time so probably more differences between first and last FH using block 5 than between B4 and B5. Any other relevant thoughts? C-randles (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

It's a Block 5 type booster used in a FH. The difference to the oldest FH core should be as large as the difference between F9 cores. --mfb (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree it is a B5 type booster. But if everyone just calls it 'Falcon Heavy' shouldn't we also just use this term? The detail that Falcon Heavy has used B5 type boosters (since date/beginning) should be in the Falcon Heavy article but I don't see the need for that here. Perhaps the column heading should be "Rocket (version)" and all the B5/B4...s' put in brackets to distinguish the name of the rocket from the version? Maybe that is overkill? B5 was only added to Falcon Heavy recently and it seemed odd to me, but maybe it is sensible. C-randles (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Making the launch outcomes chart more informative

In my opinion it would be more informative to have the launch outcomes chart give the type of orbit injected into instead of the current 'Success' and 'Success Starlink'. I believe we should remove those labels and instead use a set of labels, such as 'LEO', 'SSO', 'ISS', 'GTO', 'GEO', 'TLI' and 'Heliocentric'. Does anybody else have any thoughts on this idea? Finlaymorrison0 (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

As it exists, the Launch Outcome graph is one similar to others that exists on at least most other lists of orbital launches. The major difference is that it splits out Starlink launches since they are have been so many of them in the past couple of years. While splitting off other orbits might seem interesting at first glance, it would make the graph itself a lot more confusing.AmigaClone (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Starlink is different because it is self investment rather than a customer paying for it. Failure, success and starlink, as it currently is, seems to me to be enough for the launch outcome chart. IMHO an analysis of the orbits F9 launches to would only be of interest if compared to an analysis of which orbits all orbital rockets are launched to. If something like that is wanted, I think it should be a separate chart and perhaps five year totals would be enough. C-randles (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Launch for Galaxy 33 and 34 ambiguously says to GTO

Launch for Galaxy 33 and 34 wrongly says to GTO. It was actually " an elliptical “sub-synchronous” transfer orbit with an apogee, or high point, ranging more than 10,000 miles above Earth." says [11]. Total Mass was well over the 5.5mT to GTO that allows even a recovery to drone ship. - Rod57 (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

To me that sounds within the definition of Geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) that we are using here. i.e. an intermediate step for reaching their final GEO which is highly elliptical. That GTO article does current say "apogee is as high as geostationary" however, I think we have had this discussion before and the concept of being an intermediate step was considered to be the more important defining concept. So I am in favour of removing the dubious tag added. Perhaps the GTO article would be improved by adding roughly before "as high as geostationary" and/or other additions to make clear that similar sub-synchronous and super-synchronous highly elliptical orbits can also be considered to be a GTO. C-randles (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

SpaceX launches to subsynchronous GTO frequently. See the list in the SpaceX reddit wiki: https://old.reddit.com/r/SpaceX/wiki/launches/gto_performance Greg (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

It's still a geosyncronous transfer orbit if it's "sub-syncronous" (apogee lower than GEO) or "super-syncronous" (apogee higher than GEO). Ergzay (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all, for the corrections/explanations. I wonder how this list could be clearer on the type of GTO each payload was put into. Could we find/add the apogee, or the delta-V needed to get into GEO (as the reddit link above shows) ? Do SpaceX say before the launch, or do we only find out after someone tracks the 2nd stage ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we need that level of detail in the table for routine launches. --mfb (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree. We already honestly include too much information in the table, much of it unsourced/poorly sourced. We don't need yet another piece of information where it is difficult to get accurate information for historical launches. Ergzay (talk) 02:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

One could roughly determine the apogee altitude from the telemetry provided in the webcasts, as they usually show the second burn of the upper stage pushing it into a GTO. Finlaymorrison0 (talk) 14:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Hakuto launch date

@C-randles Why post "Hakuto 7th 7:59-8:56 per NGA https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57189.20 " in the edit comment but not add the source to the article? Now the listed source no longer verifies with the information. Ergzay (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that but we are not supposed to use forum posts. I couldn't find an online source for the NGA, the website is usually delayed from emails. But it was clearly information that was likely to be correct and other sources would soon follow, and that is exactly what has happened with the existing source catching up before this reply. C-randles (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@C-randles I mean, I agree we shouldn't generally use forum posts, but worse than using forum posts as a source, is taking information from the forum post, adding it to the wiki and then not even citing it. If you're gonna use forum post information I'd say at least cite it... Then we can debate that a forum post isn't a good source instead of having no idea where it came from... Anyway that's my two cents. Ergzay (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Starshield mention

