Talk:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Flight no. 23

Do we have a source that the CRS-8 launch will definitely be flight no. 23, as indicated currently in the Future launches section? It is shown ordinally as after Jason-3 and SES-9 in a source, but do we know that SpaceX will not plan to launch a Falcon 9 inbetween the SES-9 and CRS-8 launch? If so, I have not seen that source from SpaceX. Net, I'm not sure we should have a statement in the article that CRS-8 is definitely flight no. 23. N2e (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Launch photography says "The next SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will launch the SES-9 communication satellite for SES World Skies on February 6 at the earliest, in the evening EST. Then, a Falcon 9 will launch the next Dragon ISS resupply mission on CRS-8 on March 20 at about 12:23am EDT. The launch time gets about 23-25 minutes earlier each day. Following that, a Falcon 9 will conduct the dual-payload launch of the Eutelsat 117 West B and ABS 2A communications satellites on late March TBD at the earliest." crandles (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it is undubitably true that the "next" launch is SES-9, and that "then" the next Dragon ISS resupply flight will go. But that prose, in and of itself, does not really verifiably support a claim that no launches could occur between those two.

Obviously, we'll see what happens in the next couple of months. But I still don't think we have a source that supports CRS-8 will definitely be flight number 23. N2e (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

That source seems fairly clear about that order of those 3 launches. Would they know March 20 date and not know date for launch before then and indicate clearly that sequence of those 3 launches? That seems a stretch. They only cover CC launches but a flight from elsewhere in that period would be a bit of a surprise. Not rushing to add 24 but seems OK having some justification for including it to me, even a really good reliable source might not turn out correct with something causing order of launches to be shuffled. crandles (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said, we'll see. I'm not insisting anything has to change. Just pointing it out that we have no source for that launch being no. 23.

And I'm not the only one thinking about this. The same question is being batted around by others at a space forum, and a poster just said: "Over at http://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/, there are three launches which could plausibly fill that gap: - Eutelsat 117 West B / ABS 2A, which is just listed as "March"; - JCSAT 14, listed as "Early 2016"; - Amos 6, listed as "1st Quarter" "

In my view, the "no. 23" got assigned to that in this table because their is a table location for ordinal number, and some editor just put that in there. We simply don't have a source that supports CRS-8 will definitely be in the first launch slot following SES-9, and in that sense, we have a small bit of WP:OR in that statement in the table. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

how 23 got assigned seems to have quite a long history. Before the flights were shuffled, CRS-8 was due to be second launch after SES9 and dates of Nov 15 and/or Nov 16 were discussed here on Sept 7. This was likely enough to get numbers assigned. this shuffled order resulted in CRS8 page to be changed to not earlier than 3rd launch of v1.1FT. On Nov 5 a new target date of Jan 3rd was announced. On 12 Dec CRS-8 page changed to 4th falcon launch then to 3rd launch of v1.1FT without the 'not earlier than'. That last edit is by me and I think that is probably just a mistake leaving out the 'not earlier than' though there probably was a Jan date for the flight in launch schedules making NET look unnecessary.

So CRS-8 was only a little over 2 months in the future on Sep 7. We have Launch photography ref for CRS8 coming ahead of Eutelsat. This history of having dates in the near future for CRS8 makes this launch seem far ahead of Atmos6 and JCSAT14 - Atmos 6 was delayed from 3rd quarter of 2015 on May6 ie before flight 19 failure and JCSAT was delayed from late 2015 on Sep 9 when we had Nov target date for CRS8. Falcon Heavy demo planned for April also seems likely to take considerable amounts of staff time in Feb and Mar. It seems far far more likely that Atmos6 and JCSAT14 will have further delays rather than being rushed through ahead of CRS-8 which has already slipped down the order of launches. 'Following that' part of launch photography quote seems more order specific than just a 'then' meaning later. crandles (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Now that Amos-6 has been pushed to May and Eutelsat to late March, it is quite likely that JCSAT-14 would take a launch slot towards end February between SES-9 and CRS-8. Waiting for a reliable source before shuffling the schedule (I only have a non-official one now, indicating February 28). Generally speaking, SpaceX has demonstrated the capability to launch at 2-week intervals on LC-40 (flights 12-13 and 17-18) and they need to keep up the tempo of one launch every three weeks for a chance to clear their booked 2016-2017 manifest... The Falcon Heavy maiden launch is not likely to interfere as it will take place on the newly-refurbished LC 39A. — JFG ^talk 18:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems that for some reason best known to them SpaceX is simply unable to maintain any kind of schedule with regards to its Falcon 9 launch manifest. A look at Spacefligthnow.com dated 29 January seems to have pushed SES-9 to somewhere between February 12 and 16 from NET 6 Feb. Even though "SpaceX has demonstrated the capability to launch at 2-week intervals on LC-40", it just seems to keep postponing the launch of CRS-8 which is presently assumed to be Flight 23. In any case, March 2016 already has a packed manifest to the ISS and if SpaceX is unable to meet its target of launching CRS-8 on 20 March, any further delay will mean that they will face serious setbacks not only in 2016, when they are supposed to launch about 15 flights in all, but carry-on effects well into 2017 and possibly 2018. This might have customers looking elsewhere for launch services. Abul Bakhtiar (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

