Talk:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches

Starlink 9-3 failure

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is to list the Starlink 9-3 launch as a failure. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

---

Suffice it to say, perigee of <140 km (per McDowell) means the satellites are dead. Will probably list as a failure or perhaps a partial failure per the CRS-1 secondary payload in 2012. [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 05:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Failure if they all reenter, as it's a complete loss of spacecraft caused by rocket failure. Partial if they can recover them. That would fit perfectly in line with the rest of spaceflight Wikipedia. Good example would be Mars-96 launch failure. Lower than planned isn't inherently full failure, but it absolutely is if the satellites rapidly deorbit, without a doubt. Lets give it a few days & see what happens. --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 06:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

This sounds like good criteria, since these are primary payloads. Jonathan McDowell's criteria would have it a 0.4 on the scoring scale (described at https://www.planet4589.org/space/jsr/notes/fail.txt) if the orbits aren't raised; 0.75 if they are. A lot of 0.75s are listed as partial fails, most 0.4s are listed as failures on here. Sub31k (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. IMO, best thing for a discussion is to pause this topic for a few days, when the starlinks either have reentered or made it to LEO. Redacted II (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need to pause the thread when SpaceX communications say:

The team worked overnight to make contact with the satellites in order to send early burn commands, but the satellites were left in an enormously high-drag environment only 135 km above the Earth (each pass through perigee removed 5+ km of altitude from the orbit’s apogee, or the highest point in the satellite orbit). At this level of drag, our maximum available thrust is unlikely to be enough to successfully raise the satellites. As such, the satellites will re-enter Earth’s atmosphere and fully demise. They do not pose a threat to other satellites in orbit or to public safety.[1]https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=sl-9-3

It's clear already that the satellites are not going to be raised. Sub31k (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

https://celestrak.org/NORAD/elements/supplemental/table.php?INTDES=2024-129

One of the sats made it to 191 km. So its still possible (if unlikely) that it'll make it to a usable orbit. We'll know what happens to it in a few days. Redacted II (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

A perigee of 140 km would mean they didn't get any thrust in the second burn. In that case SpaceX could stop trying to raise them... so maybe they did get a bit of thrust out of the engine. For now I think it makes sense to call it partial failure, once we know more about the fate of the satellites and sources cover that we can re-visit that. --mfb (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mfb@Jrcraft Yt@Osunpokeh should we count streak from Amos 6 or crs 7 as List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches (2010–2019) says Since it was a pre-flight test, SpaceX does not count this scheduled attempt in their launch totals. Some sources do consider this planned flight into the counting schemes, and as a result, some sources might list launch totals after 2016 with one additional launch.

When it is not in records how can we count it's next mission as start of success streak rather than the mission succeeding crs 7? ‍—🪦NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 09:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

We can wait and see what sources use as streak length. My personal preference would be to start at flight 29, i.e. after Amos, or give both. Amos doesn't need a flight number to interrupt a streak of successful missions. --mfb (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally for the Falcon 9 I would have several "Success Streak" lists. These lists would include Launches, Missions, Landings, and Recoveries. The Starlink 9-3 mission ended the first two streaks. AmigaClone (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Later i found official Guinness World Records starting from AMOS-6 so sticking to it. https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/most-successful-commercial-rocket-launcher either way they are all time industry Records as per https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/07/the-unmatched-streak-of-perfection-with-spacexs-falcon-9-rocket-is-over/ @AmigaClone@Mfb ‍—🪦NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 14:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Same as Ariane 6: Partial Failure.

The vehicle deployed the payloads into the wrong orbit, but SpaceX is acting like they may be recoverable.

(If they aren't, then this changes to Failure) Redacted II (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Failure At this point, it looks like only one of the sats made it. Technically, precedent supports Partial Failure, as one did make it, though the orbit may not be usable.Redacted II (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Disagree that precedent supports Partial Failure. It's true that, in the past, we've called it a partial failure when a rocket places a satellite into a lower orbit than planned, but the satellite was able to boost itself into the correct orbit. What didn't happen in those cases is that 19 other satellites were un-salvageable. One out of 20 is a 5% success, which would get you an F on a test where I'm from. Where's the cut off for success? I don't know and this doesn't seem like the time to litigate that. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

"satellite was able to boost itself into the correct orbit."

This is the part your incorrect on. The orbit only has to be usable.

Also, it now looks like two of the sats made it out of reentry, but they may be dead. Redacted II (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

List as Failure. The vehicle deployed only 25% of its payloads, and those it did deploy were into an orbit so low the company admits they are likely un-recoverable. RickyCourtney (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

The Federal Aviation Administration is now calling this a failure. “The incident involved the failure of the upper stage rocket while it was in space.” They are also requiring an investigation, which will suspend Falcon 9 launches until further notice. RickyCourtney (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't always mean launch failure.