@Chinakpradhan Can you please add a source to your Starshield edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches&diff=1125333573&oldid=1125291815 Thanks! Greg (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The link is mentioned in the page Gunter space @Greg Chinakpradhan (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I added a reference. --mfb (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Launch mass equaling weight of rocket statistic

@Chinakpradhan Wikipedia is not a place for random statistics. See: WP:NOTSTATS. Additionally, you don't cite any sources for your statistics so its WP:OR. Finally, you should follow WP:BRD. You should come here to start a discussion and ping the person who did the revert if you don't like a revert rather than reverting the revert. If someone reverts something you need to convince the person (or others enough to get a consensus to overule that person) that the addition is something worthy of adding. Ergzay (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

For others reading this. This is the change diff. Ergzay (talk) 13:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

This one is also like the one on boosters page called "Amongst all B5 boosters, B1058 is the booster with most satellites launched by it, having launched 725 satellites on it so far." @Ergzay. And as i mentioned there's a scope of redefining it Chinakpradhan (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest we should remove that as well as it's not significant and also WP:OR or at the very least WP:SYNTH. However that's on a different page, so we should talk about it there rather than here. Ergzay (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Number of v2 Starlink satellites on Falcon 9

@Chinakpradhan You keep changing to 20-21 satellites on Falcon 9, but where are you getting that from? The only source that seems to give a number that I've seen is Teslarati and Teslarati is a notably unreliable source, and they only state "should be able to" based off of a rough calculation. That doesn't seem like a source we should be including in the article. Ergzay (talk) 05:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Spacex uses all performance of F9 on a starlink mission since each v2 f9-2 bus weigh 800kg they will launch 20-21 only excluding volume and arrangement constraints. Its not different from list ~50-52 for group 2 launches as both are assumption. Its upto you to go deep and look for difference between an assumption by calculation ( or unknown) vs assumption by experience. @Ergzay Chinakpradhan (talk) 08:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Chinakpradhan That doesn't compare because we have no idea the physical configuration of the new satellites, only the basic dimensions so we don't know how they can be stacked within the fairing. And no, it's not "up to me". It's up to the person adding the information to the Wikipedia page, which is you (and others). Also you cannot use your own calculations for anything on the page that is not simple math. It would fall under WP:OR. Also when you respond on talk pages, please indent your comments. I corrected your previous comment into the correct format. Ergzay (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

ok Chinakpradhan (talk) 09:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Chinakpradhan As it's now been confirmed that it is in fact 54 satellites being launched and that they are not v2, I continue to advise not adding information to this list from highly unreliable sources like Teslarati. Ergzay (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

ok Chinakpradhan (talk) 02:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

just saw his proof of unreliability (basically he lacks info on this topic he says it can be F9-1 v2 sat, but still see jonathan's possibility of this being 53 v1.5 with one F9-2 v2 sat as rideshare, instead of a whole stack). @Ergzay i pledge never to use such highly unreliable sources in future on wiki. Chinakpradhan (talk) 08:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for the link. That makes it all the more clear. Ergzay (talk) 10:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

59 launches by 12/27?

I count 58 launches in the list (#192-134) including one heavy launch. Where do we get 59?

user:mnw2000 16:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC) user:mnw2000 16:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Heavy launches don't use the xxx numbers, so 135 to 192 inclusive means 58 F9 launches and there was one FH launch (FH 4) in addition. --mfb (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Ambiguity about sats on Group 5-1

There some ambiguity of this launch having all v1.5, v1.5 with only 1 f9-2 V2 or all f9-1 V2 sats (ya there's some issue with if they just launched regular sats in 2nd gen orbit or is it V2 meaning version 2) on this mission. SpaceX as usual is quite in this matter, whereas almost every page on the web States them as f9-1 V2 sats but the non-exactness reflects in their wording. Should we neglect this issue with considering all 3 buses under V2 or gen 2 or dive into details?? @Ergzay @C-randles present your views in this discussion. Chinakpradhan (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Did this put petrol in a flowing magma??? Jonathan sir describes F9-1 as Gen2 payloads on V1.5 buses. Then we don't classify it as a new sat for now as i remember transporter 1 starlinks (not Starlink sats on transporter-2) were v0.9 or v1.0 sats with v1.5 payloads and we classified them as v1.0 on Starlink page, so this is same @Ergzay Chinakpradhan (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

more clear now they are v1.5 only Chinakpradhan (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Australian Satellite Launch from Florida?