There was 6 months between failed flight 19 and flight 20, that is bound to have consequences with lots of knock on delays until the launch schedule is realistic. 1 in Jan, 1 in Feb and 2 in March would seem to keep up with launching 15 a year so your point is? BTW Launch photography changed Feb 6 to Mid Feb on Jan 22 and then changed to February which spaceflightnow has only just recently shown. My attempts to show that got reverted. crandles (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done—At a high-level, it appears the original topic of this subsection is resolved, and some editor has removed all of the speculative launch order numbering from the table, until such time as it becomes clear in verifiable sources. In my view, this is a good thing. N2e (talk) 11:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Verifyability is certainly a good thing. However, here you are downplaying the precise order info being given in launch photography source. I think it is now ludicrous to think that SpaceX will try to squeeze in a different launch after SES9 and before CRS8 as it would put at risk the tentative dates for launch to ISS on 30March or 1April. Yes they **want to get** to a launch every 2-3 weeks but so far haven't launched 3 within a 6 week period let alone within a month. That may change over next few months but not immediately from here with date for ISS visit a month away. If we are not going to have any flight numbers after SES launch, perhaps we should do away with flight number and status columns? Either that or perhaps '23?' and '24?' should now be added based on Launch Photography ref? crandles (talk) 14:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think you might be misreading me. This section is about an issue that existed in mid-January; and was resolved sometime in early Feb at the latest. That was then. It is now March, I certainly have no objection to "23" being added to the table for a mission that is clearly "next" (ff. no. 22) as soon as reliable sources show it to be the next launch, (or no. 23, but I've rarely seen sources be explicit on its ordinal launch number). Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100619130545/http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com:80/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/06/elon-musk-spacex-signs-biggest-commercial-launch-deal-ever.html? to http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/06/elon-musk-spacex-signs-biggest-commercial-launch-deal-ever.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Splitting table year-wise

Someone seems to have done a very good job by splitting both historical and future launch tables into year-wise chunks that are much easier to handle. Kudos to him/her. The position for the rest of 2016 (there are some 20 launches planned for the rest of the year which is over ambitious requiring launches every two weeks every month till December) will be clearer after the launch of CRS-8 which has been delayed umpteen times so far and will launch on March 30 hopefully not having to face any of the cryogenic fuel problems that were faced by SES-9. But then SES-9 was a very heavy payload that had to got to GTO whereas CRS-8 is LEO to the ISS. Abul Bakhtiar (talk) 04:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Since the launch of Iridium 1-2 is up in the air for unknown reasons, Iridium 3-12 and 13-24 have been redesignated Iridium 1-10 and 11-20 respectively. This should be reflected in the table. Also Iridium 1-10 launch is now planned for July 2016, i.e. it has been moved forward. Abul Bakhtiar (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the splitting was becoming more and more necessarily as the flights keep adding on. Well done. I'm however not really convinced that the customer's country flags bring added value to this list. Kcauwert (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

A SpaceX representative said "expect us to launch a rocket every two to three weeks" about a month ago - probably optimistic, but they plan to fly a lot this year.^[ref] We'll have to shift some launches to 2017, as soon as we have references for it. --mfb (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I did the yearly split as a relaxing exercise after lots of toiling on refreshing sources, thanks for your appreciation. Regarding schedule, a lot of flights have been officially pushed to 2017 already and some have been cancelled (two DragonLabs, one ViaSat). In addition, Gwynne Shotwell just set expectations at about 18 flights for 2016 which sounds realistic from an industrial standpoint absent a major mishap (new rocket version stabilized, 3 launch pads on hand, steady core and engine production lines, a bunch of payloads ready or close to completion). Today's version of the page, based on most recent public sources for each mission, shows 19 flights for the rest of 2016 and 20 for 2017, so certainly a few flights will slip but the page looks much closer to reality than a few weeks ago when we listed 29 missions for 2016 and 17 for 2017. Remember we started from a flat list of 50+ unscheduled missions after SpaceX stripped dates from its public manifest. The research pays off! — JFG ^talk 12:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

"Shotwell said launching 18 times this year – two launches have already occurred – will not be a stretch, and that the launch rate could increase to 24 or more in 2017." Ref. Currently we have 19 launches in 2016 and 20 in 2017. So we are roughly aligned with SpaceX announcements. --mfb (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Use of national flag icons on each launch payload

The following discussion 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.

---

I'm not so sure that it is appropriate to add the national government flag icons for each of the various payloads on SpaceX Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy flights. I did not revert the recent edit that added them, figuring a discussion here is probably appropriate first.

The main rationale for why this overuse of national flag icons is likely not appropriate is here, in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons.

My personal rationale is that if a commercial company signs a privately-arranged contract with another commercial company to provide launch services, then an overemphasis of which particular government claims national sovereignty over that particular geographical chunk of land where that company is located is WP:UNDUE, and conveys a sort of connection that is not, necessarily, present. It is different if the customer for a SpaceX launch is a national government; in that case, the use of the flagicon is likely quite appropriate. It would also be different if the prose were talking about the role of a particular national government (say, regulatory approval for the sat to leave the country, or for technology intellectual property to go outside the country, or ...), but even then, that would probably be considered overuse of flag icons.

What do others think on this? And please tie to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. In addition, companies operating satellites are often multi-national, in the worst case with their headquarter location chosen based on legal and tax reasons. Flags for governmental satellites are fine, but for companies I don't see the point. --mfb (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. --Pmsyyz (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I recently took the initiative to add those flags among a general effort to make this table more legible and more informative. There is no political message in there, it just shows the notable diversity of SpaceX's customer base. I do not think readers would see an implication that the country's government is involved every time a country flag is displayed on Wikipedia. Compare with the yearly 2016 in spaceflight tables which use flags extensively: certainly there would be a stronger argument for MOS abuse-of-icons there.

The large commsat corporations are indeed multinational, still the choice of headquarters remains strongly tied to company history and operations: SES has always been based in Luxembourg (indeed co-founded by the Luxembourg government which remains a major shareholder to this day);Inmarsat was founded in London at the behest of the International Maritime Organization which in turn was located there owing to the UK's historical strong role in commercial maritime shipping and admiralty law expertise, which can be traced to the heyday of the British Empire. The only case where HQ location may look like stemming from an essentially tax/legal decision would be ABS in Bermuda, however we are here to report facts and educate, not to judge companies on their business or legal strategies. In fact I was quite pleased to learn something when researching customer nationalities for this list, having earlier incorrectly assumed that something called Asia Broadcast Satellite must have been from Hong Kong, Singapore, Jakarta or Kuala Lumpur.

