Talk:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

FH 2 Arabsat-6A Booster Recovery Status

I note that the article currently lists the center core recovery of the FH 2 Arabsat-6A booster as "success" despite the vehicle not being recovered. I would propose that we determine success of recovery of whether the vehicle makes it back to land, not just whether it lands correctly on the recovery ship. The booster is not clearly recovered until it's back in the hands of the crew on the land. Alternatively, we could pick a "yellow" status instead of a "red" one for if it lands successfully but then topples over or has some other mishap while at sea. As something to think about, how would we treat a rocket that landed successfully, but some minutes to hours after landing before being safed has some kind of mechanical failure and falls over? 104.219.106.84 (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment there was a similar discussion on this topic at Talk:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches/Archive 6#The operation was successful but the patient died. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 02:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The column is "landing outcome", not "recovery". If you want to change the column to list the recovery status in general then discuss this. --mfb (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

As noted, we've discussed this before. The problem (to me) is that recovery is a long process and somewhat vaguely defined. What if they get the core to shore, are moving it on a crane or whatever to be refurbished/checked out, and drop it? Would that be a recovery? What about any accident while turning it around for the next launch? In contrast, "landing" is pretty clear. Let me try this analogy: If an airplane lands, is taxiing back the the gate, when it clips its wing on something. Was the landing unsuccessful because of an accident on the ground? Fcrary (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

It is clearer than that analogy where presumably pilot at fault. It is more like meteorite/refueling vehicle hits aircraft through no fault of aircraft or pilot. Article column is about landing, and recovery would just cause different issues/problems. crandles (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

It was destroyed in transit after a successful landing. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

We have already discussed this before. We all came to the consensus that ArabSat 6A FH centre core landed successfully because the damage happened days after the landing process of landing and detanking had finished. The note was added there to prevent people from suggesting it was a failed landing, and to top it off during CRS-17 they said if B1056 landed successfully, it would be the 39th successful landing. You can only get 39 successful landings if you count ArabSat 6A or CRS-16. I don't know about you but I think Arabsat 6a is a much better candidate for a successful landing than CRS-16, seeing B1055 managed to travel a good 70km on boat before falling over. And no we're not changing it from landing to recovery because then CRS-16 will be counted as a successful recovery and ArabSat 6A will be a weird half-recovery because technically half of it was recovered AndrewRG10 (talk) 021:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Launch success statistics

Actually, the questions is about Template:Falcon rocket statistics, but I don't want to create a Talk page for it. Totallaunch value in the template corresponds to the numbers we have in the Past launches table (74 F9 + 3 FH); additionally, there is an Amos-6 entry that is not counted as flight (both in the template and in the table). But the template's Totalsuccess value is 75 only, as if there were 2 failures beside Amos-6. This is a bit strange, because there was only one (CRS-7). Well, there was also a CRS-1/Orbcomm-OG2 fight which could be considered partial failure (partial success), but if it is really not counted as a success, there better be a special note as for Amos-6, I think. Igor Krein (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

One failure, one partial failure (CRS-1). The special note about Amos-6 has to be (and is) in the articles. The idea is to keep things that change every launch out of the article text. The total number of launches and successes change every launch. If a launch fails we have to manually update articles anyway, so the template doesn't have to deal with failures. --mfb (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand the idea and think it is great. I am just trying to say that maybe "one partial failure" should also have a special note in the template itself, because without it, the math is not very clear. Igor Krein (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I added a comment on the template page. --mfb (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

24 Starlink flights

It is perfectly okay to mention that Gwynne Shotwell has got plans for 24 Starlink flights, we've mentioned in previous years her estimates for flights. Unfortunately, she always overestimates, sometimes by quite a lot. Until we see actual firm dates for the other 15 Starlink flights, I believe we should stick to the confirmed 9 Starlink flights which have actual launch dates, and not change launch statistics to say there are 40+ flights. If you disagree, leave your idea here, please don't start an edit war. AndrewRG10 (talk) 05:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@AndrewRG10: SpaceX said 24 Starlink launches in 2020, that is already in the article with a reference. There are 17 other launches -> 41. I rounded to 40 because that keeps the scale at 40 instead of 50 and these numbers change a bit anyway. Why would it matter that we don't have precise dates for these 24 launches yet? Some of the commercial launches (which you counted) are also with very preliminary date ranges - Q3, Q4, or even second half for the GPS satellite. SpaceX will launch Starlink satellites in between their launches for other customers. The section says planned launches, it should reflect the plans of SpaceX. And that is 24 Starlink launches. --mfb (talk) 05:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The issue is that Starlink flights are internal missions, the other missions are external customers who have announced a contract and a rough date. We know that they actually will launch because they have a contract which says SpaceX will launch the mission. The internal Starlink flights don't have contracts for all of us to see, we only have official SpaceX announcements of dates. And so far we have only been given 9 Starlink flights for 2020 and their dates. I'm not saying 24 Starlink flights won't happen next year, I'm saying until we have actual even vague launch dates such as '12 launches in H1,' we should just stick to the official 9 announced Starlink flights for 2020. AndrewRG10 (talk) 06:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

And on top of that, the graph is meant to give people a run down on what is in the sections below without having to go read it. We can't just chuck another 15 flights that are not in the boxes below as it is not being truthful about what the graphs are meant to be. I would agree with you a bit more about adding them if anyone from SpaceX said them except Gwynee Shotwell because she has been so inaccurate about launch predictions that if SpaceX really did all her launch predictions in the past, SpaceX would be approaching flight 150 in the coming months. AndrewRG10 (talk) 06:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Flights for other customers can get delayed or cancelled as well, this routinely happens and it doesn't stop us from reporting the current plans. We rarely see these contracts either, we see at best press releases from the companies and SpaceX. For Starlink they are the same company, so all we get is an announcement from SpaceX - and we have that. Do you really think "12 in H1, 12 in H2" is much better than "24 in 2020"? Maybe we should add these 15 other Starlink launches to the list. The prediction for this year was good, "2-6 more", 2 are in preparation and 2 more might come later. --mfb (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Flights for customers can and have been delayed, but they at least have target launch dates. For Starlink, I believe the "plans" are much more "aspirational" (as Mr. Musk would put it). I really get the impression that "24 in 2020" means that's what they would like to do. To me, that isn't "planned" in the sense of having dates and people assigned to the various pre-launch tasks. Sure, even with that sort of schedule, things can change, but "24 in 2020" strikes me as too nebulous to put in the chart of planned launches. Fcrary (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

