Jump to content

Talk:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches (2010–2019)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page split, now what?

[edit]

I've taken the big steps and split the tables up into two pages.

Most of the big stuff should be present.

I've yet to clean up the references, and would appreciate help resolving any errors.

Raftonyxdevoutly (talk) 12:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for what's next? I'd be interested in seeing the support of people for moving the 2010-2019 'Notable launches' to this article to help trim down the 2020+ section. -AndrewRG10 (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Graphs

[edit]

Should the following graphs be added to the header?

AmigaClone (talk) 11:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with adding the graphs. We could put that under a heading 'Launch statistics', and then demote the individual years to sub-headings under a new heading 'Launches' or 'Past launches'.

Raftonyxdevoutly (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Falcon 9 flight 29" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Falcon 9 flight 29 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 9 § Falcon 9 flight 29 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Orbcomm OG-2 Launch intentionally in line with CRS-1?

[edit]

This seems to be an error. ManuelRottschaefer (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's intentional, the flight had two payloads. They had different outcomes so they are in different rows. --mfb (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Color for new vs reused boosters

[edit]

This was discussed over on the main talk page and the decision was to basically bring back the colored background cells for boosters but do it on brand new boosters instead. A previous change on this page swapped the labeling at the arbitrary year 2014 which I don't think is great, but leaving the boosters completely uncolored here isn't great. At the minimum I'm in favor of just styling all first boosters with the lime green color (or some other color) keeping it consistent with the other pages, with possibly an addition of a second color for reused boosters (but only for this page where reused boosters are in the minority) though I'm less particular on that point. @RickyCourtney you changed back the 2020 page and the main page but not this one. Do you have any thoughts? Ergzay (talk) 05:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]