Jump to content

Talk:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Palmwiz (talk | contribs) at 14:51, 5 June 2017 (→‎Payload). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Core numbers

Being that the core numbers are visible on the side of the rockets, it may make sense to start listing that on the table of launches. This will become more important once cores start to refly later this year. As an example, you can see that the core number for the upcoming EchoStar 23 flight is "30" from a photo posted here. There was some discussion higher up about adding it but after a short discussion the number was just removed. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See end of [1] for the discussion. In short:

Falcon 9 Flight X (purely sequential) F9-XX (SpaceX flight numbers, mainly sequential) B1XXX-X (first stage serial numbers) so F9-30 is neither a flight number nor a core serial number and were consequently removed from table in article. If you have a good source for the B1xxx-x numbers that might be useful. crandles (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Savemaxim: Thanks for adding booster serial numbers to the page. However we need sources to keep this information. Where does it come from? — JFG talk 09:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The ones I added came from reddit see links in edit summaries 13:37 and 13:42(UTC+1) 1 May edits or were already in article. I don't see where B1027 went. Also Jason3 serial number seems lacking, if that was B1018 then it seems numbering started from B1001 with the third flight which seems a bit strange. So it does seem we need sources to at least sort out these oddities. crandles (talk) 11:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The B1027 serial may be reserved for the modified centre core of Falcon Heavy (just speculation on my part). We do need sources; somebody mentioned L2 earlier but that's a private forum, not acceptable as RS. — JFG talk 11:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I originally added in the landing column and that seemed appropriate as the serial number applies to the part that lands not the whole rocket. I was wondering if 'Ground pad' and 'Drone ship' should be replaced with LZ1 OCISLY or JRTI. Extra column is pushing most launches on to three lines instead of two. "B1xxx ref OCISLY Success" may fit on two lines more often. crandles (talk) 11:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think "drone ship" is enough information (and this was discussed earlier). Agree with you that an extra column may be overkill. If we end up keeping the booster serial numbers, I would suggest adding them to the rocket variant column; that would keep everything on two lines. — JFG talk 11:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! A have added extra column to track future launches from core perspective. It was impossible with landing column only. I have taken info from Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/cores) Savemaxim (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why are these numbers being added to the table when they are not reliably sourced? Reddit is not acceptable, since it is user generated. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have now placed the booster identifiers in the rocket version column, and added journalistic sources where I found them.[2] We must look for better sources than Reddit for the other serial numbers, but I kept the data for now. — JFG talk 11:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Color schemes for stats

@Insertcleverphrasehere: I don't like the new color schemes you applied to stats on launcher versions and launch sites. The previous colors were designed to make clear visual distinctions between:

  • single-stick and triple-stick variants of the launch vehicle (shades of blue for the various Falcon 9 evolutions, olive for Heavy)
  • geographical locations of launch sites, with shades of brown for the East Coast and purple for the West Coast

Would you mind restoring them and perhaps discussing how to make them "easier on the eyes", as you noted, while keeping the aforementioned visual distinctions? — JFG talk 16:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't getting that from the colour scheme, seemed random to me and the colours jarring. The falcon 9/falcon heavy scheme I intended to go with was blue for the falcon 9/purple for the Heavy. I'll revert them if you like, But I don't consider it an improvement. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 19:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Ultimately, color choices are subjective. Let's get input from other editors. — JFG talk 08:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @JFG: Launches to the polar orbit belong to a different category than launches to LEO or GEO. Thus, Vandenberg should have a more distinct shade. The same with Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy distinction. I like the current color scheme. — Adamlibusa (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the current (=the old) version over the one in between. Block 5 should get a color that is easier to distinguish from 1.1 and FT. --mfb (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the block 5 is an iteration of the falcon 9, it should be some shade of blue, but still be distinguishable from the other blue shades used for the 1.1, 1.0 and full thrust, this can be fine tuned later after the launch of the Block 5, but something to keep in mind. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 22:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the color (still commented out) to "Blue", that should work. __ __ __ __ / __ --mfb (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 03:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Launch Sites -- Cape Canaveral vs Vanderberg:

