![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The first crewed version of the Dragon spacecraft shall launch that year in fall. Please add it, if you know how to do it. -- 212.186.0.108 ( talk) 10:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
References
China will launch 4 scientific research satellites in the coming months and years.
The first one is DAMPE (DArk Matter Particle Explorer), which is scheduled to be launched in Dec 2015.
The next two will be in launched in first half of 2016:
--Quantum Experiments At Space Scale (QUESS).
--The Shijian-10 (SJ-10).
The fourth is also to be launched in 2016:
--Hard X-ray Modulation Telescope (HXMT).
here're the references:
http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2015/11/06/china-to-enter-big-league-with-the-launch-of-4-research-satellites/
Can somebody help and add the 3 scheduled for launch in 2016 to the list?
73.231.196.103 (
talk)
06:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps 2016 should be the year we start referring to flights carrying humans as "crewed" rather than "manned." Ethan82994 ( talk) 14:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Will we be listing that planned launches will include a rocket landing attempt as we did in 2015?
user:mnw2000 21:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
There was some reasonable consensus last year to split the table between orbital and suborbital flights, especially to avoid polluting the list of spacecraft launches with sounding rockets and missile tests. I have just executed this, so the table is less cluttered. If people strongly disagree, they can always revert. Also, I have deemed it unnecessary to place subheadings for months in the suborbital flights section; I tried and that was just too cluttered, the TOC was too long and the month navigation templates were confused. I'm going to apply this split gradually to previous years too. — JFG talk 18:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Great job! -- Михаило Јовановић ( talk) 21:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC) I also would like to thank you for the orbital/suborbital split. I've long desired this. -- IanOsgood ( talk) 15:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Should Soyuz launches from Kourou be counted under Russia since only the rocket is Russian built? After all, the launch itself and all aspects of the spacecraft's insertion into orbit are conducted from EU territory and under the auspices of the ESA and Arianespace. The rocket is purchased by the European Space Agency and launched from a ESA launch site in South America. Is it really a Russian launch? Of course, the Kazakhstan launches for Russia qualify as Russian launches since Russia is leasing the launch site but control all aspects of the launch and the spacecraft's insertion into orbit.
Maybe this section should be changed to reflect the country where the launch occurred rather than who makes the rocket.
user:mnw2000 10:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Maybe it should be European launch, like Ariane, but I believe there are Russian technicians at Korou as well. If I remember they also appear during launch webcast. I believe all the telemetry from Soyuz is first sent to Russia and then it comes back to mission control in Fr. Guiana, after confirmation. It's tricky. :) I agree for Kazakhstan since Baikonur is not Kazakh spaceport (teritory) but Russian until lease expires. -- Михаило Јовановић ( talk) 19:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
There is Russian team at Kourou from Roscosmos which maintains launch. In terms of who created the rocket which went into orbit - it is certainly a Russian creature. Lola Rennt ( talk) 13:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
(Necro, but...) It's actually collaboration - European companies provide few components to the Arianespace Soyuz. But yes, almost all of it is Russian. As far as where should it be counted: IMHO it should be under European launches. Launch was sold by the European company, launched from European spaceport on French land, rocket contains European components. It never made sense for me to mark it as Russian. SkywalkerPL ( talk) 14:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Spaceflight editors may wish to comment on this global move discussion. — JFG talk 10:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
As Amos-6 was destroyed on the launch pad in a static fire test two days prior to launch, how do we list it? Launch failure, cancelled mission or just remove it from the article? — JFG talk 17:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
This one do fall into the gray areas, but similar accidents did exist before (e.g. the 3rd Brazilian VLS-1 rocket that blew up on the pad with the satellite and killed dozens in 2003, or Soyuz T-10-1 - although the later one was during the actual pre-launch sequence). Some sources do count it, but most people like me don't count this kind of thing as a "launch (failure)", like Jonathan McDowell's webpage. So I would suggest that this don't count into the statistics - but feel free to make an entry in the table. Galactic Penguin SST ( talk) 11:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Remember also AMROC failure - very similar incident - rocket destroyed by fire on the pad. It was never listed as launch failure. I suggest it to be simply removed from any lists. It is a vehicle lost before launch. Russian Proton damaged beyond repair during transportation to launch site wasn't listed as a launch failure, either ( http://newskaz.ru/society/20121126/4352839.html)
According to NASASpaceflight, the apogee of the booster during the abort test was 93,713 meters, putting it 6.3km below space. Should the test be kept on the suborbital list because the impact of the abort on the booster wasn't known and it *might* have gone to space, or removed like the first test flight last year because it did not go to space? Astrofreak92 ( talk) 14:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Is no longer "stuck" at GTO. At least according to the Gov't and wiki article about MUOS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.25.29.6 ( talk) 16:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The 28 December 03:23:56 launch of a Chinese Long March 2D placed the SuperView satellites in a non-optimal orbit. They appear to be raising their orbit using their maneuvering propellant, but it is not yet known if they will reach a sufficient orbit to be operational for a long period. Is there a certain point when this launch would be considered a partial failure? Here is a potential SpaceNews Reference Andrewpullin ( talk) 17:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The first crewed version of the Dragon spacecraft shall launch that year in fall. Please add it, if you know how to do it. -- 212.186.0.108 ( talk) 10:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
References
China will launch 4 scientific research satellites in the coming months and years.