In a nutshell, I think flags bring value to the readers and do not distract from the rest of the information. More opinions welcome. — JFG ^talk 11:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

... continuing the discussion.

There seems to be an emerging consensus that the national government entity flags may not be appropriate for all of the various payloads, many of which are commercial/private and not the government-owned or government-operated satellites of those flagicon countries.

Anyone else want to weigh in on this question before we close the discussion? N2e (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

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.

Types of orbits

Do we want to break down the types of orbits further? Like Polar vs equatorial LEO for instance? Or maybe just split LEO into Leo and Polar? Polar orbits really are quite different than standard LEO orbits. — Gopher65_talk 19:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Could we specify both polar and altitude? For instance, CASSIOPE follows a polar orbit in the LEO regime (and is also rather elliptical, rather than quasi-circular). Maybe "Polar LEO" or "Polar LEO orbit" Spartan S58 (talk) 08:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Elaborating on this topic, can we expand the 15th flight orbit description from "L1" to something like "Sun-Earth L1", as opposed to lunar L1? (How about "heliogeic L1" or "solaterric L1" heh) Spartan S58 (talk) 08:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Eh, I'll change it now, someone can revert it if they disagree (which, it seems to me, is unlikely) Spartan S58 (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, could the extra column width bother people? Spartan S58 (talk) 08:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

ViaSat-3 launch

The table states that the ViaSat-3 launch in 2020 will be launching from LC39A, even though any of the given references doesn't state that. SpaceX will probably have the South Texas site in use by then and it has been stated to support Heavy launches. A lot can and probably will change between now and 2020, and thus I think we shouldn't draw conclusions, even from the best information available today, when dealing with launches that have a tentative launch date over 4 years from now. I think ViaSat-3's launch site should be removed until there is some firmer information available. --Msaynevirta (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree Remove site and disputed tag. I didn't check SpaceX manifest either. crandles (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Although I reverted your removal of the launch site, I wouldn't mind leaving it open given the far future launch date, but where do we draw the line? Should the launch sites for 2018 and 2019 be scrapped too? 2017? Any flight before launch site is officially announced? This information wasn't dreamed up by Wikipedia editors: it came originally from the official SpaceX manifest. And today the Viasat slot is still listed there with Cape Canaveral as a launch site. Then, as the mission was delayed and as SpaceX announced plans for the Boca Chica spaceport, there appeared a material possibility that future Heavy missions would be launched from there (but note that combining these two circumstances to draw our own conclusions is textbook WP:SYNTH). The question is which side of the crystal ball are we looking at: speculation that SpaceX will launch a given flight from a particular launch site or speculation that their own published manifest is wrong because we know better? My opinion is that unless there are other sources stating that a given flight may be launched from Texas, we should stay in line with what we have, i.e. the SpaceX manifest. Note that two flights are marked as potentially launching from Boca Chica, simply because a trusted secondary source quoted SES officials as willing to be the first customers for this new spaceport. Until we get a similar quote from ViaSat or SpaceX officials, I'd leave it at KSC LC39A. — JFG ^talk 21:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I had forgotten to take a look at the Spacex.com schedule, since it provides nowdays such little and sometimes pretty outdated information about the launches. ViaSat-3's launch site could be left as KSC LC39A. It needs then only a citation linking to the SpX schedule. --Msaynevirta (talk) 01:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done — JFG ^talk 08:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Citations, use multiple times, and access-date

I've observed an issue that comes up sometimes in this article, and thought we should discuss it.

Sometimes a citation is used multiple times within an article; that is good, as far as it goes, as long as that specific citation does, indeed, support the statements made in each location of the article where the cite is used. This can be a bit problematic for future launches, where many dates are in flux, are imperfectly communicated in reliable sources, and dates are modified and sourced rather variably, all by good editors who have limited time, and can only devote so much volunteer time to "fixing Wikipedia."

What can happen in an article like this however, and is illustrated by a situation today, is that an old cite, which was accessed at some former date, is used to support many statements in the article. Then a new/different editor comes along, and accesses that source on a new date (say, today) and uses it to back up a single statement in the article (say, the NET launch date for a single launch table item like the SES-9 launch). If they are doing things right, they create a cite, with a proper date accessed, etc., and use it to support the statement they put in the article.

The point here is, that the new/diff editor may only have checked that one particular statement (e.g., the SES-9 launch date) and they did not crawl through all of the long source (say "launchPhotography") and check all of the dates for all of the launches that might also be supported by some editor's earlier access of that same source in this article. As long as a new cite is added, there is no issue (at this point).

Now, if another editor comes along and decides that there should be only a single citation for "launchPhotography", and comes in and renames one of the two citations to launchPhotography (each with a diff access date and a diff refname) to a single refname, that source may or may not actually have been checked by that editor to support each and every one of the (now) many statements in the article that are (now) sourced by that single citation with the latest access date. If that editor does not make that check explicit, we run a very real risk of having other perfectly good cites get (inadvertantly) replaced by a citation that may no longer agree with the statement made.

Here's an example of how that might happen (using, for example, just a single source, say, launchPhotography (lp)): lp cite from Dec 2015 says rocket 1 launch date is NET is 6 Feb, and R2/R3 are 10 Mar and 10 Apr, respectively. Different editor notices R1 becomes "late Feb", reads that on source lp, does everything right and adds a new lp cite to reflect that lp on date 5 Feb says R1 is NET late Feb, codes it with the correct access date, etc. Now, another well-meaning editor decides that only a single lp cite should be used, and is "efficient" and combines the two lp cites into one. Unless that editor has explicitly checked each an every place in this article that the (now, single) lp cite is used, we run a very real risk of actually messing up a good/correct citation with an incorrect citation; e.g., we might remove a lp201512dd cite that says R3 is launching NET 10 Apr (which that particular December access really did support 10 Apr) and replace it with a lp20160205 cite to support the 10 Apr NET date, even though lp (by 5 Feb) had also change the R3 date to, say, 25 Apr, and yet the WP list would now say "10 Apr" and also have a source that (claiming a 5 Feb access) that did not, in fact, even get around to looking at the R3 (or R7, R11, R15 dates).

