Talk:Falcon Heavy test flight

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

Merger proposal: Redundancy to Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There was a consensus not to merge. Per Talk:Elon_Musk's_Tesla_Roadster/Archive_1#Merger_proposal. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 03:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is unusual to have an article both for the launch and the launched object, and the articles would have a lot of redundancy. Do we need this article? Or the other one? --mfb (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not redundant, since this is about the rocket, and its performance, not the payload. The Payload article should state little about the rocket launch. The landing isn't even concerned with the payload, so that should not be in the Tesla article at all. The payload article should be restricted to be about the car. The car itself has been in the news before anything about Falcon Heavy occurred, since Elon drove it around. As the most powerful rocket launch since the end of shuttles and the Saturn V, this is unrelated to the Roadster. The Roadster is the first car in space, and is thus independently notable. -- 70.52.11.217 (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also do not support the merger proposal. It is in fact a common practise in the aerospace industry to make a clear distinction between the launcher and the payload(s) and also between the launch mission and the spacecraft missions. This case is particular in the sense that since this is a test flight, there is no real space mission other than the launch mission, but nothing prevents having one article about the test flight with the goal of demonstrating the Falcon Heavy launcher, and one article about the (dummy) payload that also has its own history prior to and independently of the test flight. --Benrem (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree since his car is significant to the history of human space travel. It is the first time something of the whimsical nature has been launched into space (citation needed but it is known to many this way). Or the first time something that isn't directly correlated with science has been done on such a scale in space. Which is an important part of history to remember and will be poignant in years to come when we see how far we have come or how far we have gone back. --Nedks1 (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2018 (GMT)
This discussion took place at [1]. The outcome was not to merge, as the pop-factor has a life of its own and likely to expand well beyond the launcher test. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Live links[edit]

Some live links (recorded by broadcaster onto Youtube) with commentary, which can be sourced and extracted to add more info to the article:

-- 70.52.11.217 (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon Heavy isn't the "most powerful rocket" since Saturn V[edit]

The article currently states that

It marks the most powerful rocket launched since the retirement of the Saturn V.

This statement (seemingly originating from the current description at http://www.spacex.com/webcast page in other sources) is wrong as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energia was used twice:

According to WILLIAM HARWOOD from CBS NEWS February 5, 2018, 7:28 PM:

  1. "Falcon Heavy will easily be the most powerful rocket in the world when it takes off, generating 4.7 million pounds of thrust."
  2. "the Soviet Union's ill-fated N1 moon rocket holds the all-time record with a thrust of 10.5 million pounds"
  3. "Saturn 5, the gargantuan booster that propelled Apollo astronauts to the moon, generated 7.5 million pounds of push"
  4. "space shuttle rocketed away atop 6.8 million pounds of thrust"
  5. "The Soviet Union's short-lived Energia booster generated 6.6 million pounds."

--Alogrin (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

6.6 mln pounds for Energia? Looks like an error. Energia (rocket) article (with apparently long time consensus) says about 6.5 plus 1.3, i.e. 7.8 mln pounds of thrust for Energia - this is just under 7.891 mln pounds of Saturn V, by the way. 109.252.36.119 (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the erroneous claim. Avmich (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong orbit[edit]

The orbit published by Elon Musk on Twitter was not correct, see here, here and here. SpaceX has confirmed that the correct orbit is q=0.98 AU, Q=1.71 AU, i=1.1 degrees, C3=12.0 km^2/s^2.Renerpho (talk) 04:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also see the details on Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster, which gives the correct orbit (with a reference to Bill Gray's website projectpluto.com).Renerpho (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I updated an orbital diagram using JPL Ephemeris, which agrees with all sources I've seen. Tom Ruen (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please also update the List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 17:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What specifically needs updating there? Tom Ruen (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It gave the orbit as 0.98 by 2.61 AU. Updated.Renerpho (talk) 03:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article claims "It is predicted that the Roadster will stay in an orbit with a perihelion at Earth orbit and an aphelion near the asteroid belt.", with a reference to Elon Musk's tweet plus some news sources presumably repeating that info. That information now seems to be incorrect, with it passing Mars's orbit slightly but getting nowhere near the asteroid belt. Here's one news article covering the mistake: https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/6/16983744/spacex-tesla-falcon-heavy-roadster-orbit-asteroid-belt-elon-musk-mars --James (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

payload details[edit]

