Talk:2018 in spaceflight/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2018 in spaceflight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161224000000/http://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/ to http://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140427025907/http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/atlas-5.htm to http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/atlas-5.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

False positives again. This bot is geetting too sensitive for its own good… — JFG ^talk 12:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Vector Space Systems launches

I added Vector Space Systems' announced launches. They're orbital and seem likely to occur in 2018, but there is little information on them including launch site, payload, etc. Vector presents somewhat of a challenge in that one of their goals is for flexible launch sites so it's hard to even speculate where they'll launch from. Though the ref mentions MARS without specifically stating it's the chosen site. aremisasling (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Template for Orbital Launch on Wikipedia Mobile App on iPhone

The template is not displaying the table correctly in Wiki mobile app (for iPhones at least). It does not display in table form and cannot be collapsed. It displays it correctly if I switch to display it in the mobile browser (i.e. if I go all the way down to the end of the article and click the "View article in browser" link). I noticed that the templates for other summaries such as suborbital launches are displayed correctly. This problem seems to go way back. I checked the 2000 version and it does the same thing. Probably need someone with better knowledge on the particular platform to take a look and do some serious debugging on this. Showmebeef (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the report, Showmebeef. I have the adequate equipment and I'm a template editor; will take a look at the issue. — JFG ^talk 23:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Ariane 5 VA241 Partial Failure

We now have confirmation, from Space Track as well as various reporters on twitter, that the satellites were placed into off-nominal orbits. I'm going to edit accordingly as soon as I find an authoritative article on the subject. Oh and the edit war on Zuma is becoming pathetic at this point. --FuocoVivo (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

If the payloads were placed into off-nominal orbits, then it is considered simply as "partial failure" in all prior cases. Agree with you on your Ariane 5 edit, and yeah, on the edit war on Zuma too. Showmebeef (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Previous listings use 'Partial launch failure' and 'Operational' to clarify the status of the satellite when a launcher puts its payload in a wrong orbit but it's still operational and can be recovered. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_in_spaceflight (the 28 December Long March 2D launch) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_in_spaceflight (the 22 August Soyuz/Fregat Galileo launch).

You are right! I only looked at last year's launch of ChinaSat 9A by Long March 3B/E on 18 June. I will change that for consistency. Showmebeef (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, per https://twitter.com/Spaceflight101/status/956921095411650560 the satellites are in a 20 degree inclination. Phillipsturtles (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Zuma launch a "success" and the satellite is "in orbit"?

While multiple sources said it is not? I was about to change the entry but want to get some consensus on this. Showmebeef (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Multiple sources have indicated that "Lawmakers from the Senate and House, along with congressional staffers, were briefed on the failed mission, according to the Journal (WSJ)".

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/01/08/zuma-satellite-launched-by-spacex-reportedly-total-loss-failed-to-launch-into-orbit.html

http://fortune.com/2018/01/09/spacex-zuma-mission-booster-rocket/

So it is not a rumor. Due to the nature of the payload, the relevant agency will NOT provide confirmation even it reached the orbit. However, to the contrary, multiple credible sources have indicated it has not. It is said that the satellite failed to seperate from the second stage and fell back with it to the ocean. So it is obviously not "in orbit". However, SpaceX has maintained it has done its part, i.e. delivered it to the intended orbit, at least the height of the orbit. It's the satellite that failed to seperate. So can this launch be considered a "success" or a "failure"?

I think it is reasonable to put its status as not in orbit. Whether the launch itself can be considered a "success" is up to debate. To SpaceX, it is (they have to assure its other clients and investors). But the overall result is a failure, or at least a partial failure.

The best approach, IMHO, is to put a note in the entry stating such facts. Showmebeef (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches and of course Zuma (satellite) have suitable references, the same discussion happens there as well of course. I would just use "unknown" as long as we don't get better information (which is unlikely). Note that the definition of success here is different from the list of launches: It has been reported that the payload adapter was not from SpaceX. If this is true and this part failed, the launch was a success for SpaceX, but not for the satellite. --mfb (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I would agree "unknown" would be a suitable description. But then, if there is no such reports from secondary sources for the separation failure, would an "unknown" status still be applicable? Since let's face it, the government agency, whichever it is, would not confirm it one way or another, success or failure. I think in that case, people would have no problem of stating it's a success, even no direct source can confirm it. Anyways, I think separating the launch from the payload would be another reasonable approach. Showmebeef (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Gwynne Shotwell categorically denied any failure of the rocket's mission, and she's known for straight talk: that qualifies as a launch success according to usual criteria for this series of articles. Debate at the list of Falcon launches is a different matter, as consensus there seems to be "let's waiting until a secondary sources confirms SpaceX's claim". Also, the satellite has been assigned a COSPAR ID (2018-001A), a NORAD SATCAT number (43098), and a USA designator (USA-280). We do not usually see those assignments for payloads which de-orbit after a few hours, so that something has been confirmed as being in orbit, although orbital elements are hidden by NORAD. Therefore, I would list it here as "in orbit", with a note about possible spacecraft failure, referencing one of the credible sources. — JFG ^talk 23:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

JFG: note that Shotwell's statement says nothing about Zuma being deployed to the orbit or not. All she says is that FC9 has done its job and done it correctly, which is to deliver Zuma to the orbit. The company that supplied Zuma (Northrop Grumman) also provided the payload adapter. Whether it managed to separate Zuma from the second stage while in orbit is NG's problem, not SpaceX'. I watched news tonight and it said a US official has confirmed to ABC that Zuma "failed to remain in orbit": http://abcnews.go.com/US/classified-satellite-fell-ocean-spacex-launch-official-confirms/story?id=52246100. I believe there is enough credible information (albeit secondary) to support the notion that Zuma is not in orbit.

Re: Satellite catalog entry for Zuma: Jonathan McDowell, @planet4589, tweated: Recap 2: Assume satellite catalog entry is not an error. Still doesn't mean USA 280 is still in orbit, or that it separated from stage 2. Suggests that payload/stage 2 remained attached and completed 1.5 orbits (winning it a catalog entry), then performed deorbit. https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/950574866020884480 Showmebeef (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Can we please just leave this as unknown. Let's not speculate without authoritative facts. Just put that the payload status is unknown. That's what we did for the list of SpaceX Falcon 9 launches. - Mostmadmonkey (talk) 07:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

If it should be left as unknown it should not be marked as a success in any of the summary tables. SkywalkerPL (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Failed to separate from upper stage after launch YET a success?!

It's not a success if satellite failed to separate from the upper stage. Never was for any launch in the entire series of xxxx in spaceflight articles. Regardless who the culprit is - there is no reason for making an exception for this one SpaceX launch. It should be marked as a failure. (posting a discussion to prevent edit war on the article) SkywalkerPL (talk) 07:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

We don't know that it failed either. Let's just leave this as unknown until we get more info.