I hope I've at least outlined the problem. I'm open to other's ideas about how to not let it happen and thus goof up the sources in this (rather complicated) list article with many dates that are constantly in flux for future rocket launches. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

This is why using dynamic pages as citations are typically a Very Bad Thing. The best solution, if they are to be used, is to create an archived version of the page using archive.org and include archiveurl and archivedate in the citation. A new citation with unique refname would be created for each instance involving a different archived page. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey Huntster, I have no objection to using archived versions, especially on a page like this, which uses so many sources that are constantly changing. The only problem is, I've never found a straightforward way to have that all get done. Is there some way to simply add a flag parm of some kind to a cite template, that would tell some bot that you'd like an archive.org or Wayback machine copy retained? But just leave it to the bot to get all of that done, and update the said cite template with the archiveurl and archivedate once that is done? If it's not easy, leaving the routine and repetitive tasks for bots, a lot of the work simply won't get done by the many good volunteers who work on Wikipedia. (For example, I cleaned up the recently-defunct company article on Escape Dynamics yesterday/today and found that a whole pile of sources some editors have added there are merely bare URLs links to the company website, and now the ED website seems to be kaput. Frustrating.) N2e (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I am probably a bit sloppy failing to update access dates when I should. Sorry about that. Launch photography is only giving up to three launch dates at a time, while spaceflight now launch list has lots at least it lists the latest changes so not too difficult to check if more falcon launches are affected. Archiving links seems a lot of work and you end up with archived links that are out of date instead of an up-to-date link which may not agree on the date stated. With such a choice, I would prefer the up to date link to be provided. Note (to self mainly) when changing dates, check whether other launches affected and remember to change access date of the ref. Perhaps the launch photography link should be named 'lp' instead of having a date in the name so that the name does not need updating (like sfn-ls does not have a date in it)? If two sources state different dates, what should be best practice? Should older ref be commented out with note that other source updated more recently giving update date? Does answer to last question still apply if latest source says Late February whereas other source says NET February which perhaps isn't contradictory but just isn't as specific? crandles (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

c-randles, I'll just comment here on one aspect of your comment. Having the refname, say, for launchPhotography set to "lp" rather than (as is my habit) "lp20160205" (if I accessed the web site on 6 Feb) is practically a guarantee that some future editor will come to the article, update one item with one bit of news from the lp site, and then have that "lp" refname cite get incorrectly (and, likely, inadvertantly) updated to every other "lp" cite in the article, even though now, many of those statements will not have been checked against the latest access of lp. So for me, I'll likely continue to use refnames like "lpyyyymmdd" to be clear to all future editors that access of lp had a date, and therefore, an implicit "shelf life." N2e (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

N2e, C-randles: You both mentioned that it needs to be easy to archive websites. Well, there is an extremely simple way! In your browser, you probably have a bar above your tabs with links to sites, the "bookmarks toolbar" in Firefox and "bookmarks bar" in Chrome. Just select the follow code, and drag it into that bar, creating a new bookmark:

javascript:void(open('https://web.archive.org/save/'+location.href))

You can right click it and hit "properties" or "edit" to give it a recognizable name. When you're on a page you want to save a version of, just click that button, and it'll open a new tab to the Wayback Machine archiver. Let it do its thing, and it will shortly give you a "Page saved as" link, which is your archiveurl. Voila! Just remember that if a website doesn't allow crawling robots, Wayback Machine won't work.

There's also Webcitation.org...not quite as easy to use, but rather more forgiving than Wayback Machine. The code for it is as follows:

javascript:void(open('http://www.webcitation.org/archive?url='+escape(location.href)+'&email=INSERT_EMAIL'))

Do note that for Webcitation, you'll need to change "INSERT_EMAIL" to your email address, so it can send a confirmation mail with a link to the archived version. While this is redundant, it's also required. I have these emails automatically routed to a separate folder in my email account so my inbox doesn't get clogged.

Give it a try and let me know if you have any issues. I also have scripts for both of these that let me one click and discover if archives already exist for a URL. Let me know if you'd find these useful as well. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, just tried it for the first time. Did it for the (new) 24 Feb NET date for the SES-9 launch that I found in an article just now from NASAspaceFlight.com. Huntster, take a look, and thanks for telling us a way to do that, even if it's a bit geeky. N2e (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

N2e, don't feel like you have to create an archive link for everything...it is certainly a good thing to do, but if you feel like it would be a burden, then just focus on the dynamic pages like Launch Photography and Spaceflight Now's Launch Schedule page. Also, as I just did with the SES-9 entry, get rid of outdated refs that no longer support the material...otherwise it's just crowding out the useful stuff. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is an important one for new contributors to this article to be aware of. Big picture: it is quite helpful to other editors if a refname is explicit and clear as to which particular date that reference was accessed/viewed in order to support a given set of statements in this large list article. If the same url source is referenced again, but at a new date where (likely) much info on that url source has changed, please then create a new refname for your citation that is explicit about that new/later date. N2e (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Launch history Table: Booster retrieval success/failure ?