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/dec/27/australian-satellites-to-be-launched-on-spacex-rocket-in-bid-to-close-air-traffic-gaps

The first satellites are due to be launched by a SpaceX flight from Florida’s Cape Canaveral in early January,

Catprog (talk) Catprog (talk) 06:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Catprog That's probably an additional ride-share for the upcoming Transporter-6 ride-share mission coming up in January currently scheduled for January 2nd. Ergzay (talk) 10:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

https://www.skykraft.com.au/post/australia-s-largest-satellite-stack-launched-to-make-global-air-travel-smoother-and-more-efficient Yep it was. Catprog (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Using different flight numbers for F9 and FH

Having falcon 9 flights numbered separately to falcon heavy flights causes unneeded confusion. Having the falcon heavy flights with a different numbering system doesn't add much information as you can see that the vehicle is a falcon heavy in the following column. I propose that the numbering systems are combined to just get a single number which counts up. Finlaymorrison0 (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

NO for the proposal. While there is not a metric ton of information imparted by keeping the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy numbered separately, it does indicate the number of launches by each type of vehicle. AmigaClone (talk) 06:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

If they aren't going to be combined together the I suggest we at least prepend 'F9' to the Falcon 9 launch numbers to make it clearer that it is only the Falcon 9 launch count. Finlaymorrison0 (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I also disagree with this idea. Falcon Heavy and Faclon 9 are different vehicles (if sharing the some of the boosters) and should be numbered separately. The launch number actually originates from SpaceX themselves. Ergzay (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Where did Future Launches go?

Before the Wikipedia reformat, this page had a 'Future Launches' section. Right now it has two 'Past Launches' sections. Was there an error in the reformatting, or were future launches purposely dropped? 130.221.145.5 (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Nvm. When I went back to the page, the 'Future Launches' section was there. 130.221.145.5 (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

What about ION SCV009 as a commercial launch?

I was updating the "Launch Outcomes" graphic and realized that the ION SCV009 ride share launched on the 31 January Starlink mission is not included in the total of gov/commercial launches. Is only the primary payload (in this case Starlink) used for launch outcomes? Theflyer (talk) 05:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

EWS RROCI Inclusion?

Is it widely agreed upon that the deployment failure of EWS RROCI should be specifically highlighted in the "Launch Outcome" column of the launch list? While nothing is factually incorrect about this, similar incidents, like the Zuma deployment failure in 2019, are not highlighted. I personally feel like this incident shouldn't be recorded as a failure in the Launch Outcome column because there is no conclusive proof that SpaceX, the launch operator, was at fault, unlike the partial failure of the Orbcomm-OG2 satellite, for example. I think it would be best to reserve this incident in the notes section of the list directly below the mission information. Obviously, if word comes out that SpaceX is on the hook for the deployment failure, this issue could be revisited. I know this change isn't cut and dry, so I wanted to hear thoughts before I made any edits regarding this. Muskfanboy48 (talk) 07:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

From what I can gather, it failed to deploy. Seemingly, it went down while still attached to the upper stage. Apparently there is word of an FCC filing that confirms this, but I haven't been able to find it yet.

Contrasting this, Launcher's Orbiter SN1 (which flew on the same flight) successfully deployed but failed subsequently because the vehicle was "not able to generate power from our solar panels due to an orientation control issue caused by a fault in our GPS antenna system."

This would track with the current convention, where if a payload fails to deploy (ORBCOMM-OG2), it counts as a mission failure (or partial failure). I'm imagining because Zuma's payload adapter was supplied by someone other than SpaceX, that's counted as part of the mission vehicle, and it's one less thing on SpaceX's criteria for mission success.

I will update if I find anything new. Raftonyxdevoutly (talk) 10:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Move older 2020-2022 launches to another page?

