Talk:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Chart to track fairing recovery

Currently in the article there doesn't appear to be a way to track the success on fairing recovery by catching in a net. I recommend that either an existing chart include this metric or an additional chart be added. War (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

What should be done in cases where there is more then one outcome? For example the Starlink launch L10 v1.0 had one fairing caught while the other was recovered out of the water. OkayKenji ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

5

10

15

20

25

30

2010

'11

'12

'13

'14

'15

'16

'17

'18

'19

'20

•   Fairing catch success
•   Splashdown recovery
•   No attempt
•   No fairing

Reference material - used the refs from the main page

Launch Fairing A Fairing B Ref 2019 #67 No attempt No attempt #68 No attempt No attempt #69 No fairing No fairing (Dragon) FH 2 Splashdown recovery (Go Navigator/Searcher) Splashdown recovery (Go Navigator/Searcher) #70 No fairing No fairing (Dragon) #71 Splashdown recovery (Go Navigator/Searcher) Splashdown recovery (Go Navigator/Searcher) #72 No attempt No attempt FH 3 Successful Catch (Go Ms. Tree) Splashdown recovery [?] #73 No fairing No fairing (Dragon) #74 Successful Catch (Go Ms. Tree) Splashdown recovery #75 No attempt No attempt #76 No fairing No fairing (Dragon) #77 Splashdown recovery (Go Ms. Tree/Chief) Splashdown recovery (Go Ms. Tree/Chief) 2020 #78 Splashdown recovery (Go Ms Tree) Splashdown recovery (Go Ms Tree) [?] #79 No fairing No fairing (Dragon) #80 Successful catch (Go Ms Tree) Splashdown recovery (Go Ms. Chief) [?] #81 Splashdown recovery (Go Ms Tree) [?] Splashdown recovery (Go Ms. Chief) [?] #82 No fairing No fairing (Dragon) #83 Splashdown recovery (Go Ms Tree) Splashdown recovery (Go Ms. Chief) #84 Splashdown recovery (Go Ms Tree) Splashdown recovery (Go Ms. Chief) #85 No fairing No fairing (Dragon) #86 [?] - Splashdown recovery [?] -Splashdown recovery #87 Splashdown recovery (Go Ms Tree) Splashdown recovery (Go Ms. Chief) #88 Splashdown recovery (Go Ms Tree) Splashdown recovery (Go Ms. Chief) "while both fairings were recovered out of the water without attempting a catch in the net." #89 Successful catch (Go Ms Tree) Successful catch (Go Ms Chief) #90 Splashdown recovery (Go Ms Tree) [?] Splashdown recovery (Go Ms Tree) [?] #91 Successful catch (Go Ms Tree) Splashdown recovery (Go Ms. Chief) References

Something like this? Only did for 2019/2020 so far. OkayKenji ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Each launch produces two entries. I see space for a graph but not for a table if we get reliable sources for each outcome (or we need an unknown bar). --mfb (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I like the chart. I also agree that there are two fairings per launch and each can have a different result.War (talk) 05:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Does anybody know a good website/source where we have fairing recovery data? It seems like SpaceX rarely updates the status of fairings unless they catch it or on their launch webcasts. Maybe https://spacexfleet.com/, but don't want to copy it... OkayKenji ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

So long as it's just data points you're citing, then it's not copying. Just a "Success", "Failure", "Partial success" type thing isn't an issue. I would not go into the level of detail that spacexfleet does. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

As an update - I'm still working on this, but I a noticing there are missions we do not know a lot about. To be frank SpaceX when it comes to fairings they are not transparent. We have to rely on (and thankful for) photographers who are at the Port Canaveral Port to get the condition of fairings. Tho there are a few webcasts where they do say condition of fairngs. OkayKenji ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@OkayKenji If there aren't high quality citable sources then it generally cannot be included on Wikipedia. You'll have to include sources somewhere on the page for every single fairing recovery. The same problem is going on with the second stage, though it's somewhat more visible, it's still hard to confirm as it's not clear which launches are which in the table. I've almost deleted the table a couple of times. Fairings will be even worse. You'll need a source for every single one. Ergzay (talk) 05:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey there. True, there’s no high quality sources. I’ve unpinned this for now as it’s unlikely we will get new sources soon (I think I pinned it?) And this discussion seems to have stalled since a few years ago. OkayKenji ^(talk) 11:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