I think the 'Launch history' table is good for giving an overview of the Falcon 9/heavy launches. Now, since a distinctive (actually, revolutionary) feature of the Falcon 9/Heavy is the retrieval of the booster, I think it would improve the table if it would have an additional, separate field to highlight the status of the booster retrieval: success (green)/failure(red) and I guess also N/A (Not Attempted) for early launches. While the actual launch status is defined by the payload status, I think the degree of success of the whole idea and its implementation of massive cost reduction by booster retrieval is important to highlight as well. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. It feels like the tables are rather packed as it is, and at this point only a single booster has succeeded. Perhaps when success is more the rule than the exception? — Huntster (t @ c) 20:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your optimism. :-) I guess my point exactly is to highlight how often the retrieval has succeeded. On the pro-side, the success/failure value can point to the details on the retrieval, which does then not need to stay in the table. Looking ahead, I believe SpaceX also works on the much harder second stage retrieval, for a total of two extra, proposed fields, each with three possible values. Obviously, a field for the second stage would only make sense later. Lklundin (talk) 08:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Just as a note, the latest I've heard is that second stage retrieval is no longer being pursued due to the significant added mass of atmospheric reentry systems having too large an impact on payload upmass. Not to say it won't eventually be picked back up, but I wouldn't factor that into your reasonings at this time. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Elon Musk was quite clear with his statements, they won't try to recover the second stage of Falcon 9. The successor will be planned with full reusability as goal. I support a field for the booster recovery, it is an important part of the mission and its coverage in media. --mfb (talk) 08:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and @RadioFan: Thanks for contributing the change. Lklundin (talk) 06:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Currently column heading for Outcome are (launch) and (recovery). But should it be 'Mission' and 'Landing' or some other combination? If launch was fine but primary mission failed, I think we would show red (like flight 4). Therefore 'Mission' seems more appropriate than launch. If landing was successful but accident on unloading barge then is that landing success but recovery failure? Possibilities of being not sure if unloaded yet or not yet unloaded from barge. Hence, I am inclined to suggest 'Mission' and 'Landing' column headings rather than 'launch' and 'recovery'. Landing on water is not recovery though so that complicates interpretation: I would say that is a successful test but not a successful landing so change of heading doesn't require change from yellow to green. crandles (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Fully agree, thanks for the edit. Also I'd like to simplify the header called "Launch Complex" to just "Launch Site". — JFG ^talk 10:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a larger problem with that addition to the table that needs a bit more discussion. Relates to WP:UNDUE. Clearly, it may be said that any attempt (no matter how unlikely (Probability <<0.3, for example) SpaceX thought it to be) to recover a booster, either failed or succeeded. So the addition of the new table column is not technically out of the question, as long as the labels are correct.

However, for most of the "controlled-descent and landing" test flights to this date during 2013–2016—all of which have been explicitly labelled by SpaceX as "experimental" and "secondary tests" etc.—any landing was, while desirable, only one of many many engineering objectives of the test flight. There will come a time when all of the controlled-descent and accurate placement and super-accurate attitude-control during the low-altitude low-velocity terminal part of the controlled vertical descent appears incidental, and the safe landing and recovery are the only relevant thing. But that is not, and has not been, the main or only thing in the many test flights to this date.

Therefore, it is both orginal research/synthesis AND undue emphasis for us to represent it as if the landing was the only metric about the whole controlled-descent and experimental landing tests. That is simply not how complicated engineering development and test programs operate, and we have so source to say otherwise, with many SpaceX sources that indicate that the complexity of the technology development program that SpaceX undertook in 2011 or so, and has been working for five years while expending a lot of private capital to do so.

It is critical that we not, in this WP article, confuse the ultimate-half-decade-later and eventual operational end with the means to achieve it. During development and test, each of the hundred's of individual steps needed to make this technology work, were all ends in themselves. We should not let this table represent it otherwise. N2e (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

For the launch part, we also have the categories "success" and "failure" (and "partial success") only. This also applies to the first experimental launches of Falcon 1: List. Every failure still delivers data, no one questioned that. The result of the landing attempt gets the media attention, not details learned about the steering system that SpaceX does not disclose anyway. --mfb (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Adding in Possible / likely Landing places for Future Missions

Now that SpaceX has landed both on land and at sea and the landing outcome has been added to the past launches section, it seems appropriate that landings be added to the future launches section. We know that almost all GEO missions will be an ASDS landing and LEO missions will be a mix of the two options. Granted it does not make sense to speculate further out than the current years launches and the section would have to be updated reasonably often as new information comes out. For example from the CRS8 post launch presser we know that it is two ASDS landings and then land. B787 300 (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, adding possible landing attempts to the future section seems like pointless trivia to me, not to mention a degree of WP:CRYSTAL balling, even if there was a mention given in a press brief. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense as to not adding it to all but if there is a mention in a press brief I do feel that it should be mentioned somewhere. B787 300 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose as WP:CRYSTAL, as reverted a couple days ago. For those few upcoming missions where we have a source, this tidbit can be mentioned in the mission description field (and even that may not be notable, as landing attemps are now a routine part of almost every mission). — JFG ^talk 10:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Huntster and JFG; 'cause if there is not a source, then it's WP:CRYSTAL. However, if a verifiable source has the info, then it's not crystal, and would be potentially appropriate for the article. N2e (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

In the Musk and NASA and Koenigsman (NASA sponsored) news conference after the successful booster recovery on the early April flight (Falcon 9 Flight 23), Musk said what the target would be for the next three flights. I did not write it down but it is clearly stated in that news conference (I think it was next two: drone ship; then one to LZ1. But someone would have to check. N2e (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

There has been some official statement made by SpaceX this week. A representative confirmed the company's landing objectives for the next three missions (two landings on the barge, then on the landing zone after launching the CRS-9 on July 16th) to The Verge. Link to the article for possible citation HHrad (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