This should probably be mentioned in the payload section. https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/2/6/16980538/spacex-falcon-heavy-isaac-asimovs-foundation-series. There was also a Hot Wheels roadster + astronaut figure mounted on the dashboard. https://www.cnet.com/news/elon-musk-reveals-spacex-plans-after-falcon-heavy-launch/, and the "Don't panic" sign was a reference to Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. https://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Eight-Easter-eggs-aboard-SpaceX-s-Falcon-Heavy-12557072.php and Starman by David Bowie played when the payload reached orbit. For those who have the time :) —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah i see most of this was is in the roadster article... Hmm, this is getting confusing... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The payload ain't in orbit anymore. Asari battlecruiser intercepted it and the commanding officer of that ship now owns that car. She says she would like to thank Mr. Musk for the nice gift. ~ Prince of Mars — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.82.26.251 (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 February 2018[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: Moved per WP:SNOW — JFG talk 23:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Falcon Heavy Demonstration Mission → Falcon Heavy Test Flight – As far as I'm aware, this is the official name for the flight. (Source 1, Source 2) – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 14:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Dbsseven (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "falcon heavy demonstration mission" gets just over 3000 hits on google, "falcon heavy test flight" gets just under 4 million. Google trends is 100 to 1 in favour of 'test flight'. Overwhelming WP:COMMONNAME. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -Normally, a mission implies the launch of a spacecraft on a mission. This flight was a launcher test only. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - No brainer. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 04:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Yup. -- WikiPedant (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The name should indeed be the most common denomination, that is "Falcon Heavy Test Flight". However, SpaceX themselves are not clear about which one is the 'official' name. In fact, this name was initially chosen as "Falcon Heavy Demonstration Mission" because it is the name that is used as the title of the SpaceX (hence official) launch kit Reference: official press release. Note that this reference is the only 'official' document that I have read so far. Apart from this document, SpaceX indeed use the denomination 'Test Flight' on their website and Youtube channels, motivating the change of title. --Benrem (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Hameltion (talk, contribs) 20:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger proposal: Redundancy to Falcon Heavy[edit]

If you wanted to learn about the Falcon Heavy without prior knowledge; it would be natural to visit the Falcon Heavy page first. Therefore, by merging we maximise the viewership. Thus, increases validity and general utility of the information. --Nedks1 (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose There is a section on that article that summarises and links to both this article and the roadster article. Unnecessary and would later need to be split. There is plenty of stuff that can be added to this article that would be too much detail in the main falcon heavy article. If it results in a little bit of duplicate work, so be it. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 03:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – The articles obey WP:Summary style. Test flight is independently notable from the rocket. — JFG talk 07:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split Falcon Heavy instead Much of the material at Falcon Heavy about this specific maiden flight should be split off from there and placed into this article. There's no need for so much detail about the maiden flight there, a single paragraph following the line "The plan was for all three cores to land back on Earth after launch." is enough, instead of 4 paragraphs of details following the line "The plan was for all three cores to land back on Earth after launch." (material preceding the line "The plan was for all three cores to land back on Earth after launch." is not specific to this specific maiden flight, but rather planning for a maiden flight that kept being pushed later and later, which would remain at Falcon Heavy.) -- 67.70.34.54 (talk) 07:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions[edit]

The inclusion of Trump's very political, and factually inaccurate, tweet reeks of political bias on a site which claims political neutrality. It should be removed, and the page only contain reactions that are a) relevant to the topic at hand, and b) factually accurate (Musk is South African, not American, so Trump is spreading fake news by claiming credit for Musk's achievement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrpa01 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add mission patch?[edit]

A lot of other SpaceX launches have them, should we add the mission patch for this launch? UnknownM1 (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Status of the payload fairing[edit]