What do you think about a separate entry in the graph? Everything apart from Starlink as planned launches, and 24 Starlink launches as separate bar on top. We can call it "Starlink (target)" or so. This would also apply to the 4 Starlink launches 2019. They are special in the sense that they have much more flexible launch dates, so we won't get exact dates that far in advance. --mfb (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

As no one objected I split out Starlink plans as I suggested. Color choice is maybe not the best one (color-blindness test passed, however: for blue-blind it is similar to success but little risk to mistake one for the other based on the years), feel free to change it. --mfb (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the split, and I improved the legend for consistency.[1] Further, I'd like to support the idea of counting only Starlink flights for which a launch date (even a vague one) has been announced. Aspirational goals expressed by Musk or Shotwell such as "2 launches a month" do not have enough substance to merit inclusion in the "planned launches" stats, and have usually been wrong. It's enough to mention them in the relevant list entry. — JFG ^talk 11:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I partially agree with the idea of splitting it, it may be helpful to people who just want quick rundowns on launches, but as I said earlier, I fully disagree with adding 24 Starlink flights. I don't see the need to split the Starlink launches but I'm fine with it, if we remove the 24 Starlink lauches which are not going to happen and replace them with the 9 that we have. We need to make it clear that the charts are only for launches which are actually listed, not for just vague dates by someone known for overestimating. — AndrewRG10 talk 21:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The 9 is just the subset SpaceX opened for rideshare missions. Using that number for planned Starlink launches is OR. I don't see the problem with the 24. We also say that SpaceX announced to launch an uncrewed mission to Mars in 2022 - well knowing that this is extremely optimistic and unlikely to happen. That is okay, we write that SpaceX said they plan it. And that's the same we do here. --mfb (talk) 03:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you missed the point. I'm perfectly fine with saying at the top of the 2020 section that Shortwell is aiming for 24 launches, we've done that for the past couple years despite how inaccurate she is. It's fine to say what a SpaceX executive thinks they will attempt. However, I'm not okay with them being put in the graph. The graph is a Tl;Dr for people who don't want to read every launch and their launch month target, it's for people to know how many launches are currently scheduled. There are not 24 Starlink launches scheduled, there is, however, 9 Starlink launches scheduled. I therefore strongly believe the graph should be adjusted from 24 Starlink launches to 9 Starlink launches. — AndrewRG10 talk 8:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

And to top off, if you're someone who just wants to know how many launches to expect and just read the graph, you're going to be quite dissapointed if you see 24 Starlink launches and only 15 end up happening. — AndrewRG10 talk 8:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

The tl;dr is what we also have below in the article: SpaceX says 24, dates to be determined (but within 2020). You trying to find a different number because you don't believe SpaceX is original research from your side. The 9 is not the total number of Starlink launches, putting 9 in the graph would be wrong. SpaceX wants to launch 40 rockets in 2020. That's the tl;dr, the table should reflect that. --mfb (talk) 09:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I just edited the graph to list 9 Starlink launches for 2020 instead of 24, because the talk page conversation was leaning this way. @Mfb: I had not yet read your latest comment, sorry about that. Yet, you seem to be the only one arguing to include the 24 launches envisioned by Shotwell, while AndrewRG10, Fcrary and myself have argued to keep only the 9 launches currently listed in our table. If you do feel strongly that putting 9 in the graph would be wrong, I'd suggest opening an RfC to invite more editor input. — JFG ^talk 10:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

The "Planned" category has already been split into "Planned (commercial)" and "Planned (Starlink)". Maybe we could settle this by adding another category, "Scheduled". That would distinguish between launches which are seriously on the books, and the ones which are just things SpaceX has said they'd like to do. Fcrary (talk) 09:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

That looks like excessive detail for a summary graph. On spaceflight articles, we have customarily used "Scheduled" for launches that have a firm launch date, and "Planned" for launches that have been announced, say when a contract is signed, but whose launch date is not yet precisely set. The graph merges "scheduled" and "planned" launches into a single "Planned" heading, because scheduled flights are a subset of planned launches. — JFG ^talk 10:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

"Planned = Announced but not a precisely set launch date"... that sounds exactly like the 24 announced Starlink launches! SpaceX said they will make them fit in between commercial launches so we can't expect specific dates long in advance. Anyway, looks like more users here see that otherwise. --mfb (talk) 10:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I see how this can be argued both ways, but the "24 flights in 2020" announcement sounds more like an "up to" capability, therefore I'd rather we stay on the cautious side. Surely more detail will come out over the next few months, as Starlink deployment gets cranking. — JFG ^talk 11:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Going off on a tangent here. Regarding the splitting of planned commercial and Starlink launches, are those colours compatible with colourblind people? The cyan and Green seem too similar that even me with no colourblindness looked at it and got confused about the similar colouring. Yes it should be a shade of blue to stick with the theme and make it look nice but they need to be compatible with colourblindness. And if there isn't a colour that fits that it may be best to revert to the original. — AndrewRG10 talk 12:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

See my edit comment when I added it. I could distinguish the colors with all color blindness settings from Coblis (apart from completely color-blind). With the (relatively rare) blue-weakness the new group looks similar to successes, but given the time structure of these columns it should be clear which one is which. --mfb (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

DM2 2020?

A ref for DM2 slipping to 2020 is refed to CNN interview with Musk saying flying humans in 3 to 4 months. This was Sept 28, so the minimum period of 3 months takes us to Dec 28. Is this vague period sufficient to push launch to NET Q1 2020 or to NET Dec 28 2019 or is it just too vague to use? crandles (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

DM2 will probably slip to 2020, but that particular sourcing is inadequate. — JFG ^talk 21:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Launch outcome chart, commercial v. Starlink (again)

I'm sorry to bring this up again, but there was just an edit and a revert to the Launch Outcome chart's caption. The change was from "Planned (Starlink)" to "Planned (internal)". I actually liked "(internal)" more. I think it's a clearer contrast to "(commercial)" and I don't think we should assume readers are familiar with Starlink. To a fair number of people, it isn't obvious Starlink is a SpaceX project or why we're saying it's not commercial. But someone decided to revert the change. I'm not sure why, since there was no edit summary. So I thought I'd bring it up here. Fcrary (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

was from IP, i thought was a vandalism. --Dwalin (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Edits by that IP are good faith edits (see section below). Doesn't mean they are correct. I think Starlink is more informative than internal. Would prefer Starlink in graph legend to be a link that could be followed by someone who wasn't aware of it.crandles (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