CRS-10 Launch date

CRS-10 launch date has been changed to (NET) December 2016 with no ref given. Googling only found SpaceXstats giving this info but maybe it is given elsewhere and hasn't been indexed yet. SpaceXstats info didn't seem very reliable last time I noticed it had info that differed from elsewhere and says it is still in beta. With CRS 11 having a 13 Jan 2017 date, December seems rather close but that doesn't make it impossible. Perhaps there will be more info becoming available shortly. Meanwhile revert or move it down the list or ... ? crandles (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Reverted and asked for source. — JFG ^talk 09:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Source now provided. A comment in discussion thread, but the thread then continues to compile info ignoring that comment. No idea if commenter Cogma is reliable. "Just was on the phone with a Principal Investigator" Sounds like he might have some genuine knowledge but who knows? A possibility mentioned was of experiment being bumped to CRS11 and they didn't know it yet. (In that case why December rather than Jan 17?). To me it seems unlikely that we should treat this as a reliable source but ymmv crandles (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Enz1: thanks for providing a source, although we normally can't rely on a forum post. Any chance to track down the person quoted there? If this is confirmed, it would neatly solve the scheduling conflict with Cygnus for June 24, as CRS-9 could switch to the vacated CRS-10 slot of August 1st. — JFG ^talk 22:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Changed to Nov 21 and moved down list per sfn_ls crandles (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Schedule conflicts for June 24, 2016

SpaceX CRS-9 is scheduled for June 24, 2016, as sourced from the usual Spaceflight Now manifest. According to the same source, a Cygnus cargo CRS OA-5 to the ISS and a defense flight NROL-61 from Cape Canaveral are scheduled for the same day. It seems highly unlikely that the ISS can accomodate both cargo missions simultaneously; I suppose that NASA has assigned a cargo slot on June 24 to one of the CRS suppliers but we don't know which one. Besides, if this slot goes to SpaceX, this would create a conflict for access to the Florida Eastern Range by the Atlas and Falcon launches on the same day. The Cygnus capsule does not have this problem, as it is launched by an Antares rocket from Wallops in Virginia. For these reasons I put this mission's date in doubt until we find out more from another source. — JFG ^talk 20:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Don't worry, these dates usually automatically de-conflict after some time. I would say there's no need to "put this mission's date in doubt" since they are notional planning dates only. ;) Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 08:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I reached out to Stephen Clark of Spaceflight Now: he confirmed there is only one launch slot to the ISS on June 24 and said NASA has not yet picked which supplier will fly. Most probably this will get clarified right after the upcoming Cygnus and Dragon flights (March 23 and April 8). So I do not worry ^_^ — JFG ^talk 14:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, my point is that there is no need to mark the date with a disputed tag, as all dates are notional. My preference would be to mark all 3 June 24 dates with (TBD) appended. ;) Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

There is only one 24 June 16 launch date in this article - just about Falcon launches, so can't append TBD to all 3. Adding TBD looks a bit vague but disputed tag looks like people think it is wrong whereas it is apparently supported by refs as possible. Adding 'Three mutually exclusive possible launches for this slot' might explain it best but seems a lot to fit into narrow column. So I am not sure what is best. crandles (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm just not seeing where the issue is. It's a notional launch date, subject to change, and as these things go, very likely to change. The paragraph above the future launches list even states the dates are "no earlier than", so I'd suggest just leaving things alone. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Launch photography now have "This will likely be followed by the next Dragon ISS resupply mission on June 24, likely around 9-9:30am EDT" would 9-9:30 launch time conflict with Atlas 5 NROL-61 launching 11am-3pm from SLC-41 CC ? Is Cygnus cargo CRS OA-5 now 6 July so no longer a conflict? crandles (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Atlas 5 NROL-61 now also delayed so no remaining conflict.crandles (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep, all clear; I just updated 2016 in spaceflight to push Cygnus OA-5 to July and remove the conflict tag. — JFG ^talk 18:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Future flights: September

Help! In trying to update the entry for Amos-6 from July to September 2016, I seem to have disarranged that part of the table relating to September and could not rectify it in spite of numerous attempts. Would someone please correct my mistake so that the table looks like what it is supposed to look like? Thanks!Abul Bakhtiar (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

5.44.169.70 fixed it. --mfb (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

SAOCOM 1A & 1B

The launch dates given in the table for these two satellites is in direct conflict with the data at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAOCOM#Configuration>. Someone should check which of the data sets are correct and update the list of falcon-9 launches to reflect the correct state of affairs. Thanks. Abul Bakhtiar (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

[1] seems to indicate 2017 and 2018 and this is later than Feb 16 reference for Dec 16 and Dec 17 used on this page. I don't know where the October 17 or October 18 that is in SAOCOM page comes from. added cn to that page. Will do this page to just 2017 and 2018. crandles (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Multiple payloads

Until today, the statistics section distinguished single-payload from multiple-payload missions with a different shade of green. Appable removed this distinction with this rationale: rmv "multiple payloads", confusing and not clear what it refers to; SpaceX has never had two customers in a mission, Orbcomm was basically one payload (the sat deploy mechanism) for the rocket; CRS missions launch secondary missions such as cubesats, etc. I would like to restore this information in the graph, based on the following arguments:

• Generally in spaceflight, multiple payloads are independent satellites registered with a different COSPAR tracking ID.
• SpaceX has already launched multiple payloads either for one customer (Orbcomm, twice) or for two customers (ABS + Eutelsat, twice).
• Cubesats carried by Dragon are not multiple payloads: they are part of the cargo delivered to the ISS and they get deployed to space by resident astronauts later.
• Only the CRS-1 mission had a secondary payload independent from Dragon: an Orbcomm test bird which was stalled in the wrong orbit as NASA deemed the maneuver too risky given the earlier shutdown of one first-stage engine, which forced the second stage to use more propellant than expected. Consequently this mission is classified as a partial failure, even though the primary payload (Dragon) was delivered correctly. Had this succeeded, we would have rightly marked this mission a dual payload success. Note: SpaceX COTS Demo Flight 1 should also be marked as a multiple-payload success, as it deployed several cubesats catalogued 2010-066B to 2010-066J.
• In the Orbcomm case, if the "single payload" deploy mechanism had failed mid-way, resulting in some Orbcomm satellites not being deployed properly, the launch would have been considered a partial failure. All separation events are critical success factors in any space mission. The payloads are the customer's satellites, not the satellite dispenser (which in this case was manufactured and operated by SpaceX as part of their launch services contract).