- Mostmadmonkey (talk) 07:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

We don't? It's well sourced that the satellite did not separate. It's even in the article. What we don't know is the cause and who to blame, but it changes nothing on the fact that mission was not a success. SkywalkerPL (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with SkywalkerPL that (based on available information we have now*) this launch can't be deemed as a "success", so the "outcome" column should be "failure", even if the outcome is for LSP (Launch Service Provider), since we shouldn't make an exception in this case for SpaceX when the payload is not deployed correctly. A recent example is India's attempted launch of its IRNSS-1H navigation satellite on Aug 31 last year by ISRO--"The satellite got separated internally, but the heat shield did not open as expected, causing the satellite to be stuck inside the upper stage of the rocket" and subsequently brought back to earth. Note it's deemed a "Launch Failure". Also the decay column should list Jan 8 or Jan 9 (UTC) as the date for deorbiting. The clearest indication for reaching such a conclusion is the ABC piece(*) which states in no uncertain terms that an government official has confirmed to ABC that Zuma "failed to remain in orbit". Note that we will never get direct confirmation from either the agency that owns the satellite, or Northrop Grumman who built the satellite and provided payload adapter. This is probably the clearest and most direct confirmation we can get.

As a nod to SpaceX who has maintained that it has done everything right for its part of the job (with every available fact supporting such claim too), we should put a note in the "remark" column stating so. Showmebeef (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• http://abcnews.go.com/US/classified-satellite-fell-ocean-spacex-launch-official-confirms/story?id=52246100.

We have sources speculating that the separation might have failed. That is not enough to call the launch a failure, especially as NORAD lists it as orbiting object, and other sources point to two separate re-entry events. There are so many possible options all supported by sources, we cannot just pick one and ignore the others. "Unknown"/"unclear" is the only thing we can say. --mfb (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

An official confirming to ABC news that it "failed to remain in orbit" means it is not speculation. Whether it was caused by a failure of the payload adaptor is immaterial to the net result which is that the satellite "failed to remain in orbit", resulting in an overall launch failure, which is the outcome attributed to the Indian launch under similar circumstances. In the end, it doesn't matter whether it was the payload adapter failed, or that the fairing failed to open, they are all the integral parts of a launch vehicle.

If we attributed a "launch failure" outcome for the Indian launch, why can't we do the same for this US launch? Showmebeef (talk) 06:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Outcome uncertain - list as uncertain

payload reached orbit so if it failed the rocket is not the issue, uncertainty noted in summary tables. It has also never been the policy of US to conceal a launch failure. Recommend we add category for uncertain to info box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whaleyjosh (talk • contribs) 05:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

We don't have an "uncertain" category. Until that is made available, "launch failure" is what we have been using to describe the outcome when the payload fails to "remain in the orbit". Besides, how can it be "uncertain" when a US official has already confirmed to ABC news that the payload failed to "remain in the orbit"? We are uncertain as to what has caused the payload to NOT "remain in the orbit". But that doesn't change to overall outcome of a "launch failure". Whether it is caused by the rocket, the faring, or the payload adapter is immaterial here! Also, in this case, the US neither conceal nor confirm the outcome because of the nature of the payload. Showmebeef (talk) 06:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Is Sputnik a launch failure because the satellite is not in orbit any more? Or one of the old Shuttle missions? If the deorbit was independent of the launch and due to a problem of the satellite it is not a launch failure. --mfb (talk) 07:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

That is correct. If satellite deorbited independently of the upper stage - it was a success. However sources tell the opposite to be true. SkywalkerPL (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed there is no "uncertain" parameter in the infobox and I don't think we should invent one to accommodate this case. Several missions in the past have been deemed launch failures when the payload did not remain in orbit for at least a day after launch. Typically this includes separation failures, as is rumored here. However, due to the uncertainty, it is probably best to call this a "partial failure" until clearer information emerges from all parties involved, or independent confirmation of what actually happened. I have also requested temporary page protection (ECP level) to calm down the edit-warring. — JFG ^talk 11:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but the payload is confirmed lost in the Indian Ocean by an U.S. official. We have no reason to doubt this information. That's a total mission failure in any meaningful sense of the term. Furthermore, there is no longer any orbital component from any launch on January 8th, 2018 in the NASA's NSSDCA Master Catalog (International COSPAR ID) (just check it yourselves.) MaeseLeon (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources

@MaeseLeon: The NSSDC database does not list any of the 2018 launches yet: it is rarely updated that fast, and is also incomplete. However, the COSPAR 2018-001A and SATCAT 43098 numbers were definitely assigned to "USA 280 (ZUMA)", and they can still be seen on the NORAD tracking reference database.[1] We need to wait until clearer information emerges than the anonymous report to ABC News and the SpaceX denial. — JFG ^talk 14:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we should make anonymity of the report an issue - the press is very judicious in confirming information. With that said the COSPAR catalog, NORAD tracking data, and SpaceX mission patches, are sufficient for an encyclopedia to report outcome unclear.

Also if it did in fact come down per the claim we have no details re: its cause. Information about the mating adapter are at best supposition drawn from SpaceX's statement and manufacture of the mating adapter. For all we know the object was intended to reenter. We do know the original contract SpaceX the launch was very time sensitive with launch intended by 11/30/17. Satellites intended to stay in orbit for long duration do not have such restrictive launch deadlines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.88.9.52 (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Pentagon shuts down questions about Zuma, and raises more questions - "ask SpaceX". Well, SpaceX says their part worked. --mfb (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

That SpaceX's part worked does not mean the whole mission is a success! That's what this list cares about. I don't get it that if you guys can accept the outcome of the launch as "Failure to separate from second stage payload adapter", but still won't accept that as a launch failure. It doesn't matter whose part failed. If the end result is "Failure to separate from second stage payload adapter", and that the payload "fell back to Earth over the Indian Ocean", which you guys all seem to accept now, why is that launch not a failure?! We know at least 2 other similar cases, one involved a recent Indian ISRO launch in Aug last year which I quoted in my earlier post, and another in 2015 where "Kanopus-ST failed to separate from the Volga upper stage"--both are labelled as "launch failure". How can this particular mission not be a "launch failure" is beyond me. SMH!! Showmebeef (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This page cares about 'rocket launches' not weather the payload succeeded or failed. The Mars polar lander failed due to issues with the probe not the launch. The page from 1999 notes space craft failure but all the list on that page count the Delta II launch a success.76.188.184.251 (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

But the launch of the Mars Polar Lander was a success because Delta II did insert the spacecraft into the correct Heliocentric orbit. The lander lost communication after it attempted landing on Mars. It was deemed a "spacecraft failure". How can it be compared to this case where the satellite "failed to remain in orbit" and it "ended up plummeting into the Indian Ocean"?! Showmebeef (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with the above comment. These SpaceX fanboys are out of control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.163.175.181 (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with 'fan boys' and everything to do with confirmed facts. Kanopus-ST failed to reach orbit. The PSLV-XL failure from last August was problem with fairings and likewise the payload did not reach orbit. We know ZUMA reached orbit from a variety of sources. What we don't know is if it was ever intended to stay in orbit or if the payload's own thrusters de-orbited the payload. It has never been the policy of the US government to deny or try and conceal a launch failure. We also have a statement from spaceX "Gwynne Shotwell issued a statement Tuesday saying the Falcon 9’s part of the mission went off as planned. “After review of all the data to data, Falcon 9 did everything correctly on Sunday night,” she said. And she noted that any reports that the rocket failed are “categorically false.” seems to me the only thing we can sure for certain is that the launch was not a failure. 76.188.184.251 (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