As SpaceX has abandoned the net recovery effort, my suggestion is no longer needed.War (talk) 06:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Sources for Starlink masses

All of the masses for Starlink launches seem to use no source at all or use a poor source (everydayastronaut). I can say said source is poor because it has false precision. I suggest we source a single source for the mass of Starlink missions and then mention that somewhere in the page. Right now I'm considering changing all of them to use #expr calculations. For example:

{{cvt|{{#expr:300*51 round -3}}|kg}}

as an example for the first launch of 2023. This changes some of the calculations but I'm not sure there are any good sources to the mass of each starlink launch beyond that they're "around" 300kg. I've gone ahead and made this change for the first launch and I'll change it for others if there's no objection, along with sourcing the mass from gunter's page. https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/starlink-v1-5.htm which says "~300kg". Ergzay (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Lazaro Fernandes Do you have any comment on this? I saw you making recent changes to the Starlink mass. Ergzay (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

yes, each starlink has 300kg Lazaro Fernandes (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

yes, each starlink v1.5 has 300kg Lazaro Fernandes (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

310kg starlink v1.5 * Lazaro Fernandes (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Lazaro Fernandes Do you have a source for the 310kg figure? I looked and could not find one. Ergzay (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

"Most successful launches by any rocket family"

Launch 253 has the following description: "An East Coast v2 mini Starlink launch to their Generation 2 network. SpaceX's Falcon family thus broke the world record for most successful launches by any rocket family, first set by the R-7 family in 1980 after this launch." The linked source shows that this is an incorrect statement, and that the R7 family has had well over 1000 successful launches. Even if it is talking about a specific variant, the Soyuz-U alone has over 700 successful launches. If this is talking about the longest streak of successful launches, this was broken by the Falcon 9 a long time ago (I believe it was about 120-130 launches?). Am I misunderstanding their claim? Finlaymorrison0 (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

This has since been edited to "yearly world record" 5.31.29.177 (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

4 Additional South Korean satellites

In this article about "425 Project SAR satellite" they state "Under a contract with SpaceX, South Korea plans to launch four more spy satellites by 2025, according to South Korea’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration." Do we know which 4 launches those are? I only count one more Korean satellite in the list. Ergzay (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Fate of second stages

I presume most Falcon second stages are de-orbited safely after releasing their payloads, but what about lunar or translunar missions like today's Psyche Falcon Heavy launch? Do they have enough Delta-V left over to return to the Earth's atmosphere or are they abandoned in heliocentric orbit? If the latter, that is something worth keeping track of in this or a related article, it seems to me.--agr (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Psyche's F9 2nd stage, AFAIK, went into heliocentric orbit. The few straight-to-GEO missions I think put the 2nd stage into the GEO graveyard orbit. All LEO and GTO missions try to do a controlled deorbit of the 2nd stage - There was one notable failure : flight 109, 4 March 2021, which says "The second-stage deorbit burn failed, causing an uncontrolled reentry on 26 March 2021, over the west coast of the United States.[164]" Pehaps we could note just the ones that fail to do a controlled deorbit ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Many second stages from GTO missions are still in orbit. Finding good sources for them can be difficult. --mfb (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Heaviest payload - ever, not just reusable

Flight 266 says "First time 23 Starlinks V2 Mini were launched and new record in reusable Falcon 9 weighing 18,400kg." but this was a record even for expendable launches - so (similar to flight 176) could we say "... Heaviest payload flown [yet] on Falcon 9" ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I changed it. --mfb (talk) 06:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Too many graphs