Opinions please. — JFG ^talk 10:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a tricky one. ABS + Eutelsat (*two) was technically one payload from SpaceX's point of view, even though it was two satellites. The payload dispenser was specifically designed by Boeing to act as a single payload from the point of view of the rocket. Ditto with flights for Spaceflight Industries. It is one payload from SpaceX's point of view, but it will have dozens or hundreds or sats (depending on the launch) on the Spaceflight Industries dispenser.

However, on the other hand, the Orbcomm flights are surely multi-payload missions using the more reasonable definitions of the phrase. There are several other multi-payload missions coming up (including the aforementioned first SpaceX flight of Spaceflight Industries, where the SFI dispenser will be a secondary payload for the Formosat5 mission).

That last thought brings up one more sticking point: does having a secondary payload count as a multi-payload mission, or does it only count as multi-payload when there are 2 primary payloads? — Gopher65_talk 15:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the core argument is that from SpaceX's standpoint, having a multi-payload mission rarely matters. There are plenty of arbitrary things to mark in a bar graph - Dragon mission successes vs satellite mission successes, etc - and I don't understand why multi-payload is that significant. I understand that multiple payloads are independent satellites. However, the purpose of the bar graph is to represent the missions by success and failure rate, not represent what types of missions there are. It's incorrect that only CRS-1 has had a secondary payload independent from Dragon - according to NASASpaceFlight, COTS-2 also flew a Celestis space burial payload; it's likely that SpaceX doesn't tend to announce secondary payloads. It is also incorrect to say that the Orbcomm satellite dispenser was made by SpaceX - Moog, an independent company not affiliated with SpaceX produced the dispenser. Therefore, from SpaceX's view, the payload was essentially a single payload and any failure after orbital insertion would have been Moog's failure. So I wouldn't even call Orbcomm a multi-payload mission from the view of SpaceX. ABS/Eutelsat, as Gopher65 noted, was a Boeing-built satellite stack and therefore the separation mechanism between the upper and lower satellite was Boeing's.

In my view, the multi-payload distinction has so far not been important for SpaceX. My position on an article for the Ariane 5 would likely be different because the Sylda dual-payload separation mechanism is built by the rocket manufacturers and missions are contracted as upper or lower slots in Ariane 5 vehicles. This is a very different scenario from SpaceX, who has always had zero to one primary separation events for satellite missions - any further separation events have always been on the customer side. While smaller satellite deployments are the responsibility of SpaceX, it seems somewhat misleading to consider a mission that carried small cubesats "multi-payload". Appable (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the details; while I was aware of the Boeing dual-launch setup, I was indeed mistaken about the supplier of satellite dispensers for the Orbcomm flights, however I don't think it makes a difference towards defining what is and is not a multiple-payload mission. Regarding Celestis, their "space burial" capsule had no separation mechanism: it was simply attached to the second stage and kept orbiting with it until decay. For the purposes of this article, I think that readers are interested to see cases where a single flight resulted in placing several satellites into orbit, and this was the spirit of the distinctive color on the graph. The technicalities of separation events, contractual arrangements and component suppliers are secondary. Would you agree to bring back the distinction with an explanatory note for readers? — JFG ^talk 00:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, the distinction is too arbitrary to consider it a different kind of mission in the bar graph. It is actually misleading. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that readers may be interested in seeing when a single flight carried multiple payloads, but I fail to see why that has anything to do with the mission outcome. Additionally, the types of "multiple payloads" - cubesats from the COTS mission, dual satellites with ABS/Eutelsat, satellite dispenser with Moog and Orbcomm - are so different that it seems better to describe it in the table than try to fit it into a bar graph. While it is nice information to have, it neither keeps the bar graph simple (I don't think bar graphs should ever need footnotes to explain what a vague term means) nor relates to the bar graph's topic. Appable (talk)

Also, it's a bar graph. Since you can't actually tell individual missions from a bar graph, knowing that there were two multi-payload missions (which could refer to cubesats, dual satellites, multi-satellite deployments, etc) is not particularly helpful and you'd have to refer to the main launch history table again anyway. Appable (talk) 04:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

No attempt, or unknown?

Hi. We know some missions attempted landings and some did not, but there is a fairly significant category of launches where we have no idea of the status. For example, F9F3 through F9F5 may or may not have attempted landings, and I have been unable to locate sources supporting either side. I'm almost positive Thaicom-6 did not attempt a landing, but I can't find an exact source - I'm guessing there is a source online somewhere for that. However, given the secretive nature of the parachute landings for Falcon 9, I would not be surprised if the landing attempts of F9F3 to F9F5 are completely unknown. Another mission I found little information on was CRS-4. While that mission certainly attempted a landing, I cannot find a source stating whether the landing was successful or unsuccessful.

For CRS-4, I simply changed "success" to "unknown" pending a reliable source, which I don't expect to be contentious. However, I'm inclined to edit "no attempt" to "unknown" for all unsourced Falcon 9 v1.0 flights, and add a citation needed tag to Thaicom-6. I'm interested about whether that sounds like a reasonable change or if there are other ways to handle unknown landing attempts. Appable (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

A number of flights during that time period did high altitude retro-propulsion tests as part of both the boostback testing for return to launch site landings, and as testing for Mars EDL (the atmosphere at those heights is similar to the density on Mars). — Gopher65_talk 04:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I found a source saying Thaicom 6 performed a reentry burn: "On the Thaicom 6 launch in early January, SpaceX used the little remaining propellant in the first stage tanks to conduct one of the two burns required for a soft landing of the rocket in the ocean." [2] --Pmsyyz (talk) 11:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Well done! — JFG ^talk 17:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Falcon Heavy moved from 2016 to 2017 without a valid citation

The following discussion 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.

---

Please put Falcon Heavy in november 2016 because thats what spaceX told and there is a valid calendar here: http://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/

Someone without a username changed the date from nov-2016 to apr-2017 and without a citation.