Since Vandenberg AFB and Cape Canaveral are situated far from each other, it should be possible for SpaceX to schedule launches from both sites at the same time or within a few days of each other. It's not like having 2 launch sites near each other like LC-39B and LC-40. Surely SpaceX has sufficient personnel to carry out this kind of system? Then the Iridium launches would not need to be delayed, especially the 2nd flight for 11-20 which is already 2 months behind schedule and even then the present tentative date is not certain. Abul Bakhtiar (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may be possible to launch two rockets back-to-back at the two sites, however SpaceX does not plan to do that. We, as editors, do not know why unless a source tells us. I assume SpaceX doesn't want to double up on launch control staff. --Frmorrison (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, AFAIK the current plan is to not have multiple launch staff. Of course that can and probably will change as launch cadence picks up, but for now that is not the case. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flight 33

There's a gif someone made for Flight 33 from SpaceX's feed. If the original SpaceX feed has a compatible license, then there's a gif available for use. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately we do not currently know if the SpaceX YouTube feed has a compatible license. The OTRS statement only covers images from the Flickr feed and the SpaceX website image archive. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Core of JCSAT-14?

The table currently states that the core of JCSAT-14 is B1022. However, I found this source that states it's "S1-024"[1], which might imply that the core for JCSAT-14 was actually B1024. As both B1024 and B1022 are unsourced core numbers in the table, it could make sense if they have been mixed up and/or merely assumed to be launched in sequence. Reddit, however, states it's core B1024 [2], but I think the source they're stating doesn't unambiguously identify the booster correctly (if you read the Facebook page in their source, the photographer didn't actually see the number, it seems). Should we trust the (unnamed) journalist of Spaceflight 101 (who also got the booster ID wrong), or the Reddit community? Or maybe not including unsourced booster numbers might be the best approach, after all? The true iMAniaC (talk) 08:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

S1-024 most likely means "stage 1 of flight 24", whereas B1022 is the booster construction serial number (see previous threads for details). There has been a consistent difference of 2 between booster serial numbers and flight numbers as counted internally by SpaceX. It would be odd that B1022 and B1024 were swapped. (Of course, everything from Reddit is considered unsourced, but it's better to have realistic unsourced information than no information at all.) — JFG talk 09:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, thank you! The true iMAniaC (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://spaceflight101.com/falcon-9-jcsat-14/returned-falcon-9-booster-fires-up-for-full-duration-ground-test-in-texas/
  2. ^ https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/cores

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False positives at spaceflightnow.com reverted; historic launch manifests at spacex.com reviewed and archived at appropriate dates in 2012 and 2013. — JFG talk 10:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted as false positive. — JFG talk 10:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceflight industries launch date or multiple launches

Does qz.com spaceil the israeli team competing for the google lunar xprize wont make it to the starting line mean SHERPA and Sun Synch Express is delayed to 2018 or is SpaceIL launch a different launch contracted for by Spaceflight Industries?

([3] indicates SpaceIL bought a co-lead spot with Spaceflight Industries.) We only have one such launch listed and SpaceX manifest [4] also has only one such launch listed. Can this be used to push it back to 2018 and re-add SpaceIL to payloads or is it too uncertain? crandles (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My general advice: if the info is not explicitly stated in a reliable source per WP:V, it's probably too uncertain. Launch schedules, beyond a certain point, are difficult to pin down anyway. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 10:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Payload

Why is here the payload of the Dragon capsules used instead of the payload of the Falcon 9 (Dragon + Dragon payload)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.220.64.159 (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Convention. Dragon is like another stage delivering the actually useful things to the ISS. It underestimates the rocket performance massively, of course. I guess we could add the Dragon mass in brackets if we find a reliable source for it. --mfb (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as mfb hints, ease of cites. Accurate information about net payload is released by NASA and generally makes it into the press somewhere. I'd love to have gross numbers but they're just not out there. Computing from the Dragon dry mass isn't right either because (a) NOR, (b) there's no reason to think every Dragon has the same dry mass, and (c) propellant. Palmwiz (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches&oldid=783934269"