As I've stated before, none of the content these additional graphs are referenced elsewhere in this page, nor are they cited by sources. You can't have graphs with content that's not elsewhere in the article. For example it's nigh impossible to separate "Government (other)" versus "Military (other)" versus "Space Agency (other)" as many countries combined the organizations. So I'm deleting that graph. And the second stage configurations table is entirely WP:OR, so you can't do that, so I'm removing that graph. Finally, the "payloads to orbit" graph is impossible as many missions have unknown or "guessed" payloads and mixing them all together can't be done. Even the Starlink payload masses are guestimates and honestly I've considered removing them for quite some time. Ergzay (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The second stage configurations table was added by @122.187.144.98 this time, but I'm not sure if notifying them will work.

The other tables were added by @Redraiderengineer, thankfully an actual user so hopefully they see this. Ergzay (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

That table was added by me earlier but was unapproved and removed. I kept the graph safe in SpaceX Merlin. Then @Redraiderengineer added the other graphs. I just linked that graph. Then someone saw the link and copied the graph from that page so I started keeping it here. Fair it's still on Merlin page like earlier. This was no original research but what SpaceX showed to us (short nozzle) and told us (medium coast kit). 122.187.144.98 (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@122.187.144.98 Original research is when something has no direct sources and is compiled by a wikipedia user. So yes it would fall under original resaerch. Go read WP:OR. Ergzay (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

It has no direct sources but if you say sources are needed source all falcon 9 mission livestreams. Simple. Like listings of Autonomous spaceport drone ship doesn't require sources same way. 122.187.144.98 (talk) 12:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Also many starlink missions are not sourced on List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters. Leave ebd the discussions and enjoy concise page for user viewership @Ergzay 122.187.144.98 (talk) 12:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying here. If they don't have sources they should have them. Ergzay (talk) 06:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Also a lot of satellites are confusing even just limiting to the US. GPS satellites are launched by the military, but are used substantially by the public. Satellites launched for the NRO are primarily used via the military, but the NRO is a civilian organization. If you want to split it up, split it up by major US customers and then by "foreign government". Ergzay (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok RIP B1058 (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

GSAT-20

@RIP B1058 I temporarily removed GSAT-20 as it was a complete mess of broken citations, broken URLs and over-citations. Look at the commented out text at the top of the 2024 section when editing for some guidelines on how to properly format things. For example you only need a single source for the launch date. You only need a single source for any piece of information you add. If several pieces of information are in a single source, you don't need to cite it multiple times. Please re-add the mission when you've cleaned it up. I was considering fixing it but it looked like too much work. Ergzay (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I have dont what you asked. (monociting and restroring broken urls) RIP B1058 (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Preaching

@Mfb@Ergzay@AmigaClone I have got a nice sticky tool in List of Starlink and Starshield launches table please use it in all page that have long tables 122.187.144.98 (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "sticky tool". Ergzay (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

{{Import style|sticky}}

|- class="is-sticky"

This code that I added in front of tables for sticky tittles for readers so that they can match cells with headers wherever they are while reading that table.@Ergzay 122.187.144.98 (talk) 14:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ergzay I think based on this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1192771556 revert we must remove this too

SpaceX had a rare coincidence of four rockets (all types of operational and under-development rockets) on all four of its orbital launch pads and two Dragon 2s (both types of Dragon 2s) on orbit on 10 January 2023.