Oliversl (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't find a citation from here right now but it is right. I would just leave it there and see if I can find a citation. – Baldusi (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

| I follow spacex news daily, there is no citation for april 2017, I think its fabricated. Please use the last documented launch date, november 2016. Oliversl (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

And I have access to closed forums with input directly from SpaceX management. The article cited below is correct and they have sources. Look at my articles and you will see that I try to over cite as much as possible. But in this case, please trust me. – Baldusi (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I found this saying "early 2017" and changed the article accordingly. No idea where April 2017 came from, though. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, given the open flight manifest, a Heavy launch in 2016 looks very unrealistic by now even if none of our usual sources have pushed the date back. In her most recent public speech, Gwynne Shotwell again apologized for Falcon Heavy being late, although she stopped short of giving a firm date (probably wise of her!) And the second demo flight, STP-2, was officially pushed six months back from March to September, that's proof enough. So, listing the maiden flight in "early 2017" sounds appropriate for now. The next question is what to do with the Intelsat and Inmarsat missions, which had been listed for the first half of the year when Shotwell said the maiden flight would be end 2016 and those flights would follow over the following 6 months. Do we have enough information to push them back to the second half of the year? Can any source confirm that the commercial launches will follow STP-2 or is there a chance they happen before? — JFG ^talk 14:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI While we wait for a new announcement of schedule, I pushed out the first two commercial missions for Falcon Heavy; quoted statement "within 6 months of maiden flight" doesn't align with first half of 2017 any more. — JFG ^talk 11:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

| I know in L2 they are talking about april 2017 Baldusi, I can trust you, no problem. But in wikipedia we need to link to credible sources, so please revert back to nov-2016 until your sources are public and credible. We need credible public sources, thats all. Oliversl (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't made the change. I've got to be autopatrolled for being extremely strict with citations. It's just that I don't like to introduce wrong information knowingly. And JFG did put a citation for "early 2017". So I would leave it as it currently is. – Baldusi (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

| Ok, lets leave it like it is know with the citation added by JFG and lets archive this issue. Tks! Oliversl (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

For the record, we must thank Huntster for finding this citation, not me. — JFG ^talk 20:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

| Please move it back to 2016, JASON RHIAN contacted SpaceX and they say it should launch "later this fall" http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/space-exploration-technologies/spacex-still-eyeing-fall-launch-maiden-flight-falcon-heavy/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliversl (talk • contribs) 17:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

That article is poorly researched, adding nothing new beyond spouting off a boilerplate autoreply from a bot running on the SpaceX PR department's email server. It's not going to launch in 2016:P. They haven't moved the cores out to McGregor for testing. They haven't arranged for use of the US Airforce Range. They haven't even finished building the freaking launch site, never mind fully testing it before the first launch. — Gopher65_talk 01:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

None of those things should need more than 4 months. But this is private speculation, we are limited to official announcements. If SpaceX's PR department mails back "2016", we write "planned for 2016". Readers can figure out how realistic that is on their own. --mfb (talk) 11:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, mfb you have it backwards: Wikipedia sourcing is explicitly NOT limited to official announcements; those are one factor to take into consideration with due weight compared to other sources available. WP:PSTS has more detail on evaluating primary and secondary sources; the key criterion is verifiability. Now in this particular case, we have several sources, unrelated to each other, pointing at delays in the Falcon Heavy manifest:

• the second demo flight STP-2 was recently pushed back from March to September 2017;
• a packed waiting list remains on the manifest with 10 Falcon 9 launches until year end (Es'Hail 2 just slipped to 2017, and I wouldn't be surprised if BulgariaSat and EchoStar 23 didn't make the cut either) – the best expected launch cadence from SpaceX is 2 flights per month so even launching 8 missions until Christmas would be great performance;
• Intelsat 35e was switched to a Falcon 9 so that it can be launched in Q1, 2017 (thanks to recently-announced performance improvements, a Falcon 9 on an expendable flight path can theorically handle up to 8,300 kg to GTO; the Intelsat Epic series are 6-tonne birds, hello Ariane and Proton, you are not alone for high-mass commercial payloads now!);
• and even Gwynne Shotwell publicly expressed an apology for yet another delay.

Yes, this rocket will eventually fly, but there is no rush. Their original target market of heavy comsats can be handled by F9 now, so Heavy is likely to get refocused on Mars missions, heavy telescopes, interplanetary probes and large LEO habitats beyond the ISS. Of course SpaceX might still pull a Christmas surprise; I'm just not counting on it. — JFG ^talk 14:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me, but I can see that my comment might have been misleading. Let me be more precise: "We should report the planned launch date, and in the absence of other reputable sources we cannot write anything beyond that. If a reputable source expects a later launch date, we can add that."

Sorry for reading your comment a bit too literally. When several sources show different dates, we usually trust the most recently updated (all things being equal in terms of reputation). I don't think it would be useful to report several potential launch dates in the same field; perhaps as a footnote in contentious cases only. We started researching launch dates from alternate sources last year after SpaceX had yanked all calendar indications from their manifest page. Turned out we could re-create a pretty precise list after a few weeks of research, and it has held up beautifully so far. I wouldn't go back to relying on SpaceX statements; they have their place but have proven only reliable for short-term announcements, e.g. the next 2-3 missions. — JFG ^talk 22:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

With today's explosion at the launch pad all those schedules will probably get an update soon. --mfb (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Right, sadly everything will be delayed further. I read about the blast just 5 minutes after writing my comment here… — JFG ^talk 22:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Today Sep.8 2016, 1 week after the anomaly Bill Nye told reporters that SpaceX told him that FH will launch november 2016. Here is the source, please update the date. Tks Oliversl (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Oliversl: With all due respect, Mr. Bill Nye's off-the-cuff comment is not a reliable source, especially for such an unlikely occurrence. We do have a report from Ms. Gwynne Shotwell today that Falcon Heavy will not fly in 2016, so this question is settled. — JFG ^talk 22:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

References

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.