Talk:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches

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)

Starlink 11-8 mission with 27 sats so issue will start should we count new masses now? ‍—⚰️NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 02:16, 18 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 Whenever I do I regularly find small mistakes where information is out of date, wrong grammar is used (past vs present tense), or sources are dead and need to be changed to an archive link.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)

Instability of URL

Quit changing the link to the first year in the Future Launches section and thus breaking links to it. It doesn't matter what it is, it doesn't need to be read by humans. Settle on one and STOP CHANGING IT. Please. 2601:447:CA81:CF70:31CE:4F0E:23D6:E7A3 (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Starshield on 13-1?

I am seeing multiple reports of 2 Starshield satellites being launched alongside the 21 Starlink satellites on the G13-1 launch on 21 Jan. These include the List of spaceflight launches in January–June 2025 page here on Wikipedia and also Jonathan McDowell's page which is a priamry source cited a lot on this page for other matters involving Starlink([1]https://planet4589.org/space/con/stsh/stats.html). I am not familiar with the requirements for adding Starshield sats to this page, which is why I am making this post, but there should be consistency amongst different pages on Wikipedia. Muskfanboy48 (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Bandwagon-2 payload mass is misleading

Bandwagon-2 payload mass is misleading, saying "~800 kg (1,800 lb) (main satellite)" - ( 800 kg to LEO looks strange for an F9 launch.) but the other 29 payloads were not all trivial - eg. it included 3 ICEYE satellites each about 80 kg, (ie ~240 kg).
Sadly the Bandwagon-2 table entry does not list or summarise payload masses, whereas this article does try to, so perhaps this is the article to list masses of the individual payloads so we can get an idea of the total payload mass (800 kg to LEO looks light for F9).
Can this table entry, initially, say "> 1040 kg (~800 kg main satellite, 3 ~80 kg ICEYE sats, and others)" ? or Maybe the individual satellite masses could be listed in the wide descriptive field ? - Rod57 (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rod57 I changed it. Ergzay (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ergzay Not much ? You didn't like either of my suggestions then ? - Rod57 (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rod57 I agreed it was a problem and modified it in a way I thought worked. If you disagree feel free to change it. Ergzay (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Booster landing graph

The graph with the current categories made sense in 2018 when you could see every launch, but now all the minor categories are just tiny slivers that no one can identify. I suggest merging "Ocean test failure", "Parachute test failure" and "Ocean test success" to just "Tests" and maybe "Ground-pad failure" and "Drone-ship failure" to "Failure". --mfb (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Mfb I think removing the information would be the wrong choice. Somehow making it more visible would be the better way of doing things but not sure how to do that. Bar graphs are supposed to give vague ideas, not specific numbers. If they're tiny slivers that itself is saying something. Ergzay (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Mfb, @Ergzay What about having one booster landing graph with "Successful Drone-Ship" "Successful Landing-Pad" and "Other result" with a new graph that would split the "Other Results" into "Ocean test failure", "Par,achute test failure", "Ocean test success", "Ground-pad failure", "Drone-ship failure" and "No Recovery attempt"? AmigaClone (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@AmigaClone I think that causes more confusion than it fixes and the "other result" bar would still be tiny as most years there is only a couple non-success events. Ergzay (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

In the example linked below, I left the current graph as it currently exists. There is a second graph that is a copy of the first with exception of the successful pad landings, and successful drone-ship landings.

User:AmigaClone/sandbox/F9 Landing Stats AmigaClone (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I modified the colors to make them more visible. Ergzay (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

What about splitting the each of the existing 4 graphs into 2, the first graph having information from 2010-2019 and the second one starting with 2020? That would help with the information in the minor categories in the first decade of launches.

A second idea specifically for the landing graph would be to move the "no attempt" category so that it would be at the bottom of a column. AmigaClone (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@AmigaClone This is a bit of a different subject as mfb is talking about the bar height rather than their width. On width however rather than splitting them into two I'd prefer to just make each graph full screen width if the bars are getting too narrow. I feel like this isn't an issue really yet. Ergzay (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Launch slated for 17 February 2025:

The details seem to have remained from what they were for a prior Starlink launch even though the satellite to be launched has been changed to NROL-57. I would like the original editor to make the corrections necessary as I did not originate the entry. Thanks. Abul Bakhtiar (talk) 10:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Abul Bakhtiar What do you mean? Ergzay (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

The required corrections have since been made by the originator or some other knowledgeable person. What I meant was that the NROL-57 Mission had details about a Starlink Mission instead of the NROL-57 Mission. So, my suggestion is no longer relevant and should be ignored. Thanks.