SpaceX's part might have been a success, good for them, it is up to their future clients to judge if this incident compromises the reliability of their rocket. However, the mission in its entirety is not limited to the launch vehicle's performance, but putting the intended payload in its intended orbit. This seems to be at best unclear. Some people above have provided statements from United States officials saying the payload splashed into the ocean. Whatever the actual outcome, at this point we do not know for certain, but clearly, not everything went according to plan. Thus, it is my belief that, for the sake of consistency and honesty, this launch is, at best, a partial failure. At least until we know more. I also would like to bring to your attention last year's final launch of AngoSat 1, which for a short period after its insertion into orbit lost contact with ground control through no fault of the launch vehicle, yet, the launch was labeled as a failure (complete, mind you). Which is fair. Thus, unless this particular launch outcome is a deception, which we have no way of knowing for sure, it seems as though it was indeed a failure at some level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.163.175.181 (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

---

"Kanopus-ST failed to reach orbit. The PSLV-XL failure from last August was problem with fairings and likewise the payload did not reach orbit."

No, 76.188.184.251, "Kanopus-ST failed to reach orbit" because it failed to seperate from the upper stage. The other payload carried by the launch vehicle managed to launch just fine. The ISRO PSLV-XL had a problem with the fairings as they failed to open, thus preventing the payloads from being released. The rocket did reach the intended height of the orbit.

"the mission in its entirety is not limited to the launch vehicle's performance, but putting the intended payload in its intended orbit."

Well put, 104.163.175.181! I have stressed this point several times. It is confirmed by US official to several US news organizations that the satellite "failed to remain in its orbit". It's also reported that a congressional investigation is opened to look into the cause for the failure. But whatever the cause is, and to whom the blame is placed has no bearing to whether the launch has failed or not--which it has based on the available information we have so far. We know, based on confirmation by US official to credible news organizations, that the satellite is not in the orbit it was meant to be launched into and that it "fell back to Earth over the Indian Ocean", thus resulting in a launch failure! Showmebeef (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

There are only anonymous sources for a failure of Zuma. No official statements an no official confirmation at all. Just rumors. The outcome of this launched should be changed to "Unknown". The following link gives some clues, specially about precedent case in February 1990.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17612/the-secret-zuma-spacecraft-could-be-alive-and-well-doing-exactly-what-it-was-intended-to — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceTom72 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

As one editor pointed out earlier, we shouldn't "make anonymity of the report an issue - the press is very judicious in confirming information". The source for the Watergate scandal had remained anonymous for a long time, but it does not mean it is not valid. Especially in this case, the very nature of the payload precludes any government agency from making "official" confirmation of either a success or failure in the launch. An "anonymous" confirmation in this case is as good as you can get. It is rather interesting that you would term this confirmation (albeit "anonymous") by a US official to reputable new organizations as "(j)ust rumors", you would have quoted source with putting forward multiple theories for alternative outcomes which can only be best described as speculations. Now I am not arguing one way or another that they couldn't possibly be one day proven to be true. I am arguing that until we have more solid evidence to support these theories, we need to go by with what we have known so far. Again, it has been pointed out earlier in this thread (may I ask you to please go through earlier discussions in this thread?) that there is no "unknown" or "uncertain" category for the "outcome" column. Finally, let me repeat again what have been confirmed by a US official to the ABC news:

(source: "Classified satellite fell into ocean after SpaceX launch, official confirms", ABC News

• "the satellite, codenamed Zuma, failed to remain in orbit"
• "...satellite launched by SpaceX this weekend ended up plummeting into the Indian Ocean"

Again, these are confirmations, NOT rumors

If you can accept these statements from a US official to an accredited news agency, I don't see why you can't accept "launch failure" as the outcome.

p.s. please sign your posts folks, with 4 ~ at the end of the post.

Showmebeef (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Falcon 9 did everything correctly but it is still sorted as Partial Failure

In a hearing with Congress, VP of Mission Assurance at SpaceX Hans Koenigsmann stated that "Falcon 9 did everything Falcon 9 was supposed to do" Source(skip to 1:19:58 in the video). It seems like the payload separation mechanism was not SpaceX responsibility and that they where simply contracted to bring the payload adapter to orbit with the Zuma Spacecraft attached. Because of this i think it should be marked as a success for the Falcon 9 and for SpaceX as an LSP since it would have had the same outcome regardless of the launcher. But there should be a note that says it failed to separate.Almightycat (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The mission in its entirety is not limited to the launch vehicle's performance, but putting the intended payload in its intended orbit. This article is not about SpaceX's performances, rather a list of spaceflight missions, in other words, putting stuff into orbit to accomplish something useful, not a merry-go-round to orbit.104.163.175.181 (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree! The payload adapter is an integral part of the launch vehicle. It doesn't matter whether SpaceX or someone else provided the part. Whether a launch is successful is entirely judged by the outcome, i.e. whether the payload is successfully deployed to the intended orbit. In this case, it is more than sufficient to show that the payload is not deployed to the orbit. Otherwise there won't be this congressional hearing in the first place. Actually I really think we should change the outcome to failure, as we did for India's attempted launch of its IRNSS-1H navigation satellite on Aug 31 last year when the payloads were prevented being released due to a malfunction in the fairing, and in the case in 2015 where Kanopus-ST failed to separate from the Volga upper stage. Showmebeef (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The difference between this and the IRNSS-1H is that the payload adapter was not a part of the launch vehicle, as evidenced by SpaceX continuing launch flow of future launches, something that is not done when there has been a launch vehicle failure. Since the column for mission outcome has "isp" on the top and the isp didn't fail it shouldn't be marked as a failure. The fact that this mission would have the same outcome even if it flew on an Atlas or Delta makes me uneasy to put it as a launch failure since it makes it look like the Falcon 9 had a failure. I understand why you think it it should be marked as a failure and i agree that it should in total statistics, but marking it as a failure of the Falcon 9 or SpaceX is misleading. Almightycat (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

This is why we have notes giving more details about the type of failure. Why should we defend Falcon 9's statistics? Let SpaceX, Northrop or whatever agency ordered the payload to sort it out between themselves who's fault it is. How can we honestly label it a success while the payload is in the ocean and not in orbit (as far as we know, at this moment)? Surely this would seem odd, wouldn't you agree?104.163.175.181 (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, I agree with Showmebeef that it should be a 'complete failure', not even a partial one.104.163.175.181 (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with the others above, this launch should be listed as a failure. Let me give an analogy: If I went on a trip to the grocery store, drove all the way there and then had a heart attack in the parking lot, you would call that trip a failure. I didn't get into the store. I didn't buy groceries. Does that mean that Toyota needs to do an engineering analysis of their car? No. Does that mean calling the trip a failure reflects poorly on Toyota? Not to anyone who puts the slightest amount of effort into investigating why it was a failure. This launch was a failure. Period. DrunkBicyclist (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I get the logic with calling it a failure, but the issue is that the Outcome column is for the Launch Service Provider, so it would technically wrong to call it a failure since that would directly imply that it was a SpaceX failure. Almightycat (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