The first one is DAMPE (DArk Matter Particle Explorer), which is scheduled to be launched in Dec 2015.
The next two will be in launched in first half of 2016:
--Quantum Experiments At Space Scale (QUESS).
--The Shijian-10 (SJ-10).
The fourth is also to be launched in 2016:
--Hard X-ray Modulation Telescope (HXMT).
here're the references:
http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2015/11/06/china-to-enter-big-league-with-the-launch-of-4-research-satellites/
Can somebody help and add the 3 scheduled for launch in 2016 to the list?
73.231.196.103 (
talk)
06:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps 2016 should be the year we start referring to flights carrying humans as "crewed" rather than "manned." Ethan82994 ( talk) 14:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Will we be listing that planned launches will include a rocket landing attempt as we did in 2015?
user:mnw2000 21:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
There was some reasonable consensus last year to split the table between orbital and suborbital flights, especially to avoid polluting the list of spacecraft launches with sounding rockets and missile tests. I have just executed this, so the table is less cluttered. If people strongly disagree, they can always revert. Also, I have deemed it unnecessary to place subheadings for months in the suborbital flights section; I tried and that was just too cluttered, the TOC was too long and the month navigation templates were confused. I'm going to apply this split gradually to previous years too. — JFG talk 18:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Great job! -- Михаило Јовановић ( talk) 21:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC) I also would like to thank you for the orbital/suborbital split. I've long desired this. -- IanOsgood ( talk) 15:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Should Soyuz launches from Kourou be counted under Russia since only the rocket is Russian built? After all, the launch itself and all aspects of the spacecraft's insertion into orbit are conducted from EU territory and under the auspices of the ESA and Arianespace. The rocket is purchased by the European Space Agency and launched from a ESA launch site in South America. Is it really a Russian launch? Of course, the Kazakhstan launches for Russia qualify as Russian launches since Russia is leasing the launch site but control all aspects of the launch and the spacecraft's insertion into orbit.
Maybe this section should be changed to reflect the country where the launch occurred rather than who makes the rocket.
user:mnw2000 10:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Maybe it should be European launch, like Ariane, but I believe there are Russian technicians at Korou as well. If I remember they also appear during launch webcast. I believe all the telemetry from Soyuz is first sent to Russia and then it comes back to mission control in Fr. Guiana, after confirmation. It's tricky. :) I agree for Kazakhstan since Baikonur is not Kazakh spaceport (teritory) but Russian until lease expires. -- Михаило Јовановић ( talk) 19:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
There is Russian team at Kourou from Roscosmos which maintains launch. In terms of who created the rocket which went into orbit - it is certainly a Russian creature. Lola Rennt ( talk) 13:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
(Necro, but...) It's actually collaboration - European companies provide few components to the Arianespace Soyuz. But yes, almost all of it is Russian. As far as where should it be counted: IMHO it should be under European launches. Launch was sold by the European company, launched from European spaceport on French land, rocket contains European components. It never made sense for me to mark it as Russian. SkywalkerPL ( talk) 14:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Spaceflight editors may wish to comment on this global move discussion. — JFG talk 10:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
As Amos-6 was destroyed on the launch pad in a static fire test two days prior to launch, how do we list it? Launch failure, cancelled mission or just remove it from the article? — JFG talk 17:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
This one do fall into the gray areas, but similar accidents did exist before (e.g. the 3rd Brazilian VLS-1 rocket that blew up on the pad with the satellite and killed dozens in 2003, or Soyuz T-10-1 - although the later one was during the actual pre-launch sequence). Some sources do count it, but most people like me don't count this kind of thing as a "launch (failure)", like Jonathan McDowell's webpage. So I would suggest that this don't count into the statistics - but feel free to make an entry in the table. Galactic Penguin SST ( talk) 11:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Remember also AMROC failure - very similar incident - rocket destroyed by fire on the pad. It was never listed as launch failure. I suggest it to be simply removed from any lists. It is a vehicle lost before launch. Russian Proton damaged beyond repair during transportation to launch site wasn't listed as a launch failure, either ( http://newskaz.ru/society/20121126/4352839.html)
According to NASASpaceflight, the apogee of the booster during the abort test was 93,713 meters, putting it 6.3km below space. Should the test be kept on the suborbital list because the impact of the abort on the booster wasn't known and it *might* have gone to space, or removed like the first test flight last year because it did not go to space? Astrofreak92 ( talk) 14:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Is no longer "stuck" at GTO. At least according to the Gov't and wiki article about MUOS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.25.29.6 ( talk) 16:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The 28 December 03:23:56 launch of a Chinese Long March 2D placed the SuperView satellites in a non-optimal orbit. They appear to be raising their orbit using their maneuvering propellant, but it is not yet known if they will reach a sufficient orbit to be operational for a long period. Is there a certain point when this launch would be considered a partial failure? Here is a potential SpaceNews Reference Andrewpullin ( talk) 17:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)