SLC-6

Looking at the launch sites graph a the top, I notice that SLC-6 at Vandenberg isn't included as an option, especially since that's where west coast Falcon Heavy's are supposed to launch from. Normally I'd just add it on my own, but for this specific case I must ask if we should just put it in (similarly to how New Glenn's page has SLC-9) or if we should leave it off until the pad gets activated. Additionally, if we do opt to add it now, what color should it be? I am thinking a dark blue to make an unofficial "warm colors = Florida, cool colors = California," but IDK how well that meshes with colorblindness friendliness. Ngpiii (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I would wait to show SLC-6 until after a launch date for the first Falcon 9 launch from that complex is announced. AmigaClone (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Please stop adding so much unsourced content

@27.125.159.200 Please check your sources more before adding content. We do not know the booster assignments for a Falcon Heavy launch out in September. If you think we do, then add a source. Additionally, you're not making associated changes over on List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters and you're not linking to the individual stages, just the top level page. This editing is frustrating. Ergzay (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Starlink satellite counts before launch shouldn't be added

I know we have a pretty good handle on the number of Starlink satellites, but it's sometimes wrong and I think in general we need to just have less speculative unsourced information on this list as it's been getting out of hand of late. I went ahead and removed (or commented out) the starlink satellite counts for all future upcoming Starlink launches. I think we should maintain this going forward. @C-randles pinging you as you most recently added some Starlink missions. Ergzay (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Today's landing

...is a failure. The landing caused the vehicle to catch fire which resulted in the booster falling over. It's a landing failure. Agile Jello (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Agile Jello I'd say it's a landing success and the vehicle landed successful. Events that happen post landing are not part of landing success or failure. Ergzay (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

No it was a failure. There’s more to landing than a soft touchdown. You also need to be able to actually recover the rocket. RickyCourtney (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney, @Agile Jello, @Ergzay, @Mfb, RIP B1058, I would say the landing itself appeared to be a success. Recovery of the booster after landing is a separate issue. You need a source for a failed landing.

[2] AmigaClone (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I think it comes down to how do we define a “landing.” For me, it doesn’t stop at touchdown, as the goal is no longer to prove that a touchdown is possible, but it’s to recover the booster for reuse. This booster was likely already badly damaged by the time it touched down, with a fire burning internally, that meant that even though it successfully touched down, it was already doomed. It’s no different than if the landing leg had collapsed a few seconds after touchdown.

Perhaps the broader question should be… should we rethink calling that column/table “landing” and instead call it “recovery.” That is after all the point. A landing without a recovery is pointless. RickyCourtney (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney No because then vehicles that came back to port and later scrapped/donated to museums would count as failures as the vehicle was not deemed in a state good enough to re-use. I think we should keep it as landing where landing is to the point where motion stops. Anything that happens afterwards is something where a note should be added. Ergzay (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Recovery for scrap/donation is still a recovery. I'm not saying "reuse." RickyCourtney (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney What if the drone ship were to sink as a result of an incident not related to the booster, or a cable on the crane lowering the booster to its transporter were to fail causing the booster to be lost? It appears that by your definition. the booster in question should also be considered as having failed to land. AmigaClone (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Under the current column title of "landing": No, those would be called out as success, with some sort of footnote as they happened well after landing. My point here is that this booster may have touched down, but at that moment, the fire had already begun, meaning the rocket was doomed. It's like saying Delta Connection Flight 4819 was a successful landing because its motion stopped.

But this hypothetical is exactly why I'd advocate for changing the column title to "recovery". RickyCourtney (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney So where's the cutoff for success then? And no I do not think the analogy to Delta Flight 4819 is apt. That vehicle was upside down with a wing missing. This Falcon 9 rocket landed with no damage occurring during the landing. Ergzay (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

If the fire had already begun inside the booster during the landing burn, would you still say that it “landed with no damage occurring during the landing”? RickyCourtney (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

It would depend on if that fire had caused damage by that point. Ergzay (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

What if the fire was already damaging the rocket to the point that even though it could touch down, it was weakening the internal structure to the point where it was doomed to fall over a short time later and explode? RickyCourtney (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Classifying “landings” as a success and failure on this page seems to be a holdover from the days of Falcon 9 first-stage landing tests when making a controlled flight into the ocean was considered a “win” or when the first booster landed and was immediately retired. But that was then, and this is now. SpaceX no longer has a goal of “just landing” — the point of the program now is to recover the boosters for potential reuse. Our readers no longer benefit from simply knowing that a booster touched down. RickyCourtney (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2025 (UTC)