But if the launch vehicle failed to insert the payload into the orbit, then it IS a launch failure for the Launch Service Provider. It doesn't matter who provided the payload adapter, or payload fairing (can you argue that it was not a NASA launch failure if the O-ring on shuttle Columbia was not made by NASA?) It is part of the launch vehicle--I don't know why you insist that it is not part of the launch vehicle: how can you launch a payload without a payload adapter? Showmebeef (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It didn't fail to insert into orbit, everything that SpaceX was responsible for performed nominally. The adapter for this mission was special made for the payload from the payload maker and the payload maker did every part of the processing that had to do with the adapter. It was essentially a part of the payload. Would you qualify this as a Launch Service Provider misstake if it launched on the Atlas V and the adapter failed in the exact same way? It is still a failure, but i just don't see how it is a failure of SpaceX. Your Space shuttle comparison would be valid if someone bought a flight from NASA on the shuttle and strapped on their own SRBs without any oversight or qualification from NASA themselves, and i wouldn't say NASA had a failure if that happenedAlmightycat (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

If "it didn't fail to insert into orbit", then how come the payload "ended up plummeting into the Indian Ocean"? Note this list documents the outcome for the overall mission. It does not concern itself that much whose fault it is that the mission has failed. Note the note/remark here didn't say "it is a failure of SpaceX". In fact the wordings in the remark have pretty much absolved SpaceX of that. Yes, if it was a Atlas V that provided the launch service and the same thing happened, it would be a "launch failure", because--the payload "failed to remain in orbit" and it "ended up plummeting into the Indian Ocean". Don't see your point about strapping SRBs to the shuttle--NASA better make sure whatever it puts onto its shuttle works, even down to a small thing like an O-ring, let alone SRBs. Oh, yeah, if the SRBs explodes, I would definitely say that "NASA had a failure". Showmebeef (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

If it swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is a duck

Similarly, if it "failed to remain in orbit" and it "ended up plummeting into the Indian Ocean", then it is a launch failure--even if the authority refuses to (officially) confirm it (due to the nature of the payload). I started this thread two weeks ago trying to get some consensus on the status of this particular launch, as I didn't want to start an edit war on the subject. I think by now after some lengthy discussion, we can reasonably conclude that this is a launch failure, even if all available facts have indicated that SpaceX has successfully delivered the payload to the orbit. Note, however, "delivered" is different from "inserted". I want to stress once again that this list documents the outcome of the overall mission. I am going to change the outcome for this launch to "launch failure" and the associated statistics. I respectfully ask anyone who attempts to revert my edit to read the whole discuss here before doing so. Showmebeef (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I would to prefer to go by the precedent set by AngoSat1 last year, the rocket performed as expected but the satellite failed. This is down as a success for the rocket, but in the outcome as a "Spacecraft failure". This fits both the idea that the launch was successful, per SpaceX, but the payload failed, per DoD --Richhaddon (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there is similarity here between the two cases. In the case of AngoSat1, it was inserted into the orbit successfully. The sat itself failed to establish communication with the ground. That's a classic case of "Spacecraft failure". In the case of Zuma, it "ended up plummeting into the Indian Ocean". "Failure to separate from the second stage" is more inline with "launch failure". Showmebeef (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

AngoSat 1's communication was restored and it seems it's recoverable. I also would like to bring your attention to the fact that after it did lose communication with ground control, through no fault of the launch vehicle, it was labeled as a complete failure. I very much dislike that because it's a SpaceX launch it is being treated differently through a torrent of excuses.104.163.175.181 (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The similarity i'm drawing is that the failure did not occur during the launch process, i.e the portion of the mission controlled by the LSP. But after this section. Secondly, although there are a lot of fanboys behind SpaceX, I think the argument is just down to lack of information, rather than it being treated differently. --Richhaddon (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The launch process would (and should) include the deployment of the payload. Otherwise Indian's (attempted) launch of of its navigation satellite with PSVL-XL (payload fairing failed to open) and Russia's (attempted) launch of Kanopus-ST with Soyuz-2-1v / Volga (failure to separate from second stage) can both be regarded as launch "success" then. There is apparently no lack of information (at least enough to justify the conclusion of "launch failure). There is also no lack of authority in the sources either (sources are identified as US officials). The only issue some hold onto is the issue of anonymity. But this is entirely due to the nature of the classified payload. But as was discussed in the thread earlier: we shouldn't "make anonymity of the report an issue - the press is very judicious in confirming information". That fact that no one has raised any issue with either the Indian or Russian launch (both are very similar cases) but plenty with this SpaceX launch seems to indicate that it is being treated differently. Showmebeef (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The deployment of the payload was not the responsibility of the LSP in this mission, so the PSLV-XL parallel does not hold true. Also, if this is classed as a failure here. It is inconsistent with "list of falcon 9 and falcon heavy launches" & "Timeline of spaceflight" --Richhaddon (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It would be hard to justify that "deployment of the payload was not the responsibility of the LSP", even in this mission. If the PSLV-XL parallel does not apply, would you declare that launch a success? And then how about the Kanopus-ST mission? The inconsistency with list of falcon 9 and falcon heavy launches" & "Timeline of spaceflight" need to be addressed separately. Showmebeef (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

We don't list probes that fail to reach mars as failures of the rocket. They're space craft failures (for those that reach orbit anyway). We have SpaceX saying that any rumors of a rocket failure are categorically false. We also have reports of the second state being seen deorbiting without zuma attached. It's been added to the registry of orbital objects. We have no stand down by SpaceX to investigate as is always the case following rocket failures and we have their other customers on the record there was no rocket failure. We also have the USAF saying it was not a launch failure Seems to me that it neither swims nor quacks like a duck. Whaleyjosh (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually the payload "fell back to Earth", and it "failed to remain in orbit". There is absolutely no indication whatsoever, anonymous sources or not, that this was a spacecraft failure. But there is confirmation from US official that the payload "failed to separate from the second stage". The fact that the payload "failed to separate from the second stage" does not imply it's a rocket failure--nobody says it's a rocket failure. Note there is a distinct difference between a "launch failure" and a "rocket failure". Pls provide your source stating "the second state being seen deorbiting without zuma attached". Please note that we have US official confirming to the press that the Zuma satellite "ended up plummeting into the Indian Ocean". Showmebeef (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