That only means an anomaly occurred. Redacted II (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

When a reliable source calls it a failure, so should we. RickyCourtney (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

In theory, this works.

In practice... no.

If it was 100% up to sources, then IFT-1 would be a success, and IFT-2 would remain a failure, despite being far more successful than IFT-1. Redacted II (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Sigh. This again. This is the talk page for the Falcon 9, not Starship. Yes, other stuff exists. Please stay on topic. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Established precedent. Other stuff exists, and the precedent established by it impacts this.

Mentioning how that precedent impacts this event is on topic. Redacted II (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you should read further up in the discussion about McDowell, he's the most reliable source there is, more reliable than the FAA. I agree that it's a failure (because all the satellites have likely re-entered), I disagree with how you're determining it.

News agencies _never_ call missions "partial failures" they just talk about the entire mission being failure or not. Those sources should not be considered reliable for this type of thing. You need professional sources to determine that, like McDowell. Ergzay (talk) 04:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Seriously, what would be a launch failure? Did the rocket performed it's primary mission and deployed it's payload on the intended orbit? Not at all. Did it become a grounded rocket? Yes? Did the events triggered an mishap investigation? Yes. Not long ago I've seen a graph on Twitter, only one satellite's perigee is above 190 km.

Ariane 6 at least performed it's primary mission. This doesn't. We can call it safely as a failure. 2001:4C4C:146B:3200:DCD1:6857:571F:A148 (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

It is likely going to be a failure, but should some of the payloads be able to enter a usable orbit, that is a partial failure. Redacted II (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

This is clearly a failure at this point, given the statement here: https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=sl-9-3 72.76.72.238 (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks like all satellites reentered quickly. --mfb (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The last info I have (which is 5 days old, admittedly) has one of the sats having made it (191 perigee) Redacted II (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

All except 1 reentered ‍—🪦NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 02:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, only one is still listed on CelesTrak with a perigee height of 143 km. RickyCourtney (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The 191 one deorbited ‍—🪦NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 17:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The data for that one is 6 days old.

There's a good chance it deorbited. Redacted II (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: Eliminate the recycled booster symbol

I really think the "recycled booster" symbol is just clutter. While it may have made sense in the early days, nowadays it's just clutter, redundant with the booster launch number suffix. I propose to simply delete it (and the associated captions) from all tables. Although the improvement seems obvious to me, this is a large-scale edit on multiple pages, so it seems worth discussing here first.

If someone can propose a way to visually distinguish new boosters, perhaps a symbol or a background tint, that might be interesting. I haven't found a good Unicode symbol for the purpose (possibilities are the baby emoji 👶, the "sun" symbols ☀ or ☼, or "sparkles" ✨, but nothing's particularly clear), but there are a lot so maybe I'm missing one. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney: Thanks for the feedback. I reverted two analogous edits to List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches (2020–2022) and List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches (2010–2019) myself pending discussion. Yeah, I'm not very happy with that symbol, either. It's U+2728, in Dingbats (Unicode block) and not an emoji block, so I had hoped it was more common. I also figured out that it makes sense to switch over in 2018. In 2017, there are only a few reflown boosters. In 2018, they overtake new-built (13 to 10, counting Falcon Heavy as 3), and it becomes overwhelming after that. Anyway, can you suggest anything? I've been thinking about the sun ☀ U+2600 and four-pointed star ✦ U+2726. (Both also come in outline versions, but I prefer the solid.) It was mostly the name "sparkles" that associated strongly with "shiny and new" in my mind. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney: I just experimented with U+267A RECYCLING SYMBOL FOR GENERIC MATERIALS ♺ and U+20E0 COMBINING ENCLOSING CIRCLE BACKSLASH ◌⃠   but the former seems too wide to combine well with the latter: ♺⃠   There's also U+1F3D7 BUILDING CONSTRUCTION 🏗, but it's hard to recognize at body text sizes and I'd rather stay in the BMP. Is there a code point for the WEEE "no trash" symbol? The symbol isn't useful itself, but that might be a fruitful code block to look through. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

If accessibility is our concern, we would choose one of the symbols in the table below, as they are the only ones consistently parsed by screen readers. We could also go with a background tint like the mint green color   used on the List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters article, or we could just let the .2, .3, .4, etc. tell the story.

