Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight

Main page   Discussion   Members   Assessment   Open tasks Popular pages   Recognized content     Awards   Portal

3rd opinion desired at List of Starship Launches

Talk:List of Starship launches#Recent Edits

1. Disagreement about validity of sources.

2. Disagreement about whether to include launch names in payload column of table when there is no payload. Redacted II (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Landing burns

Do we have an article on the topic of landing burns? F9 booster; lunar; Martian; Superheavy — there would seem to be a fair bit of commonality among them. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 22:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

VTVL? Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, VTVL is close. Looking at it though it doesn't seem to discuss e.g. hover landings vs. 'suicide burn' landings. And for lunar landings (in vacuum) it doesn't address the difference between the braking burn phase (to lose orbital velocity) and a final horizontal descent phase. At Moon landing the 'Transition from direct ascent landings to lunar orbit operations' section and the 'Scientific background' section talk about some of this, but those sections are totally unreferenced. Sigh. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 23:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

There have been aircraft equipped with rockets for zero length landing and/or zero length launch as well. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 02:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the boundary between aeronautics and aerospace is blurry regarding rocket assisted landings for winged vehicles. Is there a representative design for this? The C-130 for Operation Credible Sport? Or maybe something Russian? (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 23:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Substantial omissions in edit summaries

An editor has failing to mention content removals in edit summaries. These edits added substantially to article wordcounts, so it is not obvious from the page history that content has been removed.

I'd like to be clear that these content removals were done among genuinely useful edits, and I've talked to the editor about the purpose of edit summaries.

The removed content seems to be stuff the PRC doesn't like, and a substantial portion reflects on national space programs. I lack the expertise needed to parse the nationalism in statements about space programs. I'm not sure how far back the problem goes; I'd think not more than some dozens of edits are affected.

As these removals of controversial content haven't had the level of peer scrutiny that they would likely have had had they been correctly described, could these edits get some scrutiny now, please? Thanks! HLHJ (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Starship full stack flight 4 media

Currently Starship flight test 4 does not have any media except a mission patch. It would be nice if a launch photo or video could be added -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The topic is not particularly related to spaceflight so I removed it from the wikiproject. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 16:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Article request: Launch cadence

In several articles about launch systems it would be a link to an article describing the concept of Launch cadence would be helpful. It's of particular importance to e.g. Falcon 9, Vulcan and SLS, and historically some Russian launch systems as well. Google finds plenty of references to the term, but I didn't see a particularly solid source describing the concept (and its importance). Any hints on where to find that would be appreciated! (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 16:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Is it the same mission?

hey, does anyone know whether these two refer to the same satellite? SHALOM (satellite) and OPTSAT-3000 (OPTSAT-3000 (OPTical SATellite-3000), or SHALOM (Spaceborne Hyperspectral Applicative Land and Ocean Mission)? The first one is said to be a "hyperspectral satellite" "operational by 2025", while the second one was launched in 2017 "operating the multispectral channel at the same time." Artem.G (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

This source might help

Its nowhere mentioned both are same.All webs I found don't label them same.Even wikipage Optsat the source which label both as same is a deadlink.Thanks. Edasf (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

hmm, seems that Shalom is a planned mission, and optsat is incorrectly labeled as Shalom. Thanks! Artem.G (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch vehicle class designations

Falcon 9 is listed as a medium-lift launch vehicle and Falcon Heavy was listed as a heavy-lift launch vehicle. Those articles state that medium lift is under 20,000 kg to LEO capability, and heavy lift is under 50,000kg, whereas more would be a super heavy-lift launch vehicle. This doesn't seem consistent, as an expendable F9 is listed with a 22,800 kg payload to LEO, and FH with a 63,800 kg to LEO theoretical payload and appears on the super heavy-lift launch vehicle page.

The reusable configurations lower the payload, but they have launched in expendable configurations.