If we accept that Zuma fell back to earth (and that seems to be the indication) the cause of that orbit has not been disclosed. There is an assumption that it was the payload adapter which has not been confirmed. But even if it was the payload adapter the fact that this adapter was built by northrop grumman and not SpaceX means that we can consider the adapter as part of the payload. If UPS delivers you a broken item from Amazon because it was not packaged by amazon correctly that's on Amazon and something entirely different that UPS delivering you a broken item because they mishandled the package (not a perfect analogy) but you get the idea Whaleyjosh (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Your Amazon delivery analogy is inaccurate. Note that there is confirmation that the Zuma satellite "failed to separate from the second stage" and "fell back to Earth over the Indian Ocean". The correct analogy would be the mailman "failed to drop off the package at the residence" and the package was "left in the roadside ditch". Even though the recipient is mum about whether he's received the package (due to the nature of the content) we can still declare this a failed delivery, based on Amazon's own admission. The mailman's claim that his mail delivery van works just fine and that he took the package to the recipient's resident simply doesn't cut. Showmebeef (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no confirmation that the payload did not separate - every article suggests this a possibility but no confirmation. Whaleyjosh (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2018‎ (UTC)

From the Ars Technica article you quoted ("SpaceX gets good news from the Air Force on the Zuma mission"): "No one has officially confirmed this on the record, but sources have told Ars that, after the launch, the Zuma payload never successfully separated from the rocket. Instead, it remained partially or completely attached to the second stage and re-entered Earth's atmosphere after 1.5 orbits.". So it's not a suggestion but a confirmation, albeit not an official one, again due to the secret nature of the payload.

Also from this CBS article I quoted earlier ("Fate of secret satellite a mystery amid reports of failure"): The Wall Street Journal quoted unnamed sources Monday saying "the secret payload ... is believed to have plummeted back into the atmosphere ... because it didn't separate as planned from the upper stage of the rocket." Reuters also reported the satellite "failed to separate from the second stage of the Falcon 9 rocket and is assumed to have broken up or plunged into the sea." Showmebeef (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

So in my book if we're to consider this a launch failure both of these need to be true

• The deorbit was a result of a faulty payload adapter (unconfirmed) "No one has officially confirmed this on the record, but sources have told Ars that, after the launch, the Zuma payload never successfully separated from the rocket."
• The payload adapter was built by SpaceX (no)

So it is therefore a spacecraft failure. Whaleyjosh (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The insertion of payload into the orbit is part of the launch process. Otherwise both the PSLV-XL and Kanopus-ST missions can be considered launch success (they are not!). It does not matter who supplied the payload adapter. We can clearly state that Northrop Grumman supplied the payload adapter (we did) thus absolving SpaceX of its responsibility in this "launch failure". But it is nevertheless a "launch failure". Showmebeef (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The payload was inserted into orbit that's why it was entered into the catalog. We don't know if the failure was due to being unable to separate from the adapter. That has not been confirmed. The air-force does not consider this to be a launch failure. Whaleyjosh (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2018‎ (UTC)

It has been confirmed by multiple sources (see my reply to you above). It's just that the sources CANNOT officially confirmed it due to the nature of the classified payload. The air-force has good reason to believe that the SpaceX launch vehicle itself has performed its task, but has said nothing about whether the payload was launched successfully or not. As I have pointed out earlier: "launch failure" is not the same as "rocket failure". Showmebeef (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The only thing that the USAF said is that "Based on the data available, our team did not identify any information that would change SpaceX's Falcon 9 certification status". Nothing about the launch itself whether it's successful or not. Whaleyjosh: I ask you respectfully not to engage in edit war. At this point, it is universally accepted that the payload is a "total loss". We just cannot confirm what exactly caused it or who is responsible for it. But it is irrelevant to this list as it only concerns itself with whether the payload is deployed successfully or not. As it stands now, it was not! Please present you reasoning here before you attempt to change the status of the launch. Showmebeef (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Whaleyjosh, if I am not mistaken (the edit comments appear to be a continuation of the comments you have here), it was you with an anonymous mobile IP address (2607:fcc8:6dc8:9100:3dac:9fff:3ca5:a736) who just changed the status for the Zuma launch (if it's not you then I apologize). Once again I ask you not to engage in edit war (anonymously). I started this thread two weeks ago to discuss this matter and also to avoid edit war. I would respect you more if you can present your opinions and discuss the matter first--I did that for the last two weeks before I reached the conclusion and made the changes, and I am doing it now. Respectively yours, Showmebeef (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

No, the status is not clear. The government hasn't made any official declaration, and all sources refer to one single page, which takes words from an official dishonest enough to leak information. Please don't engage in an edit war. The status is NOT clear; the sources are very unreliable. 112.133.232.34 (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Corrected Falcon 9 Launch to Partial Failure

Found a mistake in the page that seems to claim the Falcon 9 failed when it did not. Fixed. Ergzay (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Did you miss the whole discussion in the section above this one, and the various edits on the article page oscillating between the different versions? --mfb (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

That is not the consensus the section on this talk page directly above this one came to. Just because the Falcon 9 itself did not fail during launch, does not mean that there was not a launch failure that took place on the Falcon 9. The payload adapter is part of the launch vehicle. The mission was not a "partial success", it was a complete failure. DrunkBicyclist (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The payload adapter on this launch is part of the payload, not part of the vehicle. Thusly, the payload failed, no part of the launch vehicle did. I'm probably incorrect about calling it a "partial failure" and thinking about this more this is actually a success. The article should be changed again. Ergzay (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The payload adapter is part of the launch vehicle, and is traditionally provided by the party who provides the launch vehicle. However, NG provided the adapter this time (most likely because of the secret nature of the payload). The adapter stays with the launch vehicle after inserting the payload to the orbit, which it failed to do this time, and which made this launch a failure. Showmebeef (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The USAF does not consider this a failure of the rocket, neither does SpaceX, and neither do their customers. When spacecraft fail due to a fault with the spacecraft we list it as a 'space craft failure' for example see Mars Climate Orbiter. If you look at the 1999 in space flight page it's a "Space Craft Failure" we don't consider the Delta II it was launched on to have failed.

We do not know for certain it was the payload adapter which would under normal circumstances be a failure with the rocket but since this was built by Northrup it's considered part of the payload.

Unless the loss of Zuma impacts the calculations falcon 9's reliability it's not a launch failure. Whaleyjosh (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Whaleyjosh: the loss of Zuma does NOT impact the calculations falcon 9's reliability (because apparently the payload failed to seperate from the second stage), that's what the USAF's statement is saying. HOWEVER, the loss of Zuma does impact the outcome of the launch, which is what this list cares about and maintains. Showmebeef (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Correction, the USAF and SpaceX's customers do not consider this a failure of SpaceX. They make no distinction between the launch vehicle and the payload, this distinction does not matter to them. All they care about is which company is at fault, and every indication is that it is Northrop Grumman's fault. This SpaceX launch is unique though because Northrop Grumman was responsible for the manufacture of a portion of the launch vehicle, the payload adapter. This article, however, does make a distinction between launch vehicle and payload. The payload adapter failed, the payload adapter was a part of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle for this mission. DrunkBicyclist (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

"They make no distinction between the launch vehicle and the payload, this distinction does not matter to them" Bullshit. Customers absolutely care about whether their launch vehicle failed or an unrelated payload failed. Your statement is nonsensical. I used to work on nanosats. It absolutely matters. As I stated above, in this case the payload adapter came with the spacecraft and thusly is part of the spacecraft. It is simply a spacecraft that splits in two leaving part of itself behind on the launch vehicle. Ergzay (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