C-randles, Sorry but I don't think links are currently possible in graph legends. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 10:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I've added the link. — JFG ^talk 21:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

In-flight abort test + statistics

How should we treat this test in terms of launch statistics? Does it count as Falcon 9 launch, even though it won't have a proper second stage and will never reach space? This seems to be the way it is treated currently. Is the launch a success as soon as Dragon initiates the abort - considering that the rocket did its job? (I hope that question won't matter). --mfb (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it should be counted. While a Falcon 9 would technically be the whole structure, I feel like the first stage has become the recognized component. That said, successful separation and landing of Dragon is what counts as mission success, regardless of what becomes of the rest of the rocket. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Huntster, Yeah. It will be a failure if the rocket doesn't deliver the payload to the specified location, as always. In this case the desired location is significantly lower than orbit; that's all. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 05:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The title of the article indicates it is 'launches' not 'orbital launches' so agree it should count. I would suggest a need for delivery of payload to near enough intended location (& direction & speed) and separate properly to be a launch success. 'Mission success' and 'Launch success' can be different depending on payload performance. If there is launch success but payload failure and the payload failure is down to SpaceX then we may have an issue to solve but if that hasn't happened yet, I don't see point in trying to work out a solution until we have more details. crandles (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

If the rocket launches but the payload doesn't do what is supposed to do, then it is a "Partial failure". It has happened before that a rocket was launched properly and the first payload made its orbit, but the secondary payload didn't make it and was lost. --Frmorrison (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

If the payload failure is not due to the rocket we list the launch as success - see Zuma. The partial failure of flight 4 was Falcon 9 not putting the payload into the correct orbit. Okay, to summarize: It is a launch, if everything works as intended it is a clear success, if the rocket fails it is a failure, if Dragon fails we have to discuss. --mfb (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

And, in the case of the secondary payload left in the wrong orbit, the customer didn't complain. In any case, I guess we'll also list the in flight abort test as "no booster recovery attempted." Fcrary (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Starlink Payload weight

Weight for v0.9 and v1 has come from [2]. However is this correct? 60*227Kg = 13,620 and 60*260Kg = 15,600Kg Question: Is there additional dispenser weight? (Heavy-lift_launch_vehicle may also need any amendment) crandles (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

There has to be some sort of dispenser and that's part of the mass placed in orbit. However, the reference says "payload" mass. Is the dispenser part of the payload? Note that the upper stage and the payload interface also go into orbit, but they aren't usually considered "payload." On the other hand, they are clearly part of the launch vehicle and not a mission-specific extra (which a dispenser is.) So I have no idea. I don't think there is much in the way of conventional usage on the subject. Fcrary (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Usually the dispenser isn't counted in the payload. However, in this mission there really isn't a dispenser, rather a tension cord that releases and allows the satellites to be released. The cord liekly weighs a few kilograms so the true weight may be heavier but not by much. We have no source for that weight so we just use the fact the weight of V0.9 is 227kg and V1.0 is 260kg and multiply by 60 to get the weight.AndrewRG10 (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Would be interesting to see if the weight increases when they start flying smallsats with Starlink OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 01:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Color scheme

I don't understand why users undo constructive edits cause "no discussion" but then won't actually start that discussion. Anyways, I think popping out reused boosters over Block5 over v1.2 is more notable. I think a different color (i.e. green) should emphasize reused booster launches. Change my mind. 4.35.246.19 (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

It is your responsibility to start a discussion if you want to make a controversial change. Not sure what you changed when. --mfb (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Falcon Heavy Block 5 version 1 and Block 5?

Should we be differentiating the Falcon Heavy in the graphs and tables as version 1 and Block 5? It would only separate the first flight from subsequent ones, but the subsequent ones were built to a different architecture. Note that the side boosters in the first flight were Full Thrusts, but had some elements of B5, like titanium grid fins. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The original Falcon Heavy can't reallyfall into any category is the problem. It had a Block 3 centre core and Block 3 side boosters, Block 5 grid fins and block 5 upperstage. I don't see the point in making a new category for one flight that can technically fall into every category. I think most people already know there was only one Falcon Heavy in 2018 and they know which one it was.- AndrewRG10 (talk) 11:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

AndrewRG10, Yeah, this is similar to what I was thinking. We do have two different Falcon heavy's listed at the top of the page in the image of the Falcon 9 rocket family though. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 00:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

We do say "Second flight of Falcon Heavy, the first commercial flight, and the first one using Block 5 boosters" so I think that might cover it. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 03:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

OkayKenji, Yes, but there is a statistics chart that specifies the type of rocket. At the top of the page the image of the Falcon rocket family shows two falcon heavy versions. In the chart we separate different falcon 9 versions, but not the falcon heavy versions. I agree that the table is unambiguous, the chart is where I was thinking we have some inconsistency. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

For the love of Zeus, are you serious? Isn't the chart cluttered enough as it is? We should instead merge Falcon 9 Full Thrust together with Block 5 to make it more readable. Block 5 is anyway a variant of Full Thrust (that has Blocks 1 to 5), it's strange to group together the first four variants but make the fifth a category in itself. This would also solve the inconsistency that is bothering you; then neither Falcon 9 nor Falcon Heavy would be divided by variant (as Falcon Heavy was only ever flown with Full Thrust boosters). Tercer (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Block 5 is a Full Thrust variant but one that differs significantly from the previous ones. I think I said in a previous discussion already: Just keep FH one category. No need to split FH into separate categories for a single flight. We can also remove the maiden flight configuration from images if people don't like that. --mfb (talk) 09:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Block 5 is really not that different, especially if you compare with the differences between 1.0 and 1.1, and 1.1 and Full Thrust. Block 4 versus Block 5 is really minimal; is there anything besides titanium grid fins? I would be in favour of removing the first Falcon Heavy from the image, it was more of a prototype than anything. Tercer (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Split by decade

The list is getting on the long side, and with 37 launches just for 2020, it might make sense to start planning splitting the tables after 2019 into a new cleaned-up list. 205.175.106.236 (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Why? The page only has 18,961 characters of prose, (~18 kb). This does not even approach the length that is WP:TOOBIG. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 04:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