RIP B1058 (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't read your diff there, it doesn't show up properly. Ergzay (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ergzay I meant if igniting rocket stages on a single day for different rockets is useless for this page then we must remove the above line saying all rockets on pads irrespective of purpose there. So that must be removed also this Stat suits for a standalone SpaceX rockets page not Falcon family page so must be removed. RIP B1058 (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@RIP B1058 I can't understand what you're trying to say. I'll just point you to WP:NOTSTATS as that's what I'm trying to convey. Any and all statistics should be removed if there's not some explaining text on what the significance of the statistic is, ideally with a source saying why the statistic is important. Ergzay (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add Starlink masses when they're unknown

@Lazaro Fernandes You reverted my removal of the Starlink mass when it's obviously incorrect. Please undo your revert. Ergzay (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

800kg each starlink v2 mini, in this case it was 21 so it's 16,400kg :) Lazaro Fernandes (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

So is it better to just put the mass of 15 starlinks?  since the other 6 have unknown mass Lazaro Fernandes (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Lazaro Fernandes This is wikipedia, any information that's cite-able should not be on the page. It doesn't matter whether you know something to be the case or not. The column is for total mass, if you don't know the total mass then you can not put the mass there without some kind of explainer.

I'll add that we don't actually know each starlink v2 mini is 800kg. The Starlink v2 mini payloads have obviously changed in mass over time as the number of satellites has changed over time. Ergzay (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ergzay here a problem arises that future launches as per Planet4589 sir, direct-to-cell connectivity starlinks are designated from 11000 series and normal ones are 30000 series so we need to keep in mind and maintain when to use ~ and when > (SpaceX won't declare everytime when they are launching direct-to-cell connectivity) RIP B1058 (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

https://x.com/planet4589/status/1742588387272331350?s=20 RIP B1058 (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what point you're making. I don't think we should be using > at all for any Starlink satellites unless we can confirm their actual masses. Ergzay (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok (i denoted how to find if starlink satellites they are regular or direct-to-cell ones) (sorry if there's a grammatical barrier in between us) RIP B1058 (talk) 11:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

But @Ergzay in case of Globalstar-2 M087 (FM15) and 425 Project SAR satellite, we are placing the known mass of satellite with explainer. What about that??? RIP B1058 (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

(This is in context to your talk with lazaro on only including 15 starlink mass) RIP B1058 (talk) 11:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense when there's satellites with known stated masses as the primary payloads and then additional smaller satellites with unknown masses. It means the majority of the mass is known. If they're all of the same mass it doesn't make much sense to have an explainer because the majority of the mass is still unknown. Also as I've already stated, ALL starlink masses are relatively unknown because the satellite mass keeps changing from launch to launch even within a single generation of satellite with the same model name. For example not all Starlink v1.5 satellites have the same mass. They gradually grew heavier. Ergzay (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

In case of Globalstar its that Starlink v1.5 is ~303kg and Globalstar is ~700 so majority is unknown as 4 supposed military starlinks. RIP B1058 (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

(this starlink mass as per that time) RIP B1058 (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Article getting too long?

The list of launches is getting so long that I think it would be better to spin off lists by year, or a range of a few years. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree - it might also make sense to move future/planned launches to a separate article Rebell44 (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

100% agree with this. The 2010-2019 article has 77 launches. A 2020-2021 article would be similar, and then I'd recommend yearly after that due to the large increase in launch cadence in 2022 and 2023. Ajthom90 (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• It is long, but it doesn't seem to be a problem. It's useful to be able to search across multiple years. If we do ever split out 2020-2021 or 2020-2022, it would be good to always keep the current and future years in this article. IMO - Rod57 (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
  • future years in this article, as the last 2 years of lauches. from january 2024 we can add page for 2020-21. in 2026 we can create 2022-23. and in 2027 2024 alone, 2024 seems to be a year with more than 100 lauches. --Dwalin (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

We split out 2010-2019 in May 2022 at 525 kb bytes text and with 158 completed launches (article before, discussion), moving 80 launches to the new list. We are now at ~200 past launches on this page (480 kb). Splitting 2020-2021 would create a short list (56 launches) and make people complain about a long list quickly again, I prefer making a page for 2020-2022 (117 launches). That means we'll likely get to 200 again in late 2024 or so when we can split out 2023 (~90 launches). I don't mind waiting a bit, but support for a split is inevitably growing over time. --mfb (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Splitting off by number of launches makes sense. Create 2020-2022, and then split off one article per year starting with 2023 from there on. 91.74.28.231 (talk) 04:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I would propose that until the retirement of the Falcon 9, the main Falcon 9 family launches article contain at least the year in progress and the previous years. I would propose to split out 2020-2022 in January 2024 AmigaClone (talk) 07:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