What the customers care about is irrelevant to the list here. Like I mentioned several times in the discussion here that the adapter is part of the launch vehicle and stays with the launch vehicle after the launch. The fact that NG provided it this time (most likely due to the secret nature of the payload) does not change that nature. It only changes where potentially the blame can be placed (which the remark in the entry has made pretty clear where it should be). It does not change the outcome of the launch, which is a failure (to insert the payload into the orbit). Showmebeef (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

DrunkBicyclist: you are exactly correct in this argument. I had a lengthy discussion with Whaleyjosh and made the distinction between "rocket failure" (which is Whaleyjosh's point that it wasn't) and "launch failure" (which is the overall outcome of this launch and what this list cares about). I thought I have already cleared it up with him. The launch adapter is NOT part of the payload even if NG provided (probably because of the secret nature of the payload) this time. It stays with the launch vehicle after delivering and, more importantly, inserting the payload into the orbit, which this mission failed to do. Showmebeef (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I will add. The official record on Wikipedia for SpaceX launches is at List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches. This (as shown by the talk page) conclusively by consensus determines this a launch vehicle success (aligning with SpaceX's claims and every official source regarding the matter). Is this page to go renegade versus the other consensus that has been reached? Ergzay (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches maintains launch statistics for SpaceX launches and is viewed from SpaceX' perspective. So in this particular case, the launch did apparently delivered the payload TO the correct orbit (but failed to insert the payload into the orbit). From that narrow point of view, the launch CAN BE considered a success according to SpaceX, which is the point of view some hold for this list. BUT, this list strictly maintains the overall outcome of the launches, and prior cases (India's PSVL-XL mission last year, and Russia's Kanopus-ST mission in 2015, both are mentioned several times in earlier discussion) in similar situations are both labelled as "launch failure". I think it is more important to maintain consistency for all launches on this list than with the List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches, which is SpaceX-centric. Showmebeef (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

That is a point I made a few days ago. For the list of SpaceX launches it is a success - the task of SpaceX was to deliver satellite plus payload adapter to orbit. For this list it is a failure - the goal was to have the satellite alone in orbit. It is a unique case as (a) the payload adapter was not from the launch provider and (b) basically everything is classified. --mfb (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a list of rocket launches not payload deliveries, not every cube sat is listed. This list is to track rocket launches that why we have it broken down into type of rocket.

This list maintains the overall outcome for the launch missions. If the launch vehicle fails to deliver the payload to the orbit, including cubesats, it will be, and has been, documented. Showmebeef (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Tesla Roadster for Deep-space Rendezvous?

Does anyone know if the Tesla Roadster will have the Mars flyby in 2018? If so can we add it to the Deep-space rendezvous list? --Phillipsturtles (talk) 20:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

We don’t know details about the orbit, so I would be careful with adding things. If it gets close to Mars - something we don’t know yet - it should happen within 2018. --mfb (talk) 21:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Falcon Heavy launch now NET Feb 6 (so the article's introduction is out-of-date). Feb 6 is somewhat early for a Hohmann orbit to Mars, but the payload is light so there might be plenty of delta-V. Note that (assuming full launch success) the car will not vanish at aphelion; it will continue in an ellipse approaching the orbits of Earth and of Mars alternately, one approach roughly every 9 months - and, sooner or later, one of those approaches will be more-or-less close. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

U.S. Air Force says SpaceX rocket launch worked perfect. Northrop Grumman made a payload error

https://www.space.com/39464-air-force-spacex-confidence-zuma-mission.html

"Based on the data available, our team did not identify any information that would change SpaceX's Falcon 9 certification status," Lt. Gen. John Thompson, commander of the Air Force's Space and Missile Systems Center, told Bloomberg News in a statement.

This does not in any way prove that the payload was delivered and inserted into the orbit as intended. But all we heard from news reports are that they were not--they actually ended up "plumbing back into the atmosphere". Since it is apparent that you didn't read the discussion here, I will use the Amazon deliver analogy again (that I used earlier in the discussion here) to make my point: If you order something on Amazon and you haven't received in two weeks, then something's wrong with the delivery. It doesn't matter that the delivery van made rounds to your house, or someone claim how well the delivery van is trouble free and drives like a Ferrari! The bottom line is you didn't receive your package. And that makes it a delivery failure!

p.s. I don't know why you want to put USAF's statement in the remark section of the entry for Zuma. That area is really not a forum for discussion.

Showmebeef (talk) 07:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Nothing 'proves' it failed either, and in fact with so much evidence that zuma's loss had nothing to do with the rocket please stop changing it to launch failure. Let's think about your amazon analogy (that was originally posted here by someone else) Your trying to blame general motors for not getting the package since they made the delivery van even though everyone is telling you nothing went wrong with the van. This page's primary purpose is to track failures with the rockets. As others have pointed out everyone considers this a launch vehicle success and the failure of payload adapter in this case is a payload failure. see comments by Ergzay. **I'm looking at you Showmebeef** stop changing it to failure you're wrong and we don't need edit war, you don't know better than the USAF, COSPAR, spaceX or Northrup - Just fucking stop. 76.188.184.251 (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

If report that the payload "ended up plumbing back into the atmosphere" does not prove it's a failed launch, I don't know whatever does. Let me repeat it one more time (if you have read the whole discussion here, you would have noticed that I have made this assertion several times already--and the Amazon analogy made that specific point too)--nobody says it's a "rocket failure"! It is a "launch failure", as the mission failed to place the payload in the intended orbit. My Amazon analogy did not blame GM for making the van. My analogy said that "the delivery van is trouble free and drives like a Ferrari!". This is list maintains the overall outcome of the missions. In case you missed it in our discussion earlier, we know at least 2 other similar cases, one involved a recent Indian ISRO launch in Aug last year, and another in 2015 where "Kanopus-ST failed to separate from the Volga upper stage"--both are labelled as "launch failure". I started this discussion thread more than 2 weeks ago to solicit comments and seek consensus on the status of this launch. This is the consensus reached based on all these discussions. I have engaged discussions with all others, including Ergzay, and I welcome yours too (except that you can leave your foul language at home). So what's your opinion, if any, regarding the distinction between a "rocket failure" and a "launch failure" (or a "mission failure")? p.s. please do not delete my post and my signature. Showmebeef (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The point has been made here and elsewhere that the for this case the payload adapter is part of the payload. This list's purpose is to track rocket launches not payloads; we don't list every cube sat here and disaggragating these launches by rocket is a clue. Everyone considers the Falcon 9 to have behaved nominally. *IF* Zuma failed it was a spacecraft failure not a failure of the Falcon 9. Do you really think this belongs in the same category as rocket that explodes on the launch pad? The US air force doesn't. The point has been made that this list (see page on launches in 1999) shows mars climate orbiter as a space craft failure. No one argues it's failure to be the fault of the Delta II that launched it. If you want to start a series of pages that list the payloads put in orbit go ahead Zuma would be a failure there but just but on this page about rockets it's a spacecraft failure. 76.188.184.251 (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not a "spacecraft failure" (and payload adapter is NOT part of the payload either--see my comment in the section "Payload adapter is part of launch vehicle or payload" below). I thought I have already discussed and refuted your argument using the Mars Lander before. I don't know why you want to recycle this argument again and again. To save myself some typing, I will just copy and paste my rebuttal I gave earlier:

