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 WDGraham (talk | contribs) at 11:23, 10 January 2015 (request move). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Regarding success of CRS-1 mission

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

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


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

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

Possibly corrections

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

Cleanup

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

Adding a comment to get a date/time stamp in here. The previous comment appears to be unsigned, and this section will never get moved to an archive without a date/time. I'm agnostic on the previous editor's suggestion, have given it no deep thought at all. N2e (talk) 03:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Order of planned launches in the table

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

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

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

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

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

BRD on changes to projected launch dates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notable missions

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

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

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

Well I actually oppose adding this section in this article at all. This is a list (ahem) after all, and I think the "notable launches/missions" section should actually appear in the main articles of the rockets themselves, not in the list of launches section. After all, do you see similar sections appearing in the List of Atlas/Delta/Ariane/Soyuz/Proton/Titan/Shuttle missions/........ articles? Nope.
Then again, such sections are basically subjective (I mean how much is "notable" anyway?), but that's another point.....
Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 08:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Galactic Penguin SST: I would support such a move. After all, with SpaceX often pushing the technology frontier forward, nearly every mission has been quite notable, including several since the five or so now listed in the notable section (e.g., first geo, first booster return test, first successful booser return test and simulated ocean landing (zero velocity at zero altitude), etc., etc.) Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Table Legend

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

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

What about Falcon Heavy launches?

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

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

Aug 26 launch and Spaceflight Now

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

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

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

DragonV2 abort launch missing?

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

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

Source data from SpaceX no longer has dates for future missions

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion on future launches table

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

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

Requested move 10 January 2015

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches&oldid=641857729"