All good suggestions. But please, please somebody do something about this page. It is such a pain to scroll. How about this suggestion: Have only one master "Falcon 9 launches page" with a summary paragraph for each year. In each of these summaries have a link to a separate page of the specific launches for that year (which contains links to return to the main Falcon 9 launches page). 108.31.113.201 (talk) 11:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@108.31.113.201 Wikipedia uses a navbox at the top of articles with links to jump to sections (if you want to jump to the end of a section, it's handy to jump to the beginning of another). That allows you to not have to scroll. Ergzay (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

We really should delay any splitting as long as possible until it becomes unbearable to manage. The number of inter-page links to this page from elsewhere and inter-page links from within this page to other parts of this page is tremendous (remember that every mission entry can be linked to directly as well as every year). It's a ton of work to fix those up and inevitably the person who does the splitting isn't aware of all these problems and leaves the cleanup to other people. Ergzay (talk) 06:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

On this note, whatever splitting we should do, we should do in equal-year-sized "chunks". Rather than three year chunks I'd choose 2 year chunks, because I think with us heading into around/over 100 missions per year that'd end up in page sizes with over 300 missions in the page. So 2020-2021 page for now, and a 2022-2023 page after 2024 ends. Ergzay (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

How about just moving all launches until the end of 2022 to the already existing article with early F9 launches? That article doesnt contain all that many and it would minimize the number of articles in which all F9 launches would be split. Rebell44 (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Cite needed for flight leader Merlin engine on flight 302

Flight 302 Entry adds (with no ref) "... One of the nine Merlin engines powering this first stage is flight leader, powering its 22nd mission to Earth orbit. ..." - This needs a source - It's not in the ref in column 1 for the flight itself. - Rod57 (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Found it : SpaceX says "Main engine cutoff and stage separation. One of the nine Merlin engines powering tonight's first stage is our flight leader, powering its 22nd mission to Earth orbit". Will try to add to main page. - Rod57 (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  My mistake @Rod57 will add now —🪦VSVNB1058 (2020-2023) (TALK) 09:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Shortest Gap between 3 launches?

Comment on launch 307:" SpaceX set a new record for the shortest time between two Falcon launches at 1 hour and 51 minutes."

What about "SpaceX set a new record for the shortest time between THREE Falcon launches at 20 hours and 3 minutes."? MikesPlant (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Bad source for Starlink 6-43 launch - SFN gives wrong booster - now fixed

Article says "308 10 March 2024 23:05 23:56 F9 B5 ♺ B1063.17 CCSFS, SLC-40, Starlink Group 6-43 (23 satellites)" but it gives the wrong booster (the same as the next flight) because the spaceflightnow source is wrong and tries to talk about both of the launches. The live streams say it was the 11th launch of a different booster B1077. Everyday astronaunt [1] says "B1077-11" - Rod57 (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Done Someone Quickly fixed with space.com source. - Rod57 (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Second stage configurations

I just added back the graph of Second stage configurations. The information can be clearly sourced from both the primary sources (SpaceX streams show the nozzles and the stages and they also usually mention the nozzles and grey stripes on the second stage if present) and secondary sources (NASASpaceflight and other specialised media always mention shorter nozzle on the second stage and grey stripe in the video). So all of it can be sourced from the videos. Some of the related Wikipedia rules and guidelines:

1) WP:OR: "Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research."

2) WP:ORMEDIA: "Source information does not need to be in prose..." 88.102.32.33 (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

You still need to provide citations of that information though. Ergzay (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)