But the launch of the Mars Polar Lander was a success because Delta II did insert the spacecraft into the correct Heliocentric orbit. The lander lost communication after it attempted landing on Mars. (That's why) it was deemed a "spacecraft failure". How can it be compared to this case where the satellite "failed to remain in orbit" and it "ended up plummeting into the Indian Ocean"?! Showmebeef (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

This is launch failure but not payload failure because the deployment of the payload is still part of the launch process. Since when can you call a launch success without it deploying the payload?! Showmebeef (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The payload adapter is part of the payload ??? Please cite your source. 2001:DA8:201:3032:3062:DB50:1B0:DCEA (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe more accurate: Amazon gave the package to your neighbor, your neighbor showed you the package, but refused to hand it to you, and left again with the package. Not a failure of Amazon if you asked them to give the package to your neighbor, but still a delivery failure. --mfb (talk) 08:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi

Is this page about rockets or payloads

Everyone needs to calm down here. We need to decide if this list is about rockets or payloads before we can label either Zuma or the recent Arian launch.

If this list is concerned about rockets than the falcon 9 should be listed as a success while the Ariane should be a partial failure.

If this is concerned with payloads than the Zuma is an failure but the Ariane is a success.

• Zuma failed despite rocket behaving entirely nominally
• ses 14 and Al yah end up the right orbits (after a few months of manuver burns) despite aberrant bevhavier by the rocket

I tend to think of this list as one about rockets but this is a choice the community needs to make but consensus is needed. Whaleyjosh (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

This list documents the status of the mission. If the payload is successfully deployed to the intended orbit, it's a "success", otherwise it's a "launch failure". If the payload is deployed to an orbit that is not intended then it's a "partial launch failure". if the spacecraft possesses the capability to maneuver itself to adjust its orbit to the intended one, then the spacecraft is "operational". Otherwise, if the payload is rendered non-operational due to the incorrect orbit it is deployed to (and does not have the capability to adjust its own orbit, such as for cubesats), or damaged during the deployment, it's a "failure" (a little bit foggy here). If the payload experiences any malfunction due to its own activities AFTER the it is deployed to the orbit, then it is a "spacecraft failure". Note that this list does not support, as far, other status such as "unknown", "unclear" as suggested in other part of this discussion. Based on these criteria for classification, the Zuma mission should be classified as "launch failure', while the Ariane 5 launch should be classified as "partial launch failure/operational". I understand that (based on the information available) SpaceX has successfully DELIVERED the layload TO the correct orbit, but the failed the deployment because the payload failed to seperate from the second stage, possibly due to a malfunction in the launch adapter provided by the payload provider NG. So to put it metaphorically, SpaceX did not drop the baton but NG did. However, the whole relay team didn't get to stand on the podium even SpaceX managed a 9.8s 100 yard dash in the relay. Showmebeef (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The Ariane launch is a partial failure, and listed accordingly everywhere. The satellites are in an Earth orbit and operational, and they can be used, although not with the expected performance (they will start operation later). --mfb (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

From what I understand (also looking at previous years spaceflight page), listing the launch as "launch failure" means the rocket failed while "spacecraft failure" indicates the payload failed.

Payloads such as Hitomi (satellite) and AngoSat 1 for example failed after launch and are listed as "spacecraft failure"

Ariane should be listed as a "partial launch failure" similar to the ChinaSat 9A payload which was launched into the wrong orbit. Per https://twitter.com/Spaceflight101/status/956921095411650560 and http://stuffin.space/?search=2018-012 the launch was off by about 17 degrees with inclination. Phillipsturtles (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

This table about launches (it's title: "Orbital launches"). And purpose of launch is to deliver payload to correct orbit. If payload destroyed, the launch is obviously not success, whatever the cause is. If payload is not delivered to proper orbit, launch is not successful either, but can be treated as partial failure if mission still can be recovered somehow. 178.49.232.223 (talk) 06:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Successful launch means payload delivered in proper orbit and drifts away from top stage. If you ever watch any launch webcast, you can clearly see at what point launch success confirmed. 178.49.232.223 (talk) 06:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Payload separation definitely is a part of launch. In this case major launch hardware supplied both by SpaceX and NG and operated by SpaceX. This article is not about SpaceX part, but of whole launch 178.49.232.223 (talk) 07:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

We can't call some action successful if desired result is not achieved. Purpose of space launch is to put spacecraft in orbit, not just flew a rocket. 178.49.232.223 (talk) 06:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Please sign your posts !!! 2001:DA8:201:3032:3062:DB50:1B0:DCEA (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

You end your post with 4 consecutive ~. The Wiki editor will automatically convert them into your signature. Showmebeef (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It's utterly frustrating trying to read and/or comment on posts whose owners don't leave a signature. So, for those folks: Pls do us a favor and go back to your posts and append your them and time stamps!. I will also take the liberty of appending some if I come across some while trying to read them. Showmebeef (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Air Force viewed telemetry show SpaceX second stage properly sent command to separate to Northrup Gruman built payload adapter.

73.211.116.42: Why do you delete all your comments after you created this section in the first place?! This is after I took the trouble of appending your user IP address and time stamps for the comments you've posted here (without signatures) to make them easier to follow! Do you not realize that everything you wrote here are all recorded in the change log, and can be easily retraced and recreated? Makes people think that what you put out here do not hold much water. Not only that, it leaves comments left here totally not making sense. For example, the comment I posted below is in response to your comment that "Standard flight telemetry data that the Air Force viewed showed that the SpaceX second stage properly sent the correct command to separate the payload to the Northrup Gruman built payload adapter" and asked you to provide your your source. Feeling not quite sure about what you've said before, huh?! This leads me to think that you are nothing but an obstructionist and source of rumor mill. Goodbye and good riddance! Showmebeef (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Care to share your source here?? Showmebeef (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I think your analogy missed a crucial part. It's the driver's responsibility to make sure that the passenger (school kid is a better example) disembarks at the correct stop and that the kid goes home, because the contract calls for such assurance. A more fitting analogy would be that the school bus company hired a chaperon to escort them home. I think if you would find default with the school bus company if your kid didn't go home even if it is the cheparon fault that he/she fails to escort the kid home. I don't think you would call this a successful delivery of your kid to your home. Showmebeef (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not an article about what SpaceX did. It is an article about whether a satellite was deployed to orbit or not. --mfb (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

if the Federal government think the contractors (SpaceX and NG) did their job, they would not have the congressional hearing on why and how they have failed to deliver the payload. I think the mere existence of such a hearing means that there is something undesirable about the job they did. Showmebeef (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

