This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
@Mazen23: What are your sources for the various schedule updates you just applied today? None of our usual "future launches" sources (Clark, Cooper, Pietrobon) include those changes. —
JFGtalk 21:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I had trouble adding the specific source pages, can anyone give me instructions if you can ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazen23 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, Wikipedia cannot use discussion forums as sources, because they are mostly unverifiable opinions of anonymous people. We wait until WP:reliable sources publish something. Sometimes participants in those forums quote useful sources, and in that case we can use them. To insert sourced references, please read Help:References. Also, when writing on a talk page, please add "~~~~" at the end to sign your comment. — JFGtalk 04:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I want to propose to add the launch #33 NROL-76 in the Notable launches section, because:
Most people still don't know rockets can land back to land
As per description: "For the first time, SpaceX offered continuous livestream of first stage booster from liftoff to landing"
Back in the day this continuous livestream was a big deal, no-one from the general public has ever seen something like this(orbital rocket coming back to the launch site from space karman line/orbital velocity)
That sounds like something worth mentioning. NROL-76, if memory serves, was actually the only launch where we have video of the whole first stage trip (liftoff to landing.) It was a national security payload, and for some reason they weren't supposed to point the camera at the second stage. So they kept it on the first stage all the way. That does make it a notable launch, even though "Back in the day this continuous livestream was a big deal..." isn't quite the right way to put it. Fcrary (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
This edit introduced the concept of sub-GTO into our table of launches.
This edit, which relied on the already introduced sub-GTO concept was reverted today by JustinTimeCuber, with the justification 'We should really stop arbitrarily deciding what counts as "sub-GTO"'. So at this time, the concept of sub-GTO is disputed yet still (partially) present in the article. How do the editors think this should best be resolved? Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to see the entire term "sub-GTO" disappear. I don't think it's a commonly used term. In addition, every spacecraft launched to a geostationary transfer orbit needs some additional propulsion to get to a geostationary orbit. The amount of additional propulsion is different for "sub-GTO" and a pure, exact, GTO. But it's also different depending on the inclination of the transfer orbit, and we don't make a point of that. Actually, it's different if the launch vehicle does part of the plane change, and we don't make a point of that. Fcrary (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Besides this, several launches in the past have been "sub-GTO" like Hispasat earlier this year, but the only one referred to by that term in this article is Telstar 19V. Also, only one launch is explicitly listed as "super-GTO" (SES-12) but quite a few satellites in the past have launched to higher apogees (r/SpaceX on Reddit has a wiki page specifically devoted to tracking GTO launch performance.) I think we should either ditch the (somewhat arbitrary) prefixes or specify the specific Δv deficit, for example "GTO (-1800 m/s)". If we go with the second option, we also have to specify orbital parameters for other missions as well, otherwise we'd be putting an oddly specific emphasis on GTO missions. So in my opinion we should just call any elliptical orbit used to transfer from LEO to GEO a GTO. JustinTimeCuber (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
This seems to be the way that these things are generally done, so I agree that we avoid prefixes. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here) 21:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree. GTO is sufficient unless the orbit is clearly far away from the usual transfer orbits. Details can be mentioned in the text. --mfb (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Can we make the launch tables collapsible? As in, the pre-2013 table collapses, the 2017 tables collapses, the future launches table collapses etc? It would go a long way to making the article more reader friendly. Right now there is just a huge amount of scrolling involved. — Gopher65talk 04:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm seconding this request. The article in its current state is rather unwieldy. Sario528 (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
It's a list... what is the use of the list if everything in it is collapsed? Per this proposal, what wouldn't be collapsed? There is a table of contents if you want to avoid "a huge amount of scrolling". — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here) 15:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Except it's several lists. Adding the option to collapse them would make page navigation easier. We can leave them defaulted to uncollapsed, for those who like things the way they are now. Sario528 (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
There would be no problem with making them collapsible, I was objecting to 'default collapsed'. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here) 16:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)