Wouldn't it be more consistent to list Falcon 9 as heavy-lift, or medium to heavy-lift? FH may be limited by the payload adapter as well. Alpacaaviator (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Heavy-lift would probably be the best definition according to other wikipedia pages. Delta IV Heavy and Ariane 5 are comparable and they are both labeled heavy-lift. In fact, Arianne 5 is actually less powerful and is labeled heavy-lift. On the other hand, a lot of sources say it's medium lift:

https://www.futurespaceflight.com/launch-overview/falcon-9-launch-overview.html

https://rocketlaunch.org/launch-providers/spacex/falcon-9

https://everydayastronaut.com/starlink-group-7-11-falcon-9-block-5/

It's not just unofficial internet space sites:

https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/Copernicus/Sentinel-6/Launch

Even the ESA says it's medium lift.

So, even though it's not medium lift by the definition, it still gets called medium lift a lot. I'm semi-new to wikipedia and I'm not sure whether we should favor the actual definition or what appears to be the definition according to many sources. Titan(moon)003 (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The Falcon 9's ability to launch a 22,800 kg payload to LEO is theoretical. It's never actually been done. The heaviest payload actually launched was 17,500 kg. Realistically, heavier payloads get launched on Falcon Heavy. So yes, in theory, Falcon 9 is capable of heavy-lift (barely) but in practice it's nearly always used as a medium-lift rocket.

I agree that there's no reason that the Falcon Heavy shouldn't be called a super-heavy lift launch vehicle, at least under the US definition. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The "efn" / carrot notes seem to be a good way to handle it. As far as Falcon 9, I doubt it's the only "heavy lift" vehicle that has not actually carried over 20,000kg to LEO but I can't back that right now. I'd think it's more common that heavy lift vehicles are used to carry payloads to GTO / GEO (again, citation needed). Alpacaaviator (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The other thing that I think that got editors caught up about the Falcon Heavy is that when the boosters and core are recovered it’s <50t which would be “heavy-lift” but I think that’s a technicality. RickyCourtney (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

That's why I think the efn notes are the best way to handle it, thank you to RickyCourtney for making that change for FH and I just made a note for F9. Falcon Heavy has launched in expendable configuration for performance, so it's fair to say the rocket is capable of it. Alpacaaviator (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review Requested for Crew Dragon Launch Abort System

I created the article for the Crew Dragon Launch Abort System and I'm requesting input on how to improve it. Thanks, Titan(moon)003 (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

GSST

I have created the article Galileo Solar Space Telescope, and I'd like to invite everyone to contribute to it! I believe that the next step would be to include the technical material from the scientific articles (if someone here has deep knowledge to write it in layman terms), until the team behind the project receives the green lit to build the orbiter. Erick Soares3 (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Ladakh Human Analogue Mission

I created article Ladakh Human Analogue Mission I request everyone to review and contribute to it.Thanks. Edasf (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The content seems to be almost directly copied from the sources.

For example:

From the "Times of India": "The proposed research station would serve multiple purposes: Testing platform for space technologies, advancing Technology Readiness Levels (TRL), engineering integration, human studies, and crew training for geological and astrobiological research"

From the article: "The projected research station would be used for geological and astrobiological research, human studies, crew training, advancing Technology Readiness Levels (TRL), testing space technologies, and engineering integration"

"Testing platform for space technologies" becomes "testing space technologies"

"advancing Technology Readiness Levels (TRL)" remains the same, as does "engineering integration" and "human studies"

"crew training for geological and astrobiological research" is only divided into different sections. Redacted II (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

And, to be frank, it at times seems to be written without any regard for basic grammar rules: "Mission aims to make suitable interplanetary conditions for astronaut training." It also is promotional: "With an emphasis on sustainability (buzzword), resource efficiency (buzzword), and adaptability (buzzword) to challenging space conditions, AAKA Space Studio will explore innovative (in my opinion, nearly every article that uses this word without providing further details on what makes it innovative is promotional) habitat designs."

It's a good start, but it needs lots of copyedits. Titan(moon)003 (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)