Talk:List of heaviest spacecraft

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of heaviest spacecraft article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Spaceflight Mid‑importance

	Spaceflight portal 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.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

References to Mass

Please consider putting the link in the Description column and not in the mass column to keep the look, sorting, and editing streamlined. In the main table if the name link goes to a wikipedia article with the mass listed in its stats (typically on the right) a reference may not be needed as its easy to verify but its still helpful. If not a reference link that contains mass information in the Description is appreciated so that the mass can be verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zygerth (talk • contribs) 14:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the current guidelines from the table description. "The following are a list of spacecraft with a mass greater than 8,000 kg (17,637 lb), or the top three to any other orbit including a planetary orbit, or the top three of a specific category of vehicle, or the heaviest vehicle from a specific nation. All numbers listed below for satellites use their mass at launch, if not otherwise stated."

Remember the mass column uses the mass at launch of the item in orbit, if not otherwise stated. A Dry Mass column could be added, but these numbers may not be available for all entries. Maybe a link or easy to hover item in the notes.

I have noticed comparing dry mass vs launch mass of the orbiting craft usually doesn't make a difference in ranking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zygerth (talk • contribs) 14:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in List of heaviest spacecraft

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of heaviest spacecraft's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "SSSM":

From Shuttle–Mir Program: David Harland (November 30, 2004). The Story of Space Station Mir. New York: Springer-Verlag New York Inc. ISBN 978-0-387-23011-5.
From Mir: David Harland (30 November 2004). The Story of Space Station Mir. New York: Springer-Verlag New York Inc. ISBN 978-0-387-23011-5.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of heaviest spacecraft. 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:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5il9QixAg?url=http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/RP1357.pdf to http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/RP1357.pdf

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) 17:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should the X-37B be listed here?

I think it's weight make it fit here. Is it not considered a space craft since it glides to land? Chuck Baggett (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the X-37B is similar to the space shuttle. I believe its fine to add the heaviest known flight of it. Zygerth (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is in LEO it should be over 8000kg.

Duplicate Entries

I'm thinking the entry for "Heaviest commercial geosynchronous communication satellites" is pretty much a duplicate of Telstar 19V the current largest commercial satellite listed. I don't see the usefulness of a generic entry especially as it doesn't even represent a series of satellites. Anyone have a good reason to keep it? User:Zygerth 28 November 2022 — Preceding undated comment added 03:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starship

Should Starship be mentioned here, as it has (almost) reached orbit (880 m/s short), and has a dry mass of 120 tons? Redacted II (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So Ship 25 technically did reach space before it exploded. It is a SubOrbital flight which currently isn't an Orbit category. I believe we could open the SubOrbital can of worms (only the top 3), but SubOrbital's should be restricted to Dry Mass, or the true mass of what made it to space (above 100km). Unlike the other categories, the stage's Wet mass is going to be very different than what actually makes it to space, so that's a reasonable adjustment for SubOrbitals. User:Zygerth (talk) 17 Feb 2023.

Moving the images

should the images be moved into the table? Redacted II (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. What is your concern? Do you have another page in mind as an example? Zygerth (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The images are not aligned with what they represent, so its rather... annoying to look at. The misalignment is much worse when not in full-screen

Its an easy fix. Redacted II (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

STS-117 and Classified Payloads

Do we know that the S3/S4 truss was heavier than any of the classified shuttle payloads? I don't doubt it, but I wonder if it'd be more accurate to say something like "heaviest known payload", or that may be too nit-picky. I didn't edit anything yet, just thought it might be worth thinking about. General Epitaph (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, classified missions could've been heavier. I'll edit it. Btw STS-93 had the heaviest known payload but STS-117 had the heaviest orbiter launch mass, so probably "heaviest known flight". Spookywooky2 (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So the classified launches did have their orbiter launch masses published. See https://www.nasa.gov/mission/sts-39/ for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zygerth (talk • contribs) 19:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starship Mass

The current mass used for Starship Ship 28 on the selected spacecraft table is its wet mass before reentry. Under the Starship topic, @Zygerth suggested using dry mass or the true mass of what made it into space (100km). However, SECO only happens in space and the estimated/exact mass of the ship as it crosses the Kármán line is unknown. To adhere to "All numbers listed below for satellites use their mass at launch, if not otherwise stated (it wasn't)", I would suggest that the launch/dry mass of the ship is used instead, just like how the launch mass is used for the Apollo CSMs and the Shuttle. Also, Ship 25 and 29 both made it to space (25 was destroyed but reached space and technically just burned up like other spacecraft do), so should probably be included on the table.

On a side note, IMO the guidelines for the table are somewhat confusing (eg what constitutes a category of vehicle). The table itself doesn't appear to follow the guidelines very strictly (eg seems like there are 7 mars probes that are ≤8000kg instead of 3). Btw, I think MarCO should probably have heliocentric / mars flyby under orbit since it didn't enter planetary orbit. Spookywooky2 (talk) 10:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the MarCo or Mars Cube One mission. Agree it should have an orbit type of "Solar Orbit" (heliocentric). Also as its NASA and not another nation or private corp, it probably should be removed. How about I create a List of low mass spacecraft page and transfer it to that. I checked but didn't find any kind of low mass or lightest spacecraft lists on wikipedia currently. Zygerth (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S25's mass is unknown, and since it didn't complete its insertion burn, it shouldn't be included.

But there is precedent for keeping the mass at 200 tons: the Apollo spacecraft and shuttle both listed fueled mass (and in the case of Apollo, that includes the LM). Redacted II (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Spookywooky2 that until there is better evidence of on orbit mass (well near orbit), the dry mass should be used. Also there is also no accurate measurement of the dry mass. Granted SpaceX does development flights differently and doesn't measure every kg, but they have to have a good estimate that is closer than the nearest 10,000 kg. At least a plus or minus estimate. There is evidence that ship 28 had lower levels of fuel than expected. I can dig up that like from commentary of a couple of videos. Best I have dug up is 87,000kg of dry mass and about 50,000kg of fuel remaining. Granted this is conjecture of a couple of engineers not directly related to those flights. As 137,000kg is still more than MIR, its not a big deal for me that it remains as is.

All that said I'm fine to leave the table as is, IF the ruff mass disclaimer is kept, and it remains suborbital. If that disclaimer gets removed, it should be changed back to 100,000kg dry mass. Zygerth (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to see evidence of the 87/50 numbers. But the current mass is sourced. The FAA docs list slightly more than 100 tons of fuel, and current starship mass consensus is 100 tons. Redacted II (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]