The page length has gotten a bit unwieldy. Can we split off the 2020-2022 into another page? High F9 cadence may justify a different treatment than the customary breakdown by decade. Obellik (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that based on the currently planned launch rate (80+ per year), starting with 2023, it might be better to have a separate page for Falcon 9 launches in each year. Rebell44 (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Separate crewed list

Crewed launches are far more notable and SpaceX already has plenty of them that a fork would be appropriate for those. Those could contain more details like time spent at ISS and stuff like that. That way, the blurb here can be kept a bit trimmed also. 2A02:2F01:F207:3C00:F14B:BCD:CB0C:42D7 (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Such a list already exists on the Crew Dragon page. Not sure if a dedicated list page is necessary, 87.200.89.54 (talk) 07:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Removing Second Stage config chart

This chart is completely unsourced and doesn't even have any data in the table to support it. If someone wants to re-add it from the history, please find sources that describe this information and include them. As it is, it's impossible to update. Ergzay (talk) 07:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Further split of 'Future Launches/2023'?

@C-randles, @103.27.142.111 & other users have been frequently editing expected launch date & times, along with reasons for likely delays.

While I do not have any issue with the reasons for delay - they are all logical deductions - I do believe there is a cleaner way of presenting the list of future launches.

My suggestion is to create a new table above the current one for 2023 launches to list all launches where a date, time and booster can be listed. For the rest of the launches, the 'NET' date shall be stated, even if there is no logical possibility of launch in that month.

This way, there is no need to continuously update these dates based on new information provided by agencies like the FAA or FCC.

It'd look something like:

FUTURE LAUNCHES

2023

Launches with boosters allocated

These launches have a tentative date, time and booster allocated to them.

Date and time (UTC)	Version, booster	Launch site	Payload	Orbit	Customer
19 April 2023 12:28	F9 B5 ♺ B1067.11	CCSFS, SLC-40	Starlink Group 6-2 (~21 satellites)	LEO	SpaceX
	An East Coast v2 Starlink launch to their Generation 2 network.
25 April 2023 13:02	F9 B5 ♺ B1061.13	VSFB, SLC-4E	Starlink Group 3-5 (~46 satellites)	SSO	SpaceX
	A West Coast Starlink launch to a 560 km Sun-synchronous orbit at an inclination of 97.6°.
24 April 2023 23:24	Falcon Heavy B5 B1068 (core)	KSC, LC-39A	ViaSat-3 Americas Aurora 4A (Arcturus) Nusantara-H1-A	GEO	ViaSat Astranis / Pacific Dataport PT Pasifik Satelit Nusantara
	B1052.8♺ (side)
	B1053.3♺ (side)
	This mission will directly inject the satellites to geostationary orbit, thus the core and side boosters are all expendable alongside having the sixth second stage featuring Falcon mission-extension kit. Satellites of the ViaSat-3 class use electric propulsion, which requires less fuel for stationkeeping operations over their lifetime.

Launches expected on manifest

The following launches are expected on the launch manifest, but no further details have been available.

Date and time (UTC)	Version, booster	Launch site	Payload	Orbit	Customer
NET 28 April 2023 21:12	F9 B5	CCSFS, SLC-40	O3b mPOWER 3 & 4	MEO	SES
	Second part of SES' MEO satellites for its O3b low-latency, high-performance connectivity services.
NET 9 May 2023 02:43	F9 B5 B1080	KSC, LC-39A	Ax-2	LEO (ISS)	Axiom Space
	Contract for 3 additional missions was signed in June 2021. Peggy Whitson and John Shoffner were signed on as commander and pilot. The third and fourth seats were bought by Saudi Arabia. The Saudi crew members were revealed to be Ali AlQarni and Rayyanah Barnawi.
NET Early May 2023	F9 B5	VSFB, SLC-4E	Iridium-NEXT (5 satellites) OneWeb (15 Gen1 satellites with a Gen2 test satellite)	Polar LEO	Iridium
	Iridium-9 rideshare mission, carrying five on-orbit spare Iridium-NEXT satellites along with 15 Gen1 and a demo Gen2 OneWeb satellites.
NET 22 May 2023	F9 B5	CC, SLC-40/LC-39A	Arabsat 7B (Badr-8)	GTO	Arabsat
	Includes Airbus's TELEO optical communications payload demonstrator.

Raftonyxdevoutly (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

All launches are NET anyway and I don't see a clear way to decide where a specific launch would go based on our sources. You would still get the same updates to the dates, but in addition it would also make people shift launches from one table to the other. --mfb (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)