The article has "recover the payload fairing" sourced to [2]. The article is silent on what happened with the fairing once it was deployed. The cited source does not mention recovery in the text. A graphic that's part of the cited source[3] includes "fairing recovery", presumably using Mr. Steven. Was a fairing recovery attempted? If so, what was the result? --Marc Kupper|talk 23:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I suggest merging Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster to Falcon Heavy test flight, because most articles include both payload and launching rocket to an article, and the payload has few information to be usefully extracted by now. It won't make both article too long, and the merged content would have a dedicated section. I know that this one is a more "special" launch, however, I doubt that both of the article would be coherent by doing so. There are a lot of references to each other's article, so the reader won't have context if they didn't read the other article. It makes the situation super awkward. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenC: Discuss here :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is such a unique object and unusual moment in space history, it's not like a typical payload, the amount of coverage (notability) justifies a standalone article. It's a long article and any merger results in loss of content, for example the lead section, infobox, probably some graphics. It was a payload, now is a space artifact in its own right which will have a very long history of tracking, and already talk of an intercept mission. The test flight is over, but the car is a cultural artifact that will have continued coverage indefinitely, for generations, far surpassing the notability of the test flight. If a merge were done it would be the other way, but I am not suggesting that because I don't see the problem with two articles. -- GreenC 03:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. The Roaster article have a small prose, and can be summarized to a section. I agree that it is very unique and important, but the prose length should also be a consideration. Also, a merge would not lose any info/graphic if done right. The infobox information can be merged, as well as using {{Multiple image}} template for the infobox image. However, I'm open to merging the other way CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The entire article should not be "summarized" into a section. It's a long article for a reason, there is a lot to cover. Many people have spent a long time researching and carefully writing that article. It was payload at one time, it is no longer a payload. The aspect of being a payload is covered in this article, everything else unrelated to payload is discussed in its own article. If there is some overlap between articles that is normal on Wikipedia. -- GreenC 03:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it makes the content very fragmented, as well as duplicated. I don't mind what article is gonna merge to another, but in my opinion, it should be merged. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing an excessive amount of duplication and fragmentation you seem to. -- GreenC 04:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think you are arguing that a subject with enough notability should have its own article. However, it break up the subject's line, as well as not provide enough context to the reader. If both of them are so related to each other, why not giving them a fair amount of coverage in 1 article? Both article have a section that basically summarize what the other's say, so merging them is more beneficial. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both article have a section that basically summarize what the other's say .. exactly. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work. We do that all over the place. It's not a sign of a problem rather articles in a well developed state. -- GreenC 04:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need more opinions then. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have things like {{main}} for clearly directing readers to a longer article, just prior to a 1‒2-paragraph summary (overview) of the topic. This does not mean two topics should be merged. —Sladen (talk) 09:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Interesting as object on its own. The FH maiden flight is interesting because of the rocket. Different things in different articles. They are closely related of course, but that alone is not a merge reason. --mfb (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, it's unique object and unique event that wouldn't probably happen again, so it deserves to be a separate article. Artem.G (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this car is still in the popular culture zeitgeist, unlike the launch that propelled it into space. It has achieved independent notability, and has a higher profile than the rocket launch that put it into space. There is no reason to merge it, and from a popular culture perspective, the launch itself is less notable. From a space technology persepctive, the launch is more notable. From a business perpective, it's about a wash, for SpaceX on one side and Tesla on the other. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Both are uniquely notable for separate reasons. One is the maiden flight of a new launch vehicle, the other is the first road legal car launched into space and the first completely privately built and flow payload to leave Earth Orbit.Metropod (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose One is a delivery flight; One is an Earth car, in solar orbit. Merging would be as painful as trying to merge Stephenson's Rocket into Track (rail transport)—it could be done, but would not help readers when Wikipedia already has inter-article links for joining the connections. —Sladen (talk) 09:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further quick sanity check: Falcon Heavy test flight: 1,600 views/month.[4] "Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster": 25,000 views/month.[5]. That is fifteen times as many eyeballs on the article being proposed for being merged. Merging the articles would be a complete and utter disservice for the readership. CactiStaccingCrane: is it still desired to sustain this merge proposal?—Sladen (talk) 10:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the landside oppose, I would say no. Thanks a ton for giving your opinions! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Two different subjects, each independently notable and article-worthy, merging them would make no sense. -- The Anome (talk) 10:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falcon_Heavy_test_flight&oldid=1216073957"