That guideline is made for articles that are mainly text, not for tables. I don't see how you get 18 kB, however, unless you exclude the tables (the main content!). I see ~172,000 visible characters with references and ~88,000 without. --mfb (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The whole page is 346,438 bytes (320 kB) looking at Information for "List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches". OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 04:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Mfb, Hmmm.. yes the tool I used didn't count the prose in the tables. Comes out to ~72k of text by my count, which is a bit on the long side technically. (the 320 kB is mostly from characters in the wikitext of the tables). I think we could deal with any issue of being 'too long' by just making the tables collapsible though (default collapsed); something we have discussed in the past. I don't really like the idea of splitting this list personally, as it would be a real shame to break up this featured list. Up to you guys. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 10:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Many collapsed tables are difficult for browser searches. A split by decade would follow the pattern of other long lists, but what do we do with the first paragraphs then? Only move away the launches in 2010-2019, keep all the other information here? Move the launches in 2010-2019 and 2020-2029 into separate articles each? Move the notable launches as well or keep them here? Not so easy. --mfb (talk) 12:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

List of Atlas launches

list lauches separate and all other informations here.--Dwalin (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

If the Falcon family was going to be flying into the 30's and had been flying since the 90's I would agree on a split. But the page is no where near considered a long page. The plan is to retire the Falcon family once Starship is flying so that means launches will wind down halfway through this decade and only ISS missions will do Falcon 9 till the ISS retires at the end of this decade. There just isn't a good reason to split and make it harder to navigate.--AndrewRG10 (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not quite how I understand it. SpaceX has said they will continue to fly Falcons for any customer who wants them. (Well, as long as their fleet of cores holds out.) Non-ISS NASA flights and national security launches are a real possibility. Those customers are very conservative, Starship hasn't flown yet, and we have no idea how long it would take to establish a track record. So Falcon flights into the 2030s are a real possibility. Fcrary (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Even if they fly in the 2030s it would be really surprising if that is more than a handful of flights. At some point customers want to fly with Starship and it will become too expensive to keep all the Falcon 9 infrastructure around (second stage production, launch pads, refurbishment, support ships, ...). --mfb (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the best approach here is to wait and see. SpaceX's plan is to fly all but a handful of national security missions with Starship in a couple of years. This year we shall see the first orbital tests, and we'll know if the plan is realistic. Tercer (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

i remember you that the page is reaching 320 kb and it is slowing down in loading. --Dwalin (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Dwalin, perhaps, but I think we should wait until 'absolutely necessary'. This is a Featured List, and splitting it will make it harder to navigate and will just mean that we aren't adding new data to this page, which is just making this page a less complete list. I think this page is still working fine, my work computer is very much on the slow side and it still loads in under 3 seconds, even if I clear my browser cache beforehand. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

for me is much harder to navigate in List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage_boosters than List_of_Atlas_launches.

in size guideline put 100 kB the dimension where "Almost certainly should be divided". now we are triple that size.

we can put in other pages last year and before, and put in this this year and future.--Dwalin (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

That wouldn't help at all. The page with the launches from 2010 to 2019 would still be 320 kB long. If you compare to the other lists, you see that the number of launches is roughly similar. What makes this page so heavy is the amount of detail present in each list entry and the section "notable launches", that the other lists don't have. I think it would be more sensible to split off "notable launches" into its own article. This would make the current page lighter and avoid the necessity of creating a new list with just a handful of launches. Tercer (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I like that idea of moving notable launches, I think the Falcon 9 page would be best suited for that so we should start discussion on that page. I do agree that some of us put too much info on some launches. Probably going forward it may be better to limit info, especially on Starlink flights. Due to their repetitiveness it's easier to say which number it is and point out if there is a secondary customer. Splitting the page is not going to make it easier to navigate, rather harder to do so due to page jumping which has to be done for other pages. AndrewRG10 (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Dwalin, That guideline says 100 kB of prose. I copied all the text of the article (minus refs) to word and it came out as roughly 72,000 characters. The size guideline suggests a conversion of 1000, so we are at 72 kB of prose (roughly). This is still acceptable. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 00:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

refs are in prose count. prose in wiki is nothing without refs. with refs it is 174.049 characters. 320kB with tabulation.

List of Atlas launches (1960–1969) is 40 kB because has a lot less refs, even if it has x10 more lauches (62 kB with tabulation)--Dwalin (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Dwalin, What? The reference list is not counted as 'prose'. Otherwise all the DYK check tools that check prose size are wrong. You can't actually use those on this article because they don't check inside tables, but they work well for most articles and they definitely do not count the reflist. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 03:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Which is exactly the reason why this article doesn't need to be split. The only reason the kB count is so high is because of the reflist. The actual list itself including tables isn't even that long. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 03:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Booster landings

I redid the graph about the booster landings, but then some user just undid my edit without discussion or presenting a reason. I find that rude. As I wrote in my original edit summary: There was too much information here, making the graph unreadable. I condensed them into Failure, Success, and No attempt. Also, the categories Parachute failure and Ocean failure were rather misleading, as they didn't actually try to land the booster. They count as No attempt. Tercer (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

the discussion must be BEFORE make so much modify of the page, not after.

not too much information, and it is usefull to understand where landing happened and evolution of landing. the use of ground pad and drone pad are totally different challenges for the different path they use for rientry. --Dwalin (talk) 09:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The parachute and ocan landings were important steps for refinig the real landing attempts and therefor shpuld be left in. Furthermore, it is not rude that the info was put back in, but that you removed them again after it was reverted, violatin WP:BRD. Gial Ackbar (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is "Be bold", not "discuss before modifying".

The graph is unreadable as it is. 8 categories is ridiculous. Calling them "Parachute failure" and "Ocean failure" is misleading, as they were not landing attempts. That was interesting when landing was under development, but nobody cares about that anymore. Furthermore, "Ocean touchdown" is unclear. By looking at the launch history one can find out that this means a successful ocean touchdown when that was the intention, but one can reasonably think that it means a launch failure that ended up as a ocean touchdown as in CRS-16. Tercer (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

in this pages, every mayor modify of istrograms are discussed before in talk page. --Dwalin (talk) 12:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you have anything to say about the content? Tercer (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

yet whrote--Dwalin (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Tercer Unfortunately, those charts have been discussed on this talk page in mind-numbing detail, until everyone who cared came to a consensus. They've also gone back and forth about the colors, to make sure it's readable by someone who's colorblind. At that point, the Wikipedia practice is to follow the consensus, or at least reopen the discussion on the talk page, not "Be Bold." Being bold is for things where you don't think it's controversial (or at least don't have reason to think it is.) Fcrary (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Fcrary, I did take a look at the talk page, and didn't find the change I did being discussed (simplifying the graph because it's too cluttered). That's why I assumed I was not controversial, and decided to "Be Bold". This point is anyway moot, as the change has been empirically proven to be controversial, due to the reaction of the users here. Could we please move on to discussing the change itself them? Note that I was careful not to change the colours, precisely because I didn't want to impact colourblind accessibility. Tercer (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok. It is moot, and some of the discussion is probably buried in an archive. As far as the content is concerned, I don't really have a problem with eight categories. We've got seven for the "rocket configuration" chart, and six for the "launch outcome" chart. Eight for the landing outcome doesn't seem dramatically out of step. I do agree the captions could be improved; some of them are probably a bit ambiguous. Fcrary (talk) 22:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

My goal was to make it more similar to the "Launch outcome" chart, that's clear and readable (ignoring the nonsensical planned launches in 2020). Four categories, that's good. "Rocket configurations" is kind of a mess, but at least the captions are clear, and the categories don't mix too much, as older configurations are retired and only three (FH, F9, and F9 reused) will be used for the foreseeable future.

Can we at least remove "ocean touchdown", "ocean failure", and "parachutes failure"? First of all, it doesn't matter! They were experiments, not landing attempts. And the latter two hardly failed, as the goal wasn't to land anyway. Also "parachutes"? They hardly had anything to do with the experiment, the booster just disintegrated on reentry before the parachutes could do anything. At least group them together under "Experiment" or "Development", if not outright "No attempt". Tercer (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

These categories do matter as landing experiments. The goal was not recovery, but no one claims so. Some (not all) earlier discussions: Together with the launch table, Parachute failures, Ocean touchdown. The old draft page might have some discussion as well. --mfb (talk) 07:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a graph summarizing the table of launches. It should focus on the important information. Exactly what the landing experiment was about is irrelevant trivia. The pages you linked do not discuss the issues I have brought up, except for Parachute failures, which wasn't about the graph anyway. Tercer (talk) 08:03, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Folks, am I correct in understanding that everybody but me think that the graphs are good as they are, and that nothing should be changed? I don't find this acceptable. I think this is a clear case of WP:FANCRUFT (and WP:CRYSTAL, in the case of the planned launches). My impression is that the editors here are very knowledgeable about the details of every aspect of Falcon launches, and lost sight of what is relevant/understandable to the people who are not. I think the best solution is to post it in WP:DRN to get a view from the editors at large. Tercer (talk) 11:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

yeah, sounds like a good idea. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 20:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

We list planned launches for every rocket, not listing it for Falcon 9 would be strange. If you want to change that go to the spaceflight portal. Or go up even higher and start a Wikipedia-wide discussion, because we also list lots of other planned events. --mfb (talk) 09:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

No you don't, not in the Launch outcomes graph, and in particular you don't break them down by customer. Although I'm afraid that by linking the Ariane 5 graph here, the consequence will be that you'll mess it up, instead of using it as an example to improve the Falcon 9 graph.

In any case, that's a minor point, the real problem is the "Booster landings" graph. So you think the graph is good as it is, and are okay with a WP:DRN? Tercer (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Tercer, I don't think they should be changed. The parachute failures and ocean touchdown etc were important tests and milestones in the development of landing rockets. The graph isn't about 'recovery' it is about 'landing'. If the primary goal of the graph was just to show which boosters were recovered you might have a point, but that isn't the goal. Also, the 'planned' launches are NOT WP:CRYSTAL. These are documented planned missions with sources lower in the list. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Tercer, Perhaps there are better options for captions that are less ambiguous that we haven't thought of, I'd appreciate your input. The list is currently using 'Controlled (ocean)' and 'Uncontrolled (ocean)' for the categories of 'Ocean Touchdown' and 'Ocean Failure'. I think we are a ways away from needing to go to DRN and anyway DRN isn't really a venue for "getting a view from the editors at large"; if you want that, I'd suggest a post at VP or at the Spaceflight wikiproject talk page. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere, rocket launches are notoriously unpredictable. Even those that have a NET date are more often than not postponed, and some of the launches in the list don't have even that! Leaving aside that I don't see how planned launches count as a "launch outcome". But nevermind, that particular graph is still readable as all the planned launches are at the end.

The real problem is the booster landings graph. You still insist that all the landing experiments are not irrelevant detail. We need a WP:DRN to resolve that. As for the captions, that's just rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic, but 'Controlled (ocean)' and 'Uncontrolled (ocean)' would be an improvement over the current state, as they don't imply that the goal was to land the booster. The actual goal of the landing experiment wasn't to do an ocean touchdown, though, it was to gather data to develop landing. In this respect they were successful, as SpaceX did manage to nail a landing eventually. Therefore my suggestion would be to change "Parachutes failure" to "Experiment (parachute)", "Ocean failure" to "Experiment (ocean uncontrolled)", and "Ocean touchdown" to "Experiment (ocean controlled)". If you insist in keeping them separate, that is. Better would be to use "Experiment (ocean)" for the latter two. Even better would be to use "Experiment" for all three. Optimally we would just put all three in "No attempt". Tercer (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The Falcon 9 is the first recoverable launch vehicle (at the first vertical landing one.) I think capturing the history of landing development is important. This chart does that; you can see the progression from no attempt, to failures of various sorts, to successful landings. And I don't think the eight categories make it unreadable. I do wonder about calling some of these events "Experiments"; "Test" might be better. But that's a detail.

As far as the 2020 planned launches go, we do put "Planned" or "Scheduled" in the launch list "Outcome" charts for other vehicles (e.g. Atlas. Yes, it does sound odd, but it's useful information. SpaceX scheduling seems to be a bit unconventional. For their Starlink launches, what they've said really sounds like they plan to throw in launches whenever their paying customers' schedule permits. That's hard to capture. This is also going to be a problem for the Electron. They are shooting for launch on demand, and have already swapped two payloads on a couple weeks notice. One customer delivered sooner that planned and another later. [Comment by Fcrary interrupted by Tercer]

It sounds like you're well aware that you're playing crystal ball. Tercer (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Tercer No, I admit the best possible sources on future events may still turn out to be wrong. But if there are valid sources, rather than our own guesses, that's not a crystal ball issue. If you object, then you need to get a consensus on the Spaceflight project page to change it for all the other launch vehicle lists, since we're supposed to be consistent. In this case, we have planned commercial and Starlink launches because the former are signed contracts with someone else (and therefore moderately firm) and the later are internal to SpaceX (which means they've announced them but are pretty free to change their minds.) We thought the distinction was necessary, although I've never been excited about the phrasing. By the way, please don't insert comments in the middle of someone else's. That makes it hard to read and tell who wrote what. Put them at the end. Fcrary (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

(sorry for interrupting your comment) I still think it is a terrible idea to include the planned launches on the graph, but I have no wish to pursue the issue, because as I said the graph is still readable. Now, breaking them down between Starlink and commercial is just ridiculous. Do you really think that people looking at the graph of "launch outcomes" care that Starlink launches are even more unpredictable than regular launches? And moreover, that they will know that Starlink launches are more unpredictable, and that this is why the distinction is being made? Tercer (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

As I said, I've never really liked the "Starlink" designation on the "Launch outcome" chart. But I didn't win that debate. I'd rather show a likely minimum (only including firm contracts) and a likely maximum (including all the SpaceX-internal launches they claim they want to do.) And perhaps a footnote explaining that that's the reason for the range. Fcrary (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like it's time to change that graph then. Tercer (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

[Interrupted comment by Fcrary resumes] Finally, I don't think WP:DRN is the place to go. To my mind, that's a last resort when the editors can't come to a consensus on an articles talk page. Consensus doesn't mean unanimous agreement, and I've heard one person objecting to this chart. Fcrary (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Fcrary and Tercer, "You still insist that all the landing experiments are not irrelevant detail." Yes, precisely, I do, and so does everyone else here.

One of the issues with a lot of the proposed captions that you guys have proposed is that they take two lines to display, which DOES make the captions difficult to parse, so whatever we choose, we need to avoid that (which is how, I think, we ended up the the current captions). I'm not a fan of "Experiment" either, though "Test" could work (and is shorter).

'Ocean test failure', 'Ocean test success', and 'Experiment (parachute)' are short enough. As are 'Uncontrolled (ocean)', 'Uncontrolled ocean test', and 'Parachutes test failure'.

'Experiment (ocean uncontrolled)' is too long.

I'd personally be happy with 'Uncontrolled ocean test', 'Controlled ocean test' and 'Parachutes test failure'. Or, alternatively, 'Ocean test failure', 'Ocean test success', and 'Parachutes test failure'. I think this last option is my favorite (and have bolded it for that reason). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I like this last option because it keeps the syntax used in the rest of the captions of 'success' or 'failure', but also denotes that it was just a 'test', which helps indicate to the reader that recovery was not the goal. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I specifically want to avoid the word "failure", because someone that only looks at the chart will interpret that as a landing attempt that failed. It's misleading. Also remember that this was an experiment. What determines success or failure is whether it provided useful data, not whether it achieved a soft touchdown. The least worst option is 'Uncontrolled ocean test', 'Controlled ocean test' and 'Parachutes test'. Tercer (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Fcrary and Insertcleverphrasehere, I'm well aware that everybody but me is infatuated with this trivia. It doesn't change the fact that it is WP:FANCRUFT. You're fans. Note that I'm not proposing to purge this information from the article, merely from the graphical summary. Try to think from the point of view who is not necessarily a SpaceX fan, and merely wants to check how the landings are going (I assume this describes the vast majority of the readers). Do you really think they would understand the graph, or care about what exactly was SpaceX experimenting on? Tercer (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really a SpaceX fan, and calling people names ("infatuated with this trivia") doesn't substantiate your opinions. But as far as the chart goes, yes. I would expect someone could read it and understand how the landings are going. Having eight (or even twelve) categories shouldn't be a problem as long as the colors and captions are clear. I think the main weak point is "Ocean touchdown". What means isn't exactly clear. But everything else is clearly labeled as some sort of "success" or "failure." That should be clear enough to anyone. They might not know (or care) what the different flavors of a failure mean, but that isn't necessary if that's not what they're looking for. Fcrary (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

No, they won't! They will think that "Ocean failure" was a landing attempt that failed. They will think that "Parachutes failure" was a landing attempt that failed. Tercer (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

At this point, I'm not sure how you'd classify those events. I thought you wanted fewer categories. If we don't call those failures (to land the vehicle intact), what do we call them? "No attempt"? But that implies SpaceX wasn't using them to develop landing techniques. Maybe we should cut it down the number of categories, but in a different way. If we drop drone/ocean/pad/etc., we could call them "Test (not recovered)", "No attempt", "Success" and "Failure". I think those are all clear, and it would cover the evolution of the landing development efforts. Then we'd get to argue about some of the initial attempts. Some of those drone ship failures in 2015 and 2016 were ones where SpaceX wasn't really expecting success. So are those failures or tests? Fcrary (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, "No attempt" would be my preference. "Test (not recovered)", "No attempt", "Success" and "Failure" is even better. No cruft, all captions have clear meaning. I would classify all tests where recovery was possible as attempts, so the early drone ship failures would fall into "Failure". Trying to determine whether SpaceX was expecting success sounds like a nightmare. Tercer (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

If that's something we can agree on, how does this look? (Although I may have gotten some of the numbers wrong... Fcrary (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I would put "No attempt" as the last category, so that the grey bars are on top. Otherwise it looks great, I would be totally for that. Tercer (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Fcrary, absolutely not. I’ll accept adjustment of the captions but the categories should stay how they are. Tercer is being extremely unreasonable trying to force their viewpoint on the situation. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 01:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I strongly prefer the current graph. If people (more than a single user!) absolutely need to reduce the number of categories then I would suggest putting all experimental landings in one category: Parachute, Ocean failure, Ocean success -> experimental. I prefer the current version, however. mfb (talk) 01:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

That would look like [this]. Not as good as Fcrary's version, but a significant improvement over the current one. Tercer (talk) 08:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Tercer, I'm not a fan, it does not denote the kind of landing attempt. There is a huge difference between the original parachute tests and the successful Ocean touchdown tests. Again, this is not a booster recovery graph. It is about how they landed (or planned to). I am in the same camp as mfb here, I prefer the current version, or alternatively, with modified captions per the bolded text I suggested above (so far no other versions I would support). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 09:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

As I said before (and you didn't reply to), I don't think your suggested captions solve the problem, as they still use the misleading categories "success" and "failure". Tercer (talk) 09:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Tercer, Fair enough, I guess we will stay with the current captions then, absent any consensus to change. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 10:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Tercer, no it wouldn't look like this. I think my comment was quite clear in that aspect, I didn't write anything about grouping ground and drone ship landings. mfb (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

mfb, I have since edited my sandbox. The graph you refer to is now [this version], which indeed doesn't group ground and drone ship landings. I also edited the link to point to the old version to avoid confusion. Tercer (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Tercer, it was an attempt to land softly on the ocean, and it failed. Parachute failure was an attempt to land softly using parachutes, and it failed. Nothing in the graph would suggest a landing on solid ground for these categories. Everything else you want to interpret into these categories is just your personal attempt to find something to complain about, as far as I can see (personal impression). mfb (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, mfb. I'm not trying to find something to complain about, I do find them misleading, and that is one of the reasons I edited the graph in the first place. As I wrote in my original edit summary: "Also, the categories Parachute failure and Ocean failure were rather misleading, as they didn't actually try to land the booster.". Tercer (talk) 08:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Tercer, I also find your complaints without merit and a bit repetitive. I would suggest that if you weren't just telling us we are wrong over and over, perhaps we would be more inclined to listen. Perhaps you should listen to what we are actually saying?You've made multiple comments yourself in this conversation that border on needing an AGF reprimand, so accusing others of breaking it seems a bit rich. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 09:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Now that's uncalled for. All I said is that you are fans, and therefore care about details that most people find irrelevant. That has nothing to do with an accusation of acting in bad faith. Tercer (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Tercer, Instead of telling me what I am, perhaps you might consider not... doing that? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 10:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, now this is just degenerating into name-calling. As I don't see hope for progress without an outside perspective, I opened a DRN here. Tercer (talk) 10:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Tercer, There has been no name calling from me (the only name calling that I can see is from you denigrating everyone here as 'fans'). In any case DRN is an optional process that I will decline to use. You have a viewpoint, the editors here disagree with that viewpoint. The consensus is against you, I have said as much on the DRN page, and will leave it at that. I have suggested some compromises, but my patience has run out and I won't be commenting further with you. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 11:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think calling somebody a fan is denigrating. On the other hand, mfb accused me of acting in bad faith, and you said I'm on the border of needing an AGF reprimand. You haven't suggest a single compromise towards my goal of simplifying the graphs. And your characterisation of there existing a consensus against me is false. Fcrary is open to simplifying the graphs, and OkayKenji is open to discussion. Please remove this falsehood from the DRN page. Tercer (talk) 12:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Calling someone a "fan" is offensive for two reasons. First, it does imply not only an interest in detail, but an excessive or obsessive one. You yourself wrote "infatuated with this trivia." Second, it implies bias in favor of the subject (as in fans of a media celebrity.) An interest in the details doesn't imply bias, and implying a Wikipedia editor is biased is not assuming good faith. It's unfortunate that the Fancruft essay (not policy or guideline) uses the term. I think it dates from a time when the main problem was articles on celebrities written by their fans. And, to make matters worse, at one point you basically wrote, "If I'm the only one who sees a problem, then I'm still right and there's something wrong with the rest of you" (paraphrased.) Can you see how that's a bit offensive? Fcrary (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, you have a point. I think what is a bit offensive is not the term "fan" itself (I think it is fair to assume that somebody that knows a lot about SpaceX and is interested in editing its Wikipedia article is a fan. That includes myself of course), but the implication that because they are fans they are not making sound judgements. I apologize for that. Tercer (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Not necessarily. For example, I know a painfully large number of details about submitting grant proposals for to NASA. I might very well edit the article on Federal Acquisition Regulation and put some of those details in, especially if I thought it would be helpful to my colleagues. That doesn't make me a "fan" of those regulations (or, for that matter, a bitter enemy.) Fcrary (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

That's not really comparable, though. SpaceX does have a lot of fans, and FAR very few, if any. To be honest I'd be a bit worried about that possibly existing fan. Tercer (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Haven't joined this discussion til now because I have been a little undecided in my views. I don't see much problem with 8 categories so don't see much need to simplify it. However, in time this detail may eventually seem odd for inclusion here. At that point, it might be sensible to have the full 8 category graph on the Falcon_9_first-stage_landing_tests page perhaps running it until there are around 15 to 20 consecutive landing and recovery successes and a simplified fewer category graph here. Not sure if this sounds like a reasonable compromise nor when this page should change, so invite other comments and views on this. When the landing tests page graph should cease to update might be an opportune time to do it? crandles (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I could live with that. But we'd have to make the link to the landing test article more prominent. Perhaps in the caption for the chart on the launch list page ("For more information see...") But we're already at the point you suggest. By my count, there have been 47 successful landings to date, and you're suggesting we make this change after fifteen or twenty. Also, SpaceX has said they are done with Falcon 9 development, so I don't anticipate any more landing tests. Fcrary (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Think you missed the word consecutive, but not anticipating more landing test may well be more suitable point. Agree with a 'for more information' link, if we decide to do this. crandles (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

C-randles, I prefer to keep the graphs in the same format as the list. The graphs are visual representations and summaries of the information displayed in the list of launches in more detail. It makes sense for that information to stay roughly comparable. Whether they were 'test' landings or not, I think that the information is relevant to this list, especially with regards to whether they succeeded or failed in their mission objectives with the landing test. Another issue is that the Falcon_9_first-stage_landing_tests page does not seem to include the parachute tests. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The recoverability and reuse of boosters is a major feature of the Falcon 9 and I can see some benefit in keeping all the test detail in summary graph form and if this is what majority decides, I am quite comfortable with that. Changing scope of landing test page by changing name to recovery tests doesn't seem right. Perhaps some mention of parachute tests as a prehistory to landing tests might be appropriate but even with that, the graph starting with the parachute tests would seem odd. So you have a point about this. Maybe my 'keep it, but in a more appropriate location' doesn't really work well. crandles (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh, so you're saying that the article Falcon_9_first-stage_landing_tests is specifically about the landing tests, as opposed to the recovery tests. I had missed this point. Now it makes sense, that's why it starts with flight 6, which is when SpaceX started testing retropropulsive reentry. Before that they simply hoped the booster would survive reentry (it didn't) and would then parachute it into the ocean, à la Shuttle SRB. We should add a note in this list to clarify this, as currently it gives the impression that flights 1 and 2 had a landing attempt. If you do decided to add a prehistory section to the landing tests page, it would make sense to include the Falcon 1 flights, that used the same parachute approach. Tercer (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

crandles, I think people reading the article Falcon_9_first-stage_landing_tests will definitely care about the details of the landing tests, so the graph would be in place there. I also don't think there will be further landing tests; last time they did it was with an old Block 3 booster, and they have run out of Blocks 1-4 to launch. Tercer (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The DRN case was dismissed due to Insertcleverphrasehere's refusal to participate. I'd open a WP:RFC instead, but I feel we're close to finding a solution here, so I'd rather spare the work. What do you think? Tercer (talk) 10:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Tercer, There is also the option to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 10:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

There is also the option of discussing without using juvenile insults. Tercer (talk) 11:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Tercer, It's the name of that Wikipedia page. We are only close to a solution if you are close to accepting that you are alone with your opinion, otherwise we will waste more time. mfb (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

You're being disingenuous. The name of that page is being used as an insult. Before Insertcleverphrasehere posted that, it seemed that crandles and Fcrary would manage to find a solution. Tercer (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Let me be very clear. I was not in favor of changing the chart. I was not strongly against a change and willing to see how we could do it, if that's what people wanted. But iff that was what people wanted and the new version still captured the history of the landing development. Based on later comments, it looks like people (virtually everyone involved) are against a change. So I'm in favor of leaving it as is (with improved captions.) Fcrary (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Wow, I'm feeling like a leper now. I only said that it seemed that you would manage to find a solution, but you felt the need to emphasize that you don't agree with me. Tercer (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Tercer, You are being quite charitable with what they said. They were open to potentially exploring other options. I take their comments as being essentially devils advocate, indicating that they understand some of your points as being somewhat valid. That implies a somewhat neutral stance perhaps, but doesn't mean that they are going to join you against the rest of the editors that are opposed to removing the success/failure of ocean landings info from the graph.

My comment bringing up WP:DEADHORSE is entirely a reflection on your actions on this page; think about your actions regarding this situation:

• First, you tried changing the article directly (a major change to a Featured List that had zero chance of not being controversial).
• Second, you started the section here, which is fine but you have continued to go on and on about it and your comments indicate that you simply regard their views as 'wrong', rather than a valid, but opposing, view. You also dismissed other's views as simply 'fancruft', which is insulting, to put it mildly.
• Third, you tried to force a DRN discussion on us, despite multiple editors saying that they didn't view that as being productive and that we should continue the discussion here.
• Finally, when the discussion here didn't go your way, you start grumbling about the NEXT discussion you intend to start as part of an RfC.

WP:DEADHORSE is not an insult, it is a description of your actions. If you can't understand why I would think so, it just illustrates my point further. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 00:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I see, so when you bring up WP:DEADHORSE that's just an objective description of my actions, but when I bring up WP:FANCRUFT that's just an insult. I started the DRN (which you childishly refused to participate, forcing me to go to a RfC) for the same reason I started the RfC: the discussion hinged on a matter of fact, of whether readers find the all this detail relevant and the graph easy to understand. It's obviously much better to get their opinion directly than speculating about what an imaginary reader might think. But thanks to your actions we still haven't managed to get the perspective from a single uninvolved editor. Tercer (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Tercer, See my comment below. This is a minor detail of a chart buried in a list that is of interest to only a relatively small editor base. You aren't going to find hoards of people willing to jump in against the tide in your favour. They don't care. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 02:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

In-flight abort test suborbital

As it has now been reverted twice and I don't want to start an edit war: Suborbital redirects to Sub-orbital spaceflight. Sub-orbital spaceflight definces: "A sub-orbital spaceflight is a spaceflight in which the spacecraft reaches outer space, but its trajectory intersects the atmosphere or surface of the gravitating body from which it was launched, so that it will not complete one orbital revolution". The in-flight abort test will not reach outer space, as it aorts at MaxQ, so still inside the athmosphere. That means either it is not suborbital, or the redirect from suborbital to Sub-orbital spaceflight is wrong, or the definition in Sub-orbital spaceflight is wrong. One of this needs to be fixed as currenty this page wrongefully implies that the abort mission will reach space. 80.151.241.38 (talk) 08:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I prefer "atmospheric" or "suborbital (~x km)". I don't think suborbital is technically wrong, it is just typically used for suborbital spaceflight which won't happen here. --mfb (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I think I did the first revert. I'm not enthusiastic about using the Karman line as a sharp boundary. The altitude he derived was not the current 100 km; someone just decided to round it off to a nice, even number. The derivation makes lots of assumptions about the aerodynamics of high-altitude aircraft. The US government actually uses a different altitude (50 miles or 80 km). And, just to make it more fun, some sounding rockets, as well as test flights of New Shepard and SpaceShip2, have claimed to be "suborbital" without crossing the Karman line. So I don't think it makes sense to say 99.99999 km isn't a "suborbital" flight but 100.00001 km is. On the other hand, I see the point about consistency, and I don't consider this issue to be significant enough to be worth an argument. I'll go along with what everyone else things. Fcrary (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

It will never get close to any definition of space. The abort should happen at ~12 km, it might move up a few more kilometers from the abort motors and free fall. It will stay below the cruise height of the Concorde. --mfb (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd say the designation "suborbital" in itself is unambiguous, however flights such as the in-flight abort test and suborbital launches above the Karman line should be differentiated by the words "spaceflight" or "launch/flight". Both are suborbital, and only one of them is a spaceflight. Galopujacyjez (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

If suborbital does not imply suborbital spaceflight, then Suborbital and Sub-orbital flight should not redirect to Sub-orbital spaceflight. I guess that is where my confusion came from. But I have no idea what would be better targets for those redirects nor would I want to delete them altogether. Any suggestions on how to fix that? 78.94.53.132 (talk) 08:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

In >90% of the cases or so "suborbital" refers to a suborbital spaceflight, simply because the word is rarely used in areas where going to space is not expected. You don't say you made a suborbital high jump. That's the reason I prefer some additional clarification. --mfb (talk) 11:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I've made an additipon the the sub-orbital spaceflight page explaibig the diffenece between suborbital flight and sub-orbital spaceflight. I hope it is okay that way. 78.94.53.132 (talk) 13:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I guess its worth noting that per SpaceX's animation, they expect the crew dragon's apoge to be about 40 km. youtube video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OkayKenji (talk • contribs) 21:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)