Talk:2018 in spaceflight/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Summary row with a total number of launches

• I have added a summary row with a total number of successful/failure launches for all tables. I think, each table should contain total number for visual check if data correct or not. But my edits were reverted by JFG as "unnecessary repeats". But in some tables, the numbers are different (see 2018 summary table by orbit: 1 for achieved, 1 for not achived, so 31 achieved in 32 successful launches). What is the better way: to add totals for each table or remove it? See my version for 2017 and version for 2018 91.124.117.29 (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The last table with the orbits is the only table where the total can be different. For the others it is just repeated information where there is no need to repeat it. --mfb (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

And each reader should know this fact? It is not so easy to scroll the big page when the reader want to know the total sums of launches by rocket or by spaceport. Some tables are hidden also. It will be the confusing situation when only two tables of six will have the total (different!) sums. Each table should have similar format to find math errors easily. Also, copypaste of tables to Excel presentation is a logic way for some scientists to create the own graphics. [1] It will be done correctly with sums. The table without sums looks as incomplete. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The fact that summing over all countries, summing over all rockets, and so on should lead to the same sums for successful/partially successful/failed launches? That should be obvious to everyone able to read, yes. --mfb (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I would agree to state the totals in the table by orbit. For the tables by rocket and by spaceport, they are necessarily the same results as in the summary statistics, and this would just add a burden of update to editors. If the wiki software could compute totals, then yes it would provide a welcome visual check, but as this is a manual process, it will only create more confusion and frustration among our tireless WP:gnomes. — JFG ^talk 06:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Mfb and JFG, having a dozen global totals throughout the piece is repetitive without real benefit for the reader and will become tedious to update. Astrofreak92 (talk) 08:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Could we add the summary rows for finished years only (without any additional work for wikignomes)? I could do it. Also, it's a very-very interesting question, if the wiki software could compute totals in the tables. It would be very useful tools in many articles (such as sports medal tables and statistics pages). 91.124.117.29 (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I would be ok with the suggestion to add totals for past years, as long as someone else volunteers… There are no spreadsheet features in the MediaWiki software, afaik. But there are plenty of awful tricks to do calculations. Not practical for this case. — JFG ^talk 17:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• We could create a template designed for resulting tables, with all numbers as parameters. For example:
     {{spaceflight summary | falcon_success=10 | falcon_failures=1 | soyuz_success=3 | LEOorbit_success=4 | India_sucess=1 ...}}
  This template will generate a table/tables (maybe and graphs also!) and calculate all summaries automatically. I understand, not so easy for realization. But dozens articles will have one format and will be updated easily. Small example is {{BoxingRecordSummary}}. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Display of CubeSats

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

I have added an extra symbol "⚀" to differentiate those lines further. Tell me what you think. — JFG ^talk 17:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Create the hint when the users' mouse is on icon (alt="CubeSat"). 91.124.117.29 (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

This is not possible because it's a text symbol, not an image. But I have documented it in the column header now. — JFG ^talk 17:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a possible. Use this technique: textsymbol. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, nice trick. But I'm too lazy to apply this tonight. Also, some people may want to reject the symbol, so better wait a few days. — JFG ^talk 19:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Done by this edit [2]. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe use another symbols: for the rockets 🚀, regular payload 🛰️, space observatories 📡, CubeSats 📦. And create a new column for the icons to align the flags in one level. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC) P.S. And the special icon for the 6 Feb 2018 launch: 🚗 :-) 91.124.117.29 (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Nah, cuteness overload. — JFG ^talk 21:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

No? What is the advantage of symbol ⚀ over symbol 📦 ? 91.124.117.29 (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

⚀ is unobtrusive, many lists and pages use basic monochrome symbols to distinguish entries. Filling the page with colorful emoji would be obtrusive, no other page on Wikipedia has something like that. Astrofreak92 (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Bar charts of rocket families

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

• I am very impressed. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• I changed the colors a bit to match either the country or launch pages. Suggestions? UnknownM1 (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@UnknownM1: Sorry, I think your version is much less legible. Compare with 2017 side by side to see the difference. I picked the color palette to emphasize differences between rocket families, and similar tones within each column (with subtle special cases like Soyuz which has a set of tones for older-generation models, one for the Soyuz-2 as launched from Russia, and another for the same launched from Europe). There is no requirement for absolute consistency with the launch stats of individual families. I would ask you to revert, unless other editors prefer your version. — JFG ^talk 19:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware of what you did with your version. I'm not sure my version is that much better, I'm simply saying that something in the middle or even different would work better than both of them. Cheers! UnknownM1 (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps. Restoring the original color scheme for now. Happy to keep Electron, as they have several launches scheduled this year; I just moved it to alpha order. — JFG ^talk 22:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Spaceports

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

@UnknownM1: That's a really good idea, and your color picks are spot on, just except for Japanese sites Tanegashima and Uchinoura which are really too close in tone (at least on my screen). Moving forward, I'd suggest adding links to the spaceports in the legend, and grouping them by country instead of alphabetically, so that the legends follow the graph. To your relief, I don't think diving into launch pads would be terribly useful to our readers. — JFG ^talk 08:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Y Done UnknownM1 (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Beautiful! — JFG ^talk 13:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@UnknownM1: After looking at the 2017 tally, may I just suggest that you group Kazakhstan and Russia in the same column? Not only is this historically correct, but still today the Baikonur spaceport is on a long-term lease to Russia, and only launches Russian rockets. That change will ease comparison with the other two heavyweights China and USA. Just use Kazakhstan <br/> + Russia in the column legend, and it should look splendid. — JFG ^talk 15:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Orbits

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

5

10

15

20

25

30

Transatmospheric

Low Earth

Geosynchronous / transfer

Medium Earth

High Earth

Heliocentric orbit

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

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

Rocket Lab Country

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

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

Transatmospheric?

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

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

Separate way to denote re-use

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

Most flights are routine flights so they don't have a comment. The Space Shuttle had reuse of the orbiter and parts of the SRBs as default, that was routine as well. SpaceX is still experimenting with reuse and many flights do something new. With Block 5 booster reuse should become routine. We can add the booster number, similar to the Space Shuttle Orbiter name. Fairing recovery can be mentioned as long as it is new, I guess towards the end of the year we'll stop mentioning this. Second stage recovery and reuse will probably come up as topic. Let's see if that becomes routine as well. --mfb (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I would remove any mentions of re-use beyond the first couple flights. Just like booster landings have become routine since 2017 in SpaceX's own documentation, booster re-use is already routine, as 50% of their 2018 flights are scheduled with pre-flown boosters. — JFG ^talk 10:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Payload Discrepancy?

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

Bangabandhu-1

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

No, BRAC Onnesha was. There might be articles claiming otherwise, either because they don't think CubeSats count or because it was the Bangladeshi *government's* first spacecraft. Astrofreak92 (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I have seen the descriptions "first full-size satellite" or "first large satellite" to exclude BRAC Onnesha. --mfb (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)