Details, see: Template:Asterism/Symbols

Accessible symbols for tables

Unicode symbol	Pronounced as	HTML entity	Template name	Template usage
*	"star" or "asterisk"	*	{{asterisk}}	transclusion
†	"dagger" or "single dagger"	†	{{dagger}}	substitution
‡	"double dagger"	‡	{{double-dagger}}	substitution
#	"number" or "hash tag"	#	{{number sign}}	transclusion
°	"degree" or "degrees"	°	{{degree}}	substitution
→	"right arrow" or "rightwards arrow"	→	{{arrow}}	substitution
↓	"down arrow" or "downwards arrow"	↓	{{down-arrow}}	substitution
←	"left arrow" or "leftwards arrow"	←	{{left-arrow}}	substitution
↑	"up arrow" or "upwards arrow"	↑	{{up-arrow}}	substitution
′	"prime"	′	{{prime}}	transclusion

-- RickyCourtney (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney: All those symbols seem too ambiguous; the dagger is best, but it's also used in genealogy to mark "death", which doesn't match the desired "birth". So I just now reinstated the edits (Special:Diff/1241236692, Special:Diff/1241238150, Special:Diff/1241239466) with a green background rather than the ugly emoji. How does that look? 97.102.205.224 (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I am okay with it, however it’s the inverse of the treatment on the List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters article, so maybe make that your next edit to keep testing the waters. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I like the recycled symbol for reused boosters. It appears that only one or two of the many who frequently make edits on the pages with that symbol have a problem with it - which in my opinion is not a good reason to make changes.

I am interested to see what will happen once non-SpaceX launch vehicles start reusing their first stage, and how those editors might choose to highlight those boosters that are flying for the second or more time. AmigaClone (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@AmigaClone I'm also in favor of having some markings for differentiation (color makes it easier to see), however we've gotten to the point that reused boosters are the norm so I think we should invert what gets labeled. First booster launches should get some kind of color (maybe indicating the fact that its new/safety unknown) while the norm is no label at all. For older missions when there was few or no reuses, we can have two different colors with one for reuses and that same color for first flights. Ergzay (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I fully agree the differentiation should be done on the new boosters, as they are now the exception rather than the rule. I wouldn't care if it were left up to the .1 .2 3. etc., but the mint works quite well. However, I think that scheme should be consistent across all three articles, even if it makes the 2010-2019 one look a bit silly. Narnianknight (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

launch statistics in log-scale

is it possible? or make some problems? last 2 failures are invisible in the statistics Dwalin (talk) 10:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

They aren't invisible, and making them more visible would be disproportionally representing two anomalies. Redacted II (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Starlink satellite counts in table or not?

I've also started a discussion on this on the boosters page, but I think this should probably be discussed here instead as there's more traffic. I won't revert it on this page here for the moment until we can get some discussion on it. Recently a large change was made by @RickyCourtney (if you've already replied over there just move your reply here) to this page and to the Falcon 9 boosters page changing how Starlink missions are handled. Instead of listing satellite version (on the boosters page) and satellite count, now they simply list the mission name with a link to the Starlink missions table. I think it's useful to have the number of satellites as part of the mission table entry as we've done that for other launches like OneWeb launches. Ergzay (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ergzay: It felt redundant to have it in the payload box (which is small) when its now also in the (much larger) prose box, where it can be presented in a more complete context. For example:

Launch of 21 Starlink v2 mini satellites, including 13 with direct-to-cell connectivity, to a 535 km (332 mi) orbit at an inclination of 53° to expand internet constellation.

The other (major) benefit to my change is that readers can also pull up additional details on the launch by clicking on the (Group #-#) link in the payload box which will take them to an anchored spot on the List of Starlink and Starshield launches page.

So the information is still there, it's just presented differently.

-- RickyCourtney (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I think having the anchor links to the Starlink satellite list page is a good idea and I'm definitely for keeping those. I just think it's better to be able to easily visually see the satellite counts of the launches, just as we have for other constellation-type launches. Ergzay (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

On a related note, on the List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters page, which is already very large and space is at a premium, I really do think the satellite counts of the launches is unnecessary and adds bulk to a page that is focused on the boosters, and not on the launches. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Pinging some frequent page editors for their thoughts @C-randles @RIP B1058 @Lazaro Fernandes @AmigaClone @Mfb Ergzay (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I prefer to count starlink satellites in the table example 21 22 satellites Lazaro Fernandes (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed ‍—🪦NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 01:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Same. We always list the number of satellites in that spot (if >1), don't see why Starlink shouldn't follow the pattern. --mfb (talk) 07:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed for the same reason. AmigaClone (talk) 08:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney see SDA missions there different layers of different satellites are separately mentioned ‍—🪦NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 14:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