If it still attached to top stage, it's not deployed. 178.49.232.223 (talk) 07:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

LSP Nationality

Hi All: the article seems in consistent in giving the nationality (via flags) of private LSPs. Rocket Lab is listed as US (jurisdiction where parent co is incorporated), despite the launch providing subsidiary being incorporated in NZ. Virgin is listed as US (jusrisdiction where launch providing subsidiary is incorporated) despite parent co being incorporated in the UK. Surely a consistent approach should be taken, one way or the other. If controversial, both nationalities divided by a / could be shown? Wdcarter2 (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree it is an issue, but I don't see a simple solution. There is also an inconsitency with the Russian/Ukrainian Zenit rocket that's been unresolved for several years now. Oftentimes rockets are collaborative projects between two or more nation states. Unfortunately there is no simple guidline to go by as of yet.192.222.134.89 (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

In the case of Virgin Galactic, I think the flag should be American. If we look at just the subsidiary, then its only locations are its offices in New York and its launch site in Mojave. I don't think the fact that they are owned by the Virgin group is particularly relevant to the spaceflight angle of things, because the parent company is not directly involved in manufacturing or testing or research. For Rocket Lab however, there is a very clear split in the work between the US and New Zealand. I think both flags should be listed for them, similar to how we have in the past when space missions were co-designed by different nations. Not as familiar with Zenit, but if there is a similar situation there, I would say put up both flags. DrunkBicyclist (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Payload adapter is part of launch vehicle or payload

Now the situation is clear:

(a) Payload adapter is part of launch vehicle = SpX is LSP and Northrop serves as a subcontractor --> Launch failure.

(b) Payload adapter is part of payload --> Payload failure, launch success.

Contributors to this page, SpaceX related articles and spaceflight topics: @FuocoVivo: @Ergzay: @Showmebeef: @JFG: @BatteryIncluded: @Galactic Penguin SST: @SpaceTom72: @Mfb: @N2e: please comment and vote.

2001:DA8:201:3032:3062:DB50:1B0:DCEA (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The payload adapter is usually considered part of the launch vehicle. --mfb (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I changed my mind: the payload adapter in this case has been provided by the spacecraft provider, it's therefore considerable as part of the payload. NG here isn't SpaceX's subcontractor for a subsystem of the rocket, NG is their customer, which spontaneously decided to provide their own payload interface (which eventually failed) to the Launch Service Provider. I'm basing this on William Graham's Nasaspaceflight launch log, where he wrote: "Falcon 9/Zuma outcome not entirely clear. If the mission failed most likely scenario based on available information is that the separation mechanism failed to operate and satellite remained attached to the second stage of the rocket. Normally this would be a launch failure, but for this launch the adaptor was part of the payload, not the rocket, so until more information becomes availble this is scored as a successful launch (with a possibly DOA payload)". William has maintained NSF's launch log for almost 10 years and he's a contributor here as well. So I vote for 'unclear' as the outcome and keeping this listed as 'success' in the table, with a note that clarifies that until more information becomes availble this is considered as a successful launch. --FuocoVivo (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Under normal conditions the adapter is part of the rocket but for Zuma it was built by the spacecraft maunifacturer and thus must be considered part of the payload - essentially a two stage payload with Zuma proper and Zuma payload adapter Whaleyjosh (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

In regard to FuocoVivo's comment (actually Whaleyjosh's too) that "the payload adapter in this case has been provided by the spacecraft provider, it's therefore considerable as part of the payload."--just because it is provided by the payload provider does not make it part of the payload. Functionally the adapter is responsible for deploying the payload to the orbit: it stays with the launch vehicle after the deployment, not with the payload--how can it be part of the payload? Logistically, the launch ends with the deployment of the payload to the orbit, not when the launch vehicle reaches the orbit. Without the adapter the launch vehicle can not function fully, i.e. it can not deploy the payload without the adapter, while the payload can function just fine without the adapter. In fact it will cause trouble if the payload is still attached to the adapter, like in this case (it plunged back into the atmosphere with the upper stage since it failed to seperate from the adapter which is attached to the upper stage, an integral part of the launch vihecle). So the payload cannot function properly WITH the adapter still attached to it. How can the adapter be functionally part of the payload? Showmebeef (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Folks: I think this discussion is rather academic and to be honest, rather irrelevant in determining the status of the outcome for this launch. This list determines the outcome solely on whether the payload is deployed to the orbit or not. This is consistent for all launches and I can cite at least two earlier cases (mentioned several times in this thread of discussion earlier) that failed to deploy the payloads in similar fashion and both are labelled as "launch failure". This discussion of whether the adapter is part of the launch vehicle (which I think is the case) or part of the payload only helps to determine which party (SpaceX or NG) is responsible for the failure. It does not change the outcome of this launch mission which is that it failed to deploy the payload to the orbit. If we decided to label this launch a "success", or "partial failure", then we will need to change the status for all other previous cases that failed to deploy their payloads in similar situations. Showmebeef (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Purpose of space launch is to put spacecraft in orbit. So payload separation is final stage of launch, regardless of who supplied the hardware. 178.49.232.223 (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Support (b) The payload adapter was part of the payload in this case. The payload adapter was supplied by the same manufacturer as the satellite and thus is part of the satellite. Ergzay (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Suspected Misty NRO program stealth satellite more plausible than leaked to media "Loss" NRO cover story.

Numerous credible reports, a few of which are referenced below, indicate the Zuma satellite is successfully orbiting and is the latest stealthy reconnaissance satellite under the Misty program in which the United States National Reconnaissance Office has invested US$12.3 billion since 1990.

Misty is reported to have optical and radar stealth characteristics, making it difficult for adversaries to detect (and thus predict the times it would fly overhead). Almost everything about the program is classified information. This would explain why amateur astronomers have not detected Zuma. And also why Zuma was so classified that not even the name of the government agency could be released. But it now appears to be the NRO, despite any expected denials that NRO would give for security.

This rational explanation is more plausible than the "Northrop Grumman separation error" cover story leaked to the press. Politicians publicly "calling for hearings to get to the bottom of the Zuma matter", are likely just grandstanding to play along with the cover story at the request of the National Reconnaissance Office.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misty_(satellite)

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17612/the-secret-zuma-spacecraft-could-be-alive-and-well-doing-exactly-what-it-was-intended-to

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43976.1160

https://allthingsnuclear.org/lgrego/lost-in-space-the-zuma-satellite Marshall Griffin (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

These are not credible reports. The Wikipedia page is not a report, the other links just contain speculations. The non-observation is evidence that it entered the atmosphere again. Maybe not the strongest, but the more time goes by without anyone spotting it the more convincing the evidence gets. --mfb (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Is the Deep Space Gateway, moving the/a space station to lunar orbit or Lagrange, confirmed?

NASA has been discussing this concept for about a year, but Popular Mechanics writes that USA and Russia have agreed in Tokyo to implement it. Do any other sources confirm this decision? 86.140.153.56 (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Nothing is confirmed until a budget is passed and authorization is given by the governments involved, and that can't happen before the end of the year. Astrofreak92 (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)