Talk:2018 in spaceflight/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Summary row with a total number of launches

  • I have added a summary row with a total number of successful/failure launches for all tables. I think, each table should contain total number for visual check if data correct or not. But my edits were reverted by JFG as "unnecessary repeats". But in some tables, the numbers are different (see 2018 summary table by orbit: 1 for achieved, 1 for not achived, so 31 achieved in 32 successful launches). What is the better way: to add totals for each table or remove it? See my version for 2017 and version for 2018 91.124.117.29 (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
The last table with the orbits is the only table where the total can be different. For the others it is just repeated information where there is no need to repeat it. --mfb (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
And each reader should know this fact? It is not so easy to scroll the big page when the reader want to know the total sums of launches by rocket or by spaceport. Some tables are hidden also. It will be the confusing situation when only two tables of six will have the total (different!) sums. Each table should have similar format to find math errors easily. Also, copypaste of tables to Excel presentation is a logic way for some scientists to create the own graphics. [1] It will be done correctly with sums. The table without sums looks as incomplete. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
The fact that summing over all countries, summing over all rockets, and so on should lead to the same sums for successful/partially successful/failed launches? That should be obvious to everyone able to read, yes. --mfb (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I would agree to state the totals in the table by orbit. For the tables by rocket and by spaceport, they are necessarily the same results as in the summary statistics, and this would just add a burden of update to editors. If the wiki software could compute totals, then yes it would provide a welcome visual check, but as this is a manual process, it will only create more confusion and frustration among our tireless WP:gnomes. — JFG talk 06:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Mfb and JFG, having a dozen global totals throughout the piece is repetitive without real benefit for the reader and will become tedious to update. Astrofreak92 (talk) 08:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok. Could we add the summary rows for finished years only (without any additional work for wikignomes)? I could do it. Also, it's a very-very interesting question, if the wiki software could compute totals in the tables. It would be very useful tools in many articles (such as sports medal tables and statistics pages). 91.124.117.29 (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I would be ok with the suggestion to add totals for past years, as long as someone else volunteers… There are no spreadsheet features in the MediaWiki software, afaik. But there are plenty of awful tricks to do calculations. Not practical for this case. — JFG talk 17:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • We could create a template designed for resulting tables, with all numbers as parameters. For example:
       {{spaceflight summary | falcon_success=10 | falcon_failures=1 | soyuz_success=3 | LEOorbit_success=4 | India_sucess=1 ...}}
    This template will generate a table/tables (maybe and graphs also!) and calculate all summaries automatically. I understand, not so easy for realization. But dozens articles will have one format and will be updated easily. Small example is {{BoxingRecordSummary}}. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Display of CubeSats

Following a discussion from last year, I have finally implemented a way to mark CubeSats to be displayed in a smaller font and with a slightly lighter background color. Currently active on 2018 in spaceflight only. It's easy to apply the CubeSat formatting by just adding |cubesat=yes to the {{TLS-PL}} payload declaration. We can always tweak the colors if needed. Comments welcome. — JFG talk 17:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I have added an extra symbol "⚀" to differentiate those lines further. Tell me what you think. — JFG talk 17:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Create the hint when the users' mouse is on icon (alt="CubeSat"). 91.124.117.29 (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
This is not possible because it's a text symbol, not an image. But I have documented it in the column header now. — JFG talk 17:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
It's a possible. Use this technique: textsymbol. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Ah yes, nice trick. But I'm too lazy to apply this tonight. Also, some people may want to reject the symbol, so better wait a few days. — JFG talk 19:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Done by this edit [2]. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Maybe use another symbols: for the rockets 🚀, regular payload 🛰️, space observatories 📡, CubeSats 📦. And create a new column for the icons to align the flags in one level. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC) P.S. And the special icon for the 6 Feb 2018 launch: 🚗 :-) 91.124.117.29 (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Nah, cuteness overload. — JFG talk 21:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
No? What is the advantage of symbol ⚀ over symbol 📦 ? 91.124.117.29 (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
⚀ is unobtrusive, many lists and pages use basic monochrome symbols to distinguish entries. Filling the page with colorful emoji would be obtrusive, no other page on Wikipedia has something like that. Astrofreak92 (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Bar charts of rocket families