For eg. "Transport and Tracking Layer (Tranche 0B) (11 Transport and 2 Tracking Layer satellites)" ‍—🪦NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 14:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

To me, that feels like a lot information to be attempting to place in the payload box. That could be presented as “SDA Tranche 0B (13 satellites)” in the payload box and use the prose area to expand on the different purposes of the satellites. RickyCourtney (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I can add the count back into the payload boxes. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you and sorry for the trouble. Ergzay (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney put the West coast launches from vandenderg and East coast from Florida, v2 mini starlink satellites as it was before so the table is not repeated, the table says 21 starlinks and below in the description it also says 21 starlinks. I don't know who removed the east coast v2 mini starlink satellite and an west coast v2 mini satellites on description. Lazaro Fernandes (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Lazaro Fernandes I'm not sure what you're asking here. RickyCourtney (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

in the main table of that launch it has Starlink (21 satellites) and below it it also has type: Launch of ~21 Starlink v2 mini satellites, including 13 with direct-to-cell connectivity, to a 535 km (332 mi) orbit at an inclination of 53° to expand internet constellation. so as not to repeat saying that it is 21 satellites I prefer that you put as it was before east coast v2 mini starlink satellites or west coast v2 mini starlink satellites in case of launch in vandenderg. Lazaro Fernandes (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

An East Coast v2 mini Starlink launch to their Generation 2 network. Launch in Flórida and A West Coast v2 mini Starlink launch to their Generation 2 network. Including 13 satellites with direct-to-cell connectivity. Lazaro Fernandes (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

launch in vandenderg Lazaro Fernandes (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney Lazaro Fernandes (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

before it was like this Lazaro Fernandes (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The problem with that is there's no real difference in the west coast and east coast Starlink satellites. There's no, or at least very few, other launches where in the prose box where we call out that it was a west coast/east coast launch. We let the Cape Canaveral, Kennedy or Vandenberg launch site listing tell that story.

The "Generation 2" was also misleading because it has more to do with licensing than the sat type. In other words, the Generation 2 network has both v1.5 and v2 mini satellites. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney There's a difference in satellite counts between west coast and east coast because of the different DeltaV requirements. That's why removing it from the description is no good. It's not called out for other launches because those launches either have sufficint margin for the location they're launching from for that to not matter, or the launch location was specifically chosen for that payload's destination orbit. Starlink is unique in that it launches from both sides of the country with but varying satellite count. Please restore those west coast/east coast references into the description. Ergzay (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney Please restore the east vs west coast launches in the descriptions. Ergzay (talk) 06:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ergzay Sorry I didn’t see this earlier, but I still don’t see a great case with references establishing notability of East Coast vs. West Coast. Also, I’d also say that it would help to start by establishing that in prose… somewhere. Perhaps on this page, the Starlink page or the Starlink launches page. I went looking for some sort of explanation for its inclusion before removing. The closest I see is in the discussion of the record supposedly broken during Flight 234, the launch of Group 5-7.

The prior descriptions were grammatically problematic, particularly around the East Coast/West Coast descriptions and didn’t actually explaining what the point of the launch was (to expand an internet constellation).

Also, if we talk about the launch site as a variable for the number of satellites launched… that’s just one factor. Especially in the early days, the number of satellites launched varied widely. RickyCourtney (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about there. The number of satellites per launch was very consistent. The number only changed when they figured out additional performance of the rocket. It was extremely consistent across west coast vs east coast and the destination launch inclination. That's why it's just as notable as the inclination. Other wise the satellite count just appears to vary wildly without reason. Ergzay (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

My mistake, I was just looking at the Starlink satellite numbers, I forgot that these early launches were doing rideshares, so that changed the payloads a lot.

If you look across Group 4, when shooting to 53°, SpaceX was regularly launching 52 or 53 satellites from the Cape and Vandenberg. No major differences. The same has been true with the heavier sats in Group 8.

The only major difference in satellite counts I see are in just four launches: 5-7, 5-13, 6-15 and 6-20 when Starlinks were being sent 43° from Vandenberg. That's not a typical inclination for Vandenberg launches (per the Falcon 9 user guide). For those four launches, we could include a description similar to what's included on 5-7:

Launch of ## Starlink v1.5 OR v2 mini satellites to a 530 km (330 mi) orbit at an inclination of 43° to expand internet constellation. This launch was to a lower than normal orbital inclination for a West Coast launch, as launches to 43° are normally conducted from the East Coast. Due to the unique orbital insertion, this launch carried fewer Starlink satellites than a typical launch, reducing weight.

-- RickyCourtney (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

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)