Talk:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches

Notable Launches

Should Notable Launches from before 2023 be included in this article? Redacted II (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

For a while the policy was to have the notable launches just on this page. Personally I think the notable launches section should just be trimmed down. Some launches were only notable at the time they launched and aren't really notable now. Ergzay (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Alright, in that case:

Falcon 9 Flight 1. Maybe notable? Not all that important.

Falcon 9 Flight 2. Notable elements concern dragon. Not really notable, IMO

Falcon 9 Flight 3. Somewhat notable: first Falcon flight to ISS

CSR-1. Slightly notable: engine failure. Only merlin failure during main ascent (I don't count 9-3's failure moment as being part of main ascent, as it was a second burn).

First Falcon 9 V1.10 flight. Semi-notable, was first soft landing attempt.

CRS-7. Very notable, given that it blew up.

Falcon 9 Flight 20. Possibly most notable uncrewed launch in history.

Amos-6. See CRS-7.

Zuma. Not notable: issues were due to the satellite.

Falcon Heavy test flight. Notable.

Demo-1. Not notable.

Demo-2. Notable: first crewed Falcon 9 launch.

9-3. See CRS-7 Redacted II (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Both Falcon 9 Flight 2 and Zuma could be considered notable due to payload separation (occurring for the first time in the former and not occurring in the second case.) AmigaClone (talk) 08:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe? But it feels like a stretch in both cases. Redacted II (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Redacted II IMO you should focus on whether the _mission_ was notable or whether anything dramatic/unusual happened during the launch. The first ever launch of a rocket will always be notable. I can't personally remember anything about Flight 2 or Flight 3 without looking at them. CRS-1 is notable for first flight of cargo to the international space station. Zuma was notable due to the conspiracy theories and surrounding media chaos about it. Ergzay (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Flight 3 was actually the first time a Dragon was berthed to the ISS. CRS-1 was the first operational CRS mission and was the only time a (secondary) payload was lost due to issues with the first stage.

Crew Demo-1 - the launch itself was not notable, but a mission highlight was: the first time an uncrewed spacecraft docked (as opposed to being berthed) to the US segment of the ISS. AmigaClone (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

is Crew-9 Notable? Redacted II (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, the Crew-9 launch could be considered nominal, but the mission was notable due to the second stage reentering outside the predicted zone. AmigaClone (talk) 10:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Redundant 100th launch logs

Flight 383/384/385 all currently claim something to do with the 100th Falcon launch this year, and the distinctions are subtle. I get that 385 is specific to F9 counts and excludes FH counts, but maybe that can be made more clear to a layperson. I think though that parsing the difference between 383/384 takes some more digging and should be corrected in the entries. Perhaps add a blurb to 383 "This was the 100th Falcon launch attempt this year including the failed Starlink Group 9-3 mission or similar. 134.216.166.55 (talk) 03:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Issues with Starlink satellite counts and masses

There are issues with counts on some missions. Example: Flight 286, Starlink Group 7-9, here shows 22, but over on https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_Starlink_and_Starshield_launches#G7-9 it shows as 21. And about this point the masses of launches diverge with various numbers being given that are not consistent with previous and later values. Attempts to reconcile them with math shows that different estimated masses get used and blindly copied. This is exclusive of differences that may be cause by variations like DTC, etc. I had a spreadsheet built off of the wiki data and have be rebuilding it adding more detail and found these issues. Some were noticed because values changed from what were first used in the days or weeks shortly after a flight and those showing up months later. --170.85.54.93 (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Moving 2023 logs

@Ergzay last time I moved 2022 into List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches (2020–2022) you said to ask you whenever I do something similar in future, so should I move 2023 there or not making it (2022-2023) ‍—⚰️NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 12:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

2023 should definitely not be moved right now. The year isn't even over yet. I'd probably at least wait until a good chunk of 2025 is over personally before considering what to do with the year's data or if we start hitting size limits again.

Also, definitely don't move it unilaterally. Use templates at the top of the page to alert people that a merge/move/split is being discussed, open a talk page section to discuss it and only after it has consensus should the action take place. Ergzay (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Ergzay. I would say the discussion on what to do with 2023 should wait until at least March 2025 using the previously mentioned tools.

If any changes are made to List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches (2020–2022) then the same templates should be used on that article with the discussion for those changes directed to the new section in this one.

On my user page there are templates for the three current List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches articles indicating the sizes of the various sections in bytes. AmigaClone (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Nice I asked before taking any supposed controversial steps@Ergzay ‍—⚰️NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 06:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Personally I am asking something for my information @Ergzay, which is better, 2020-2023 or "2020-2022" and another page of "2023-2024(5?)"? If we are gonna be making a separate article from 2023, I guess we must leave as it is and let this main article be elongated till 2026 (as we cannot make an article now just for 2023, 2024 have to be removed that is not good for main article). My views for new article arouse from @AmigaClone's user page showing that in current volume 2020-2022 is already a big page. ‍—⚰️NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 07:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

My preference would be either "(2020-2021) and (2022-2023)" with "(2020-2022) and (2023)" in second place and "(2020-2022) and (2023-2024)" in third place. The reason for that arrangement of preferences is that the first combination has the three daughter articles closer in size than either the second or third option.

I would not combine (2023-2025) since that easily could be longer than (2010-2019) and (2020-2022) combined. AmigaClone (talk) 09:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed ‍—⚰️NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 15:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Removing 2022 from the existing 2020-2022 page breaks many links again and there is no easy way to fix that. I think we can make yearly pages - move 2023 now, move 2024 in the future. That's 117 launches in 2020-2022, 96 in 2023 and 134 in 2024. Pretty even. 2025 might become one very large page or two smaller pages, but that's a future discussion. --mfb (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Starlink masses

Nasaspacefight's recent next week in spaceflight shows a starlink presentation pic where it says current variant of v2 mini mass is 575kg. So @Ergzay@RickyCourtney for just 24 sats it's 13800 not 17500 that we use here and same for other sats, so how to deal with masses now. ‍—⚰️NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 08:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Has there been any reliable source (WP:Source) stating that SpaceX has launched these optimized V2 minis? Until there is some verifiable sign that these optimized V2 minis have been launched, it might be best to assume that SpaceX is still launching the original version (800kg) of the V2 Minis.

In addition to the source mentioned above, other signs that SpaceX has started launching the optimized V2 minis could include a launch with 25-29 Starlink V2 minis, a booster landing on a droneship much closer to the coast than usual, or Starlinks deployed in a lot higher orbit than is usual for that number of Starlink V2 Minis, launching to that group, from that coast. AmigaClone (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

thanks to clear this doubt, looks like say they are made but may or may not yet be flown to space. ‍—⚰️NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 12:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@RIP B1058 As a general thing, can you stop doing what I'm going to call "jumping the gun" on this kind of thing. You feel like you're in a "panic" whenever upcoming things are happening. Wikipedia can be lazy and update things MUCH later than they actually happened when things are absolutely certain. You've done this many times in the past and its frankly getting frustrating. You also added an entire section for 2025 before we even had any 2025 launches that I had to revert. It's getting really frustrating. Rather than focus on the new thing, spend more time looking at the entire article and past launches both from the year and past years. Whenever I do I regularly find small mistakes where information is out of date, wrong grammar is used (past vs present tense), or sources are dead and need to be changed to an archive link. Not enough people do that. Ergzay (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for my acts ‍—⚰️NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 03:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand you didn't liked the Falcon family launch mass:F9 or FH mass comparison (that I was doing on reported stuff as per table with data being calculated from 67th SpaceX launch of 2024 till the end of the year (being done since 2022 as per what I saw and removed now in 2022 list). But I added a known mass list (with no ratios based on the 85.5% reported launch masses) as per Ryon Caton ‍—⚰️NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 03:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)