Also following a discussion at Talk:2017 in spaceflight#Extra graphs, I have added bar charts showing the number of launches per rocket, grouped by rocket family. It's pretty informative to observe what has been happening in the last few years on the orbital launch market. Charts are in place since 2012. Again, comments welcome. — JFG talk 17:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I am very impressed. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I changed the colors a bit to match either the country or launch pages. Suggestions? UnknownM1 (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
@UnknownM1: Sorry, I think your version is much less legible. Compare with 2017 side by side to see the difference. I picked the color palette to emphasize differences between rocket families, and similar tones within each column (with subtle special cases like Soyuz which has a set of tones for older-generation models, one for the Soyuz-2 as launched from Russia, and another for the same launched from Europe). There is no requirement for absolute consistency with the launch stats of individual families. I would ask you to revert, unless other editors prefer your version. — JFG talk 19:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm aware of what you did with your version. I'm not sure my version is that much better, I'm simply saying that something in the middle or even different would work better than both of them. Cheers! UnknownM1 (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps. Restoring the original color scheme for now. Happy to keep Electron, as they have several launches scheduled this year; I just moved it to alpha order. — JFG talk 22:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Spaceports

I also added a chart for spaceports. The colors are a bit off but can be fixed. I think it has similar info to the pie chart, but in a different format and with specifics on which launch sites were used. Did lead me down the rabbit hole of "Should there be a launch pad chart?" but I figured that chart was a fairly obvious expansion of this topic. Cheers! UnknownM1 (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@UnknownM1: That's a really good idea, and your color picks are spot on, just except for Japanese sites Tanegashima and Uchinoura which are really too close in tone (at least on my screen). Moving forward, I'd suggest adding links to the spaceports in the legend, and grouping them by country instead of alphabetically, so that the legends follow the graph. To your relief, I don't think diving into launch pads would be terribly useful to our readers. — JFG talk 08:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
checkY Done UnknownM1 (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Beautiful! — JFG talk 13:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@UnknownM1: After looking at the 2017 tally, may I just suggest that you group Kazakhstan and Russia in the same column? Not only is this historically correct, but still today the Baikonur spaceport is on a long-term lease to Russia, and only launches Russian rockets. That change will ease comparison with the other two heavyweights China and USA. Just use Kazakhstan <br/> + Russia in the column legend, and it should look splendid. — JFG talk 15:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Orbits

Going down the rabbit hole a bit further, I mocked up a chart for orbits:

  •   Transatmospheric
  •   Low Earth
  •   Low Earth (ISS)
  •   Low Earth (SSO)
  •   Low Earth (retrograde)
  •   Geosychronous
    (transfer)
  •   Medium Earth
  •   High Earth
  •   Heliocentric

Does this work? Cheers! UnknownM1 (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Rocket Lab Country

While I understand why Rocket Lab's launch was included as a New Zealand launch (built and launched from New Zealand), Rocket Lab is an American Company headquartered in Los Angeles. They have American flags on their rockets and mission patches. I don't see how these launches are not technically United States launches from a different spaceport. "Where is Rocket Lab based" US flag on rocket American Flag on mission patch

While they do also include the New Zealand silver fern on both patch and rocket, that isn't the official flag and nor does Rocket Lab say they are a 'New Zealand company' and instead speak of the collaboration between the two countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig VG (talk • contribs) 16:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Transatmospheric?

Does anyone have any clue what "Transatmospheric" launches in the launch statistics page is supposed to mean? I can't find a reference to it on this page or on earlier pages. Is it actually sub-orbital launches? Cheers! UnknownM1 (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It was used for the IXV Vega launch a few years back, I think it refers to "once-around" flights that may or may not complete full orbits but are well beyond the traditional understanding of suborbital flights. Astrofreak92 (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Separate way to denote re-use

The remarks section on each SpaceX launch are cluttered with information on re-use... whether the booster was recovered successfully, whether the fairings were successfully recovered, whether the Dragon capsule was recovered, whether each part had been previously used, if recovery was attempted on each piece, and so on. Soon we are going to have to deal with recovery attempts of the second stage as well. And later on we will have to deal with other re-usable launch systems (ULA's smart recovery, the Dream Chaser, Blue Origin, China's reusability plans) to the point where I feel the page will become unnecessarily cluttered. I was looking back on how we handled this with the Space Shuttle, and aside from denoting the orbiters used, there was never any mention of re-use of the solid rocket boosters. The way I see it, we can either create an additional section in the rocket launch template that mentions re-use, have a separate page or section for it, or not mention it at all except for where it is particularly notable. Thoughts? DrunkBicyclist (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Most flights are routine flights so they don't have a comment. The Space Shuttle had reuse of the orbiter and parts of the SRBs as default, that was routine as well. SpaceX is still experimenting with reuse and many flights do something new. With Block 5 booster reuse should become routine. We can add the booster number, similar to the Space Shuttle Orbiter name. Fairing recovery can be mentioned as long as it is new, I guess towards the end of the year we'll stop mentioning this. Second stage recovery and reuse will probably come up as topic. Let's see if that becomes routine as well. --mfb (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I would remove any mentions of re-use beyond the first couple flights. Just like booster landings have become routine since 2017 in SpaceX's own documentation, booster re-use is already routine, as 50% of their 2018 flights are scheduled with pre-flown boosters. — JFG talk 10:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Payload Discrepancy?

26 April Long March launch gives two Zhuhai spacecraft, but checking flight announcements suggests there were five -- one with an optical hi-res payload, four with a hyperspectral imager. Which is correct? MrG (Greg Goebel) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.56.215 (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Bangabandhu-1

Shouldn't Bangladesh be listed in the infobox for Bangabandhu-1? The article says it's Bangladeshi's first geostationary satellite, isn't it their first overall? Grey Wanderer (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

No, BRAC Onnesha was. There might be articles claiming otherwise, either because they don't think CubeSats count or because it was the Bangladeshi *government's* first spacecraft. Astrofreak92 (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I have seen the descriptions "first full-size satellite" or "first large satellite" to exclude BRAC Onnesha. --mfb (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

By total payload?

I'd be interested to see a chart of launches counting total payload mass, rather than simple number of launches. Possibly with some adjustment for how high it was lofted William M. Connolley (talk) 11:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I Added a table to show the relative amounts of payload being launched per rocket type and country by displaying max expendable payload to LEO totals for the rockets launched. I realize it's not the actual payload numbers, but those aren't readily available, so I think this is the best metric that can be assembled. A similar table could be constructed for GTO instead of LEO, but it's hard to find payload to GTO stats for all these rockets, so LEO seems like the best point to use.

That was certainly a lot of work, but I am concerned it is drifting too far into original research. Is there any publication we could use as source, that slices the satellite launch industry this way? — JFG talk 09:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Nothing there is original, it's simply copying the Wikipedia page WP:Comparison_of_orbital_launch_systems and adding up the totals.
Wikipedia cannot be used as its own source. See WP:Verifiability#Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it. — JFG talk 15:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
That page sources its numbers from verifiable non-Wikipedia sources. You could just copy the sources over if you wanted to.
Also, the metric you chose (max. payload) unduly inflates the US slice because Falcon 9 payload is taken as 22+ tons, which is ludicrous given that the max payload this rocket ever threw to LEO was 9,600 kg. — JFG talk 09:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
... and the rocket now often flies in a reusable configuration, where the payload is lower. I'm not a fan of the table, independent of this issue. --mfb (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, it's not perfect, but the current metric (Number of launches) isn't much good either. Somebody could launch 50 smallsat rockets and appear to control most of the launch market, despite launching very little payload.
Also, even though an F9 rocket may not be fully loaded, many of the other rocket are probably not either. This gives a decent relative comparison, much more accurate than raw number of launches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:6E00:8A8F:3459:6B2E:286A:608C (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
No. Pardon my arrogance, but you don't seem to understand how the launch market operates. Each launch is optimized to squeeze as much performance as possible from the rocket, given the payload and target orbit. For example, for GTO launches, if there's some capacity margin, it is used to boost the transfer orbit to supersynchronous, so that the satellite saves some of its own fuel and gets more service lifetime. Or they engineer the bird to carry more fuel, same effect given the optimal cost-effective balance is found. Satellite operators select launch vehicles that are best suited to their needs, including matching the rocket's capacity to the satellite's wet launch mass (wet = fueled). Regarding Falcon 9 in particular, the heaviest satellite they sent to GTO was Intelsat 35e at 6,761 kg. They maxed out power and burn time on the rocket, testing their own limits, and achieved a supersynchronous orbit at 42,742 km perigee instead of the subsynchronous 31,230 km that were the contracted minimal expectations.[3] So Intelsat got a good deal for their money, but they could just as well have launched this bird on Ariane or Proton: they usually farm out launch contracts to several LSPs to hedge their risks. Ariane 5 routinely sends 11+ tonnes to GTO without breaking a sweat, and Proton can do about 7 for a "cheaper but may go boom more often" kind of service. Comparing launches by the maximum advertised (theoretical) payload of their carrier rockets is just an irrelevant metric. — JFG talk 14:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree, and the best way to account for this would be to calculate the DeltaV of each launch. But I doubt we have the ability to get those numbers. Number of launches is pretty much meaningless though, so we really need some other metric that shows the relative launch capabilities more accurately. Perhaps such a metric is beyond what we can calculate with the data we have available, though.
Number of launches is a good metric for a rough idea of which nations and which rocket families are performing orbital launches; it's not such a good metric to evaluate competitors in the launch market generally, and we may agree on that much. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not the place to conduct sophisticated analyses of the launch market, or to compile stats across all dimensions we can dream up. That's where it turns into WP:OR. — JFG talk 16:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The money spent on launch contracts would make a reasonable comparison, but we don't have this information, and for government-organized rockets and satellites this information doesn't even exist. --mfb (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Strongly against this idea, regardless of how the data is sourced. Masses are not always available, and there are already too many charts and tables in the orbital launch statistics section of the articles. Astrofreak92 (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

HaloSat

HaloSat is listed as being launched on an Antares in May, which is correct. Could you please add a link to the mission web page? http://halosat.physics.uiowa.edu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.81.225 (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

We do not add external links in the main text of a page. Feel free to write a Wikipedia article about HaloSat, and then this page can link to it. — JFG talk 08:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Antares

So put Vega out to Others too, JFG. Kostera (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Electron country of origin

As Rocket Lab is an American aerospace company should Electron be counted under the U.S total? Similar to Soyuz from Kourou? What will happen if they follow through with the plans to launch from Kennedy and Scotland? Grey Wanderer (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

After review of a few talk pages this conversation is probably best continued at Talk:Electron (rocket). Grey Wanderer (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Better keep the thread in one place, so let's keep it here. I placed notices at the Electron talk page and at WT:WikiProject Spaceflight to attract interested editors. — JFG talk 14:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

This was already discussed awhile back on the 2017 spaceflight talk page, the conclusion was that the rocket is listed under the country that manufactures it, not the company that launches it or supplies the engines. For example, Russia supplies the engines for Atlas V, but it is not categorized as a Russian rocket. ArianeSpace is a European company that launches Soyuz, but that doesn't make it a European rocket. As Electron is manufactured in NZ, it is a NZ rocket despite Rocketlab being a US company, and the Rutherford engines being built in the US. You can argue that Soyuz launched by ArianeSpace is a European launch, but it's not a European rocket. I'm not sure if Electron launches should be counted under the US total or not... it's a NZ rocket, but the launches are done by a US company, and will be done in the US as well as NZ. I guess the launches could be categorized either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.72 (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

We have a similar situation with Antares, because the whole first stage is manufactured in Ukraine, while the rest is built and integrated in the USA. Accordingly the rocket is listed with both flags in the list of launches, but it is counted as an American rocket for the purpose of statistics. We could do the same for Electron: listing both flags in the launch list, but keeping it under New Zealand for the stats. I would also consider Electron launches under New Zealand. Future launches from the USA could be listed there when they happen. What do y'all think? — JFG talk 14:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Rocket Lab founder and CEO Peter Beck claims the Electron “is a U.S launch vehicle”. This recent arstechinia report by Eric Berger claims Rocket Lab’s main production facility is in Southern California. Although it was founded in New Zeland Rocket Lab itself claims that it is “an American company with headquarters in Los Angeles and a wholly-owned New Zealand subsidiary.” The rockets are also American flaged, although there is also a fern representing NZ. I think we should deal with country talleys either by launch location or by company nationality, that would solve any future questions of categorization with private companies manufacturing/launching rockets in more than one county. In addition it aligns well with the current classification of Antares, Zenit, and Dnepr. With respect to New Zeland and the great technology developed there it’s clearly not independently orbital launch capable as the Timeline of first orbital launches by country reflects. Grey Wanderer (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


COMMENT This discussion seem to have been forked, and is now occurring in more than one place.

The discussion here is missing some of the content that got added, in good faith, to one of the other places today. (here, for example)

I'm okay to have it all happen in one place, as long as I know where that place is, and why it fits in that particular place on Wikipedia. (so someone could move it all to one place or the other)... Or should we just duplicate the discussion here? Cheers.N2e (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing improvement

We have good sourcing for upcoming launches, but we lose it after the satellites are in orbit. I would suggest adding journalistic coverage of each launch after the mission is on its way. This would allow readers to find all sorts of details, and to verify the information about the launch that we include in the table. I have added a few sources for recent launches, and I would be grateful for help in gradually adding complete coverage of each row in the table. — JFG talk 11:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Antares country of origin

Dear William M. Connolley could you explain your statement about my "nationalist pov by the looks of it"?

About Antares country of origin, I hoped that it is obvious, if not okay, I explain it now

  1. You can look the page about Antares, there is mention KB Yuzhnoe only as subcontractor like the Energomash etc.
  2. NG Innovation (form. OSC) never mentioned Yuzhnoe or Yuzhmash as a joint partner.
  3. Yuzhmash assembles only first stage, not a whole rocket. Energomash delivers engines but do you state that the rocket is Ukrainian/Russian/USA? NikitaStupin (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@NikitaStupin and Бровар: Find agreement on the talk page or elsewhere first, stop this edit war. --mfb (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

1. Yuzhnoye: Start upgraded rocket "Antares" With Ukrainian first degree (in ukrainian) 2. Kyiv Post: NASA preparing for launch of Ukrainian produced Antares rocket to the International Space Station

@Бровар: Why did you post only Ukrainians links? Why NG Innovation doesn't confirm about Yuzhnoe is not a contractor but a participant? Why International newspapers don't confirm Ukrainians participation, but publications only about an assembly of the first stage? Why your editions about Vega and Antares many time was undone? NikitaStupin (talk)

@Mfb: You can look at changes by Бровар he is permanent try to stick Ukraine's flag to Antares or to Vega rockets, but many times his changes were undone but not by me. I suppose it's an again another paroxysm of Ukrainians' nationalism. But however, I did not find any international confirmations Ukrainian's origin of Antares or Vega and suppose that these changes need to undo. NikitaStupin (talk)

@NikitaStupin: please stop this edit war! There is a fact that Yuzhnoye makes engines and first flight to rocket. Everything else just marketing! Vovkulaka rtm (talk) 10:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Vovkulaka: please provide the evidence about the participation of Yuzhnnoe, not a contractor. Energomash provides engines for the Antares but we don't add the Russian flag, because of Energomash also only a contractor, but not a participant. NikitaStupin (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Vovkulaka rtm: You want to change the article, you have to provide sources for it. And we can't really use Ukrainian sources here, we can't tell if/how biased they are. --mfb (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2018_in_spaceflight/Archive_